Troops take the ultimate risk but oil companies?

[teryang]

These two articles are a little dated but I thought the contrast between the sacrifices made by troops and the immunity from risk provided to oil corporations concerning Iraqi oil were an interesting contrast:

http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0805/p06s02-woiq.html

Portrait of a US combat casualty

52 US troops have died in combat in Iraq since May 1, the declared end of major hostilities.

By Ann Scott Tyson

<The five-vehicle convoy rumbled past some charred chassis and artillery shells cluttering a scrap-metal dump - the kind found on the outskirts of many Iraqi cities - and began rolling up a hill.

Then, mid-joke, Christian's world exploded.>

<Some soldiers cried, and others raised doubts. "There were a lot of questions like 'What are we doing here?'" Colonel Lonnquist said. "That's not clear to some people, whereas it is clear in combat.">

<"We shouldn't put question marks where God puts periods," said Chris tian's company commander, Capt. John Yorko, as if reading the men's minds.>

How many Americans will die for oil? August 4, 2003

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/08/03/1059849273357.html

<George Bush has given oil companies carte blanche in Iraq. This will lead to disaster, writes Kenneth Davidson.>

<But what would the occupying forces and their families make of Bush's executive order 13303, promulgated without fanfare in May, which gives sweeping powers to US oil companies operating in Iraq while granting immunity to them for the consequences of any of their actions in exploiting the oil.>

<In a report last month for the US Democratic legal think tank Government Accountability Project (GAP), the legal director, Tom Devine, said that in terms of legal liability, 13303 "cancels the concept of corporate accountability and abandons the rule of law . . . (It) is a blank cheque for corporate anarchy. Its sweeping, unqualified language places the industry above domestic and international law for anything related to commerce in Iraqi oil.">