But we knew you didn't know that, didn't we?

Try this phrase again, Mr. Bean:
"Follow da money!"

Reading the article (something you should try, and from a tactical pov for a change -- um, with the U.S.A. in mind to win), the nations of the United States, Britain, France, Russia and China all have vested interests in the Iraqi fields. Pretty heavy hitters. Also, India, Italy, Vietnam and Algeria have an interest in the nation's resource.

Hmm-m...
... a U.S.-led consortium to develop Iraq’s oil fields ...
...There we are, leading the world again.

Of course you know this seriously considered development can only happen if the US-led ultimatum set before the UN Security Council is acted upon by Iraq, or, failing this, a U.S.-led strike at taking down the Iraqi tyrant is successful.

Kinda funny how the U.S.-led media wants to make it clear to the bad-guys that nothing that happens in the U.S.-led world has anything at all to do with any nation but the U.S.
X^D

Now for the facts, Mr. Bean:
While the Bush administration’s campaign against Hussein is presenting vast possibilities for multinational oil giants, it poses major risks and uncertainties for the global oil market, according to industry analysts.



Access to Iraqi oil and profits will depend on the nature and intentions of a new government. Whether Iraq remains a member of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, for example, or seeks an independent role, free of the OPEC cartel’s quotas, will have an impact on oil prices and the flow of investments to competitors such as Russia, Venezuela and Angola.





BTW, just in case you REALLY don't know, given the opportunity to develop Iraq's oil fields, the companies of other nations we are always LEADING would be PAYING the new Iraqi government for the opportunity to do so. In the real world, these U.S.-led looting escapades you keep referring to are really called U.S.-led BUSINESS VENTURES. Look it up.

Just the facts, ma'am,
Dan