That Iraq War Thread

[nodubmanshouts]

(New thread broken off from the US Election thread)

1: Roughly 2 years prior to the invasion, Iraq started to sell it's oil (via the Oil For Food Program) in Euros, rather than US$.

3: The UK joined in to secure a supply of oil because in 1998/99 North Sea oil and gas production peaked and has been in decline ever since. The UK is now a net importer of oil and gas.

4: Since US oil production peaked in the early 1970's, the US now imports ~60% of it's oil requirements. As the US uses ~25% of all global oil produced, it needed to secure oil supplies. Given that it's own oil production is in decline, along with that of Mexico (and various others, OPEC and non-OPEC alike) and that global demand for oil is increasing ~2% per year, Iraq was too tasty a target.

These are interesting anecdotes, but at best circumstantial evidence that the UN would go to war with Iraq 'over oil'. To be honest, I'm still not sure what that means; "over oil". Were countries hoping to prevent a worldwide drop in the supply of oil? To make money from the oil? What would be the actual goal of the war 'over oil'?

2: The permanent members of the UN Security Council that opposed the invasion were: China, France and Russia. Saddam had signed oil exploration and extraction contracts with 3 countries, who would start their exploration and extraction once the sanctions had been lifted. 3 guesses who those 3 countries were.

Yes, I agree these 3 countries didn't want to go to war in order to protect their oil interests, but that doesn't mean every other country went to war with Iraq for oil-related reasons.

My personal view regarding the war with Iraq was this (and its condensed, but I hope it gets my view acrossed).

- there was a high probablility of Iraq developing or obtaining WMD in the near future.
- there was a high probability that Suddam would use those weapons against Isreal (as he had already fired SCUDs at Isreal years earlier).
- there was a high probability that if Suddam died, some mad man (or country) would take over and be even more likely to use those weapons, using the ensuring civil was as a cover.
- Any attack on Isreal would lead to a war, which would drag in many UN countries. I would expect this war to have been a World War.
- This war would be EXTREMELY costly, and have a high death toll. It would also lead to a disruption in the supply of oil across the whole gulf region, which would be damaging to the West and make the war longer and harder to fight. So yes, the supply of oil is involved in the equation, but its not #1.

Essentially, the war was about stabalising the Gulf region. Its not stable yet, but its more stable than it would have been.

[EvilBastard]

Ok, let's look at some of these points.

there was a high probablility of Iraq developing or obtaining WMD in the near future.

there was a high probability that Suddam would use those weapons against Isreal (as he had already fired SCUDs at Isreal years earlier).

there was a high probability that if Suddam died, some mad man (or country) would take over and be even more likely to use those weapons, using the ensuring civil was as a cover.

Any attack on Isreal would lead to a war, which would drag in many UN countries. I would expect this war to have been a World War.

This war would be EXTREMELY costly, and have a high death toll. It would also lead to a disruption in the supply of oil across the whole gulf region, which would be damaging to the West and make the war longer and harder to fight. So yes, the supply of oil is involved in the equation, but its not #1.

All of these things are true, but they start with the base supposition that Iraq was close to acquiring weapons of mass destruction. Aside from Curveball's now almost entirely discredited information, there is nothing to substantiate this view. Certainly no evidence has been found on the ground to suggest that Iraq was anywhere close to obtaining an NBC capability in the near term. Given that the base supposition is questionable in the extreme, the rest of the logical progression falls apart. It would be like arguing "If Hitler had won the war, we'd all be speaking German, wearing lederhosen, and eating sauerkraut for breakfast." He didn't, and so any thing that stems from the original line of thought is purely conjecture without any real grounding in fact.

Essentially, the war was about stabalising the Gulf region. Its not stable yet, but its more stable than it would have been.

Than it would have been under what circumstances? While Saddam was without question a thoroughly unpleasant piece of work, he maintained stability in Iraq by means of an iron fist. Prior to the invasion of Iraq, radical elements on the region were largely confined to Saudi Arabia (I don't see anyone declaring war on them) and factions within the Palestinian liberation movement. Iraq kept a lid on sectarian ambitions, Iran has no interest in radicalism, Jordan didn't want to have anything to do with them and Syria just enjoyed meddling in Lebanon because it p*sses the Israelis off something terriible, but it had no interest in radicalism in its own back yard.

However, since the removal of Saddam Hussein and the "Coalition of the Willing" 's inability to impose law and order, Iraq has become RummyWorld (Doonesbury) - a fundamentalist Six Flags Over Mesapotamia, if you will. It is a free for all for every radical element that wants to blood its troops. Before the invasion, no country in the region was so unstable as to have been close to civil war. Lebanon had just come out of one, with no desire to repeat the experience. Since the invasion, one country is now at war with itself. I don't see how this has added to regional stability.

[MadameButterfly]

IZ! Is nodubmanshouts a promo person for you?

[nodubmanshouts]

Well, I pretty much agree with that. I'm not really commenting on whether the war was a mistake or not, or whether things were handled as well as they could have been... its just that I believe the war wasn't primarily motivated by the quest for oil - rather, the US faced a prisoner's dilemma, and made the only decision they could based on the information they had at the time, and they did what they did primarily to avoid a larger war.

How things have gone since the war ended and the occupation began is a whole other question.

Its nice to have an intelligent discussion on this

[sultan2075]

The argument about war for oil, while easy to make, seemingly stays on the level of surface phenomena, which is not a good idea when engaging in armchair geopolitical analysis. It is possible, but I think it is actually the least plausible of a number of possible explanations, in part because if it were really about securing cheap oil, I'm sure Saddam would have happily sold it to the US for pennies on the dollar if only the US would stop taking an interest in a) maintaining the sovereignty of neighbors such as Kuwait, b) WMD research, and c) the autonomous enclave known as Iraqi Kurdistan whose security depended in large measure on US airpower, just to name three.

More likely scenarios (in no particular order):

1) Since the end of the Cold War, the biggest opponent of US intelligence agencies has, surprisingly, been the Iranians (don't ask for a citation, I can't recall where I came across this. I think it was in a reading packet for a course on Intelligence and Espionage taught prior to 9/11 at the University of Texas). The Iranian government has a long history of disagreement with the US, and the US has a vested interest in keeping Iranian influence to a minimum. With forces in Afghanistan already, 'boxing in' Iran is not an implausible consideration.

2) WMD's. For some time now, my pet theory is that Saddam Hussein had ceased active development sometime in the Clinton years, but, in virtue of the fact that he lives in a rough neighborhood (the Middle-East) with an avowed enemy on one side (Iran) and what is effectively a client state of that enemy on the other side (Syria), as well as various effective, violent non-state actors fighting for a theocratic state, a populace that was not exactly enamored of his rule, as well as a majority that felt oppressed by a minority, he opted to work very, very hard to keep up the appearance of having WMD. It is a deception that would be quite understandable, given the circumstances, and would be quite effective, provided that no one calls his bluff. 60 Minutes recently ran a story in which someone close to the former dictator made just this suggestion (one of his defense attorneys, I think?), and there have been reports that diplomats from certain EU countries reassured him that there was no possible way the US would actually go through with their threats to forcibly remove the regime.

3) Social work. Afghanistan, a general once commented, would have to be "bombed back into the stone age." What I am suggesting is this: think about how long it took between the Magna Charta and the point at which women were allowed to do things like vote, own property, etc. Iraq, at the time, was viewed as being the most secular and most well-educated country in the Middle-East. Therefore it would take much less time, the presumption would be, to turn Iraq into a functioning liberal democracy than it would to do the same to Afghanistan. That in turn would be a beacon for democratic reformers in the Middle-East (as it arguably was for certain reformers in Lebanon), and would be the first domino that would fall with a long-term goal of liberal democratic government throughout the Middle-East. You sell it as WMD's because the American people won't go for a social work war, but the social work war is much more in line with GWB's political thought than the war for oil will be. He is essentially a progressive/Marxist in terms of how he views history, he just thinks that the culmination of the historical process will be worldwide liberal democracy (and he says this very explicitly in his speeches).

The problem, of course, is the GWB failed to realize that in order for democracy to work, you have to have liberalism and the rule of law; he also forgot--or never learned--the lesson of Plato's Republic, namely, that regimes shape souls, and a tyrannized people will never easily adjust to freedom.

4) You've all seen Star Wars, right?
Leia: "Dantooine. They're on Dantooine."
...
Grand Moff Tarkin: "You're far too trusting. Dantooine is too remote to make an effective demonstration."

In other words, someone needed to get hit, and Afghanistan, though necessary, wasn't going to be an effective enough demonstration of force. Is it ugly? Yeah. It's also how international relations have worked since the time of Thucydides, and no matter how many resolutions get passed at the UN in order to cover that fact up, it will never change.

War for oil? Yeah, it's possible, but I think it's the least likely reason. That being said, as in most cases, the real reasoning is rarely, if ever, spoken publicly.

[Syberberg]

(New thread broken off from the US Election thread)

1: Roughly 2 years prior to the invasion, Iraq started to sell it's oil (via the Oil For Food Program) in Euros, rather than US$.

3: The UK joined in to secure a supply of oil because in 1998/99 North Sea oil and gas production peaked and has been in decline ever since. The UK is now a net importer of oil and gas.

4: Since US oil production peaked in the early 1970's, the US now imports ~60% of it's oil requirements. As the US uses ~25% of all global oil produced, it needed to secure oil supplies. Given that it's own oil production is in decline, along with that of Mexico (and various others, OPEC and non-OPEC alike) and that global demand for oil is increasing ~2% per year, Iraq was too tasty a target.

These are interesting anecdotes, but at best circumstantial evidence that the UN would go to war with Iraq 'over oil'. To be honest, I'm still not sure what that means; "over oil". Were countries hoping to prevent a worldwide drop in the supply of oil? To make money from the oil? What would be the actual goal of the war 'over oil'?

Those aren't anecdotes, they are facts. Go look them up.

Also, the UN didn't go to war with Iraq, it was an entirely US led invasion, with support from, primarily, the UK and Australia (another oil importer). There was no second UN resolution, that Blair was actually pushing for and the Attorney General of the UK Parliament changed his legal advice from any invasion being illegal, to it being legal 12 hours before the vote in Parliament that was needed by Blair to initiate the invasion.

2: The permanent members of the UN Security Council that opposed the invasion were: China, France and Russia. Saddam had signed oil exploration and extraction contracts with 3 countries, who would start their exploration and extraction once the sanctions had been lifted. 3 guesses who those 3 countries were.

Yes, I agree these 3 countries didn't want to go to war in order to protect their oil interests, but that doesn't mean every other country went to war with Iraq for oil-related reasons.

And you don't think that the US, UK and Australia wouldn't do the same considering how easily (read cheaply) Iraqi oil can be produced in the face of Chinese and Indian economic growth, which means their demand for oil and it's products (remember, oil is used for much more than just fuel) increases?

My personal view regarding the war with Iraq was this (and its condensed, but I hope it gets my view acrossed).

- there was a high probablility of Iraq developing or obtaining WMD in the near future.

That probability exists for every country in the world. Some countries already have WMD capability, the US and UK being 2 of them. The probability was, in fact, extremely low.

- there was a high probability that Suddam would use those weapons against Isreal (as he had already fired SCUDs at Isreal years earlier).

A nonexistent fear. No Islamic country is ever, repeat, ever going to launch biochemical or nuclear weapons at Israel.

- there was a high probability that if Suddam died, some mad man (or country) would take over and be even more likely to use those weapons, using the ensuring civil was as a cover.

To gain power, possibly, but not to attack Israel with.

- Any attack on Isreal would lead to a war, which would drag in many UN countries. I would expect this war to have been a World War.

You keep citing the UN, out of curiosity, why?

As for starting a full blown world war, I'd give that 50/50 at best.

- This war would be EXTREMELY costly, and have a high death toll. It would also lead to a disruption in the supply of oil across the whole gulf region, which would be damaging to the West and make the war longer and harder to fight. So yes, the supply of oil is involved in the equation, but its not #1.

Unfortunately, it is the #1 reason. The entire world economy is built on reliable, cheap and consistent supplies of oil. Any wider war in the Persian Gulf wouldn't just disrupt oil supplies from there, it would completely shut them down.

I also suggest Googling the term "petrodollar".

Essentially, the war was about stabalising the Gulf region. Its not stable yet, but its more stable than it would have been.

You're joking, right? Up until the invasion of Iraq, the Persian Gulf region was stable.

[Almiche V]

What Syberberg says.

Money makes the world go round, and the US and UK governments cling to this way of life like there's no tomorrow.

[EvilBastard]

rather, the US faced a prisoner's dilemma, and made the only decision they could based on the information they had at the time, and they did what they did primarily to avoid a larger war.

Well no, that's rather the point. The information that the US had in no way supported the idea that Iraq had or was planning to acquire or develop weapons of mass destruction. Tenet knew that Curveball's "intelligence" was iffy at best, he knew that Plame could find nothing to support the idea that Saddam was planning to obtain yellowcake - he communicated this to the White House, which chose to ignore him. Rumsfeld and Cheney had been spoiling for a fight since before PNAC was first conceived and they sidelined Tenet, pushing NSA and CIA analysts to find facts that supported the desired outcome (i.e. war). The information that they had at the time did not support the desired outcome, and was ignored. Not only that, the people who were unable to come up with the information which supported the case for war, and who made no secret of what was happening in Foggy Bottom, were pilloried by the administration, while its stooges (Scooter Libby, et al) were held up as paragons of virtue.

I maintain my original position that this war (and every other war throughout history) is about money. That money may come from oil, but when you get right down to the root of it it's about money. Nothing else. Not about avoiding a larger war, not about preventing a showdown between Israel and the rest of the middle east, not about preventing terrorism, not even about removing a dictator in order to spread democracy. Money.

[Syberberg]

I maintain my original position that this war (and every other war throughout history) is about money. That money may come from oil, but when you get right down to the root of it it's about money. Nothing else. Not about avoiding a larger war, not about preventing a showdown between Israel and the rest of the middle east, not about preventing terrorism, not even about removing a dictator in order to spread democracy. Money.

You're quite correct on both counts there.

I'm going to split hairs a bit here, but change "money" to "resources" and you're spot on (in the wider historical context).

Bringing things back into modern history, I highly advise watching The History of Oil.

[EvilBastard]

You're quite correct on both counts there.

I'm going to split hairs a bit here, but change "money" to "resources" and you're spot on (in the wider historical context).

Ah, but while we'll splitting hairs, what do you get when you get resources. I mean, oil, gold, or whatever is pretty useless unless you can sell it. And what do you get when you sell it? Filfee lookah

[Almiche V]

Money is what it comes down to. Any way the government can make it, they will. And any way they can drag out this archaic way of life, they will try it. Purely gutless and self serving of course.

[eotunun]

You mean the Carlyle Group, EB?
It seems very obvious that no problem could not be solved by that war. Peter Scholl-Latour, a renown journalist here in Germany and expert for the situation in the middle east predicted the outcome of the war as being almost the situation we have now, if I remember right he predicted even worse things to happen. The US Government must have had similar advice, so it's a good question what made them risc the entire region.
If it's up to money, you check the investment, first. And it seems that not mentioning all the US soldiers who won't come home to serve on and pay their taxes and the collateral damage their families dropping into poorness wil stand as etc, this war has cost an incredible amount of money yet.
Bad deal. Even suggesting there was a criminal government in power who'd let their soldiers pay in blood for the gained money, they would surely not make such a potentially expensive deal for a few arms and explosives sold.
Oil? If I am not mistaken Iraq exported more oil before the war, so the amount of oil got even shortened. That may come as a surprise and have been predicted differently, though.
So I guess there was some more grave motivation behind the thing.
A demonstration that someone *will* suffer for a humiliation like 9/11?
A warning to Iran that the USA will come back and finish jobs left incomplete? To me that sounds like a more likely part of the story. I'd put my finger on this to have been the main motivation.

[nodubmanshouts]

Too many points, too many points!

I'll start with math; Iraq produces around 2,000,000 barrels of oil a day. Assuming the Coalition gobbled up all those barrels, at $100 per barrel, thats $200,000,000 per day. When you consider that troops in Iraq are costing the US *alone* over $300,000,000 per day to run, it becomes obvious that either

a) the war was not financial gain, or
b) the UK and the US are really bad at math.

I'm really not sure why Mr. Syberbeg believes that Iraq would not attack Isreal with WMD? Iraq has attacked Isreal in the past, and used biological weapons on its own citizens. Why then, wouldn't it have used biological weapons on Isreal? Its not such a leap of faith.

The belief that Iraq had WMD was extremely high, even among the detractors of the war. Once they had acquired WMD it would have been nigh on impossible to rectify the situation.

Ultimately, I do not believe this was mainly a war of money, but a war to prevent a larger war. I agree that access to the oil supply (not just Iraq, but the whole region) was a factor in the war, but not THE factor.

As for comments about the UN, I should really be saying Coalition. And anecdotes are, according to Wikipedia, always based in fact -- I wasn't indicating that those statements are untrue, just that they have no relevance and are circumstancial.

Can I ask you; do you feel that you and your family live in a safer world, following the Iraq war? For me, and everyone i know, the answer is "yes".

[Almiche V]

Can I ask you; do you feel that you and your family live in a safer world, following the Iraq war? For me, and everyone i know, the answer is "yes".

You're kidding right? The UK is now a prime target for terrorism because we sided with the US and went into Iraq - amongst other middle eastern intrusions.

[sultan2075]

The belief that Iraq had WMD was extremely high, even among the detractors of the war. Once they had acquired WMD it would have been nigh on impossible to rectify the situation.

This probably can't be emphasized enough in any discussion of this sort. Not only did the Bush administration believe (or claim to believe) that Iraq had or was actively pursuing WMD, the Clinton administration did as well. To that can be added most of the major Western intelligence services... which gets back to my pet theory. If he wasn't pursuing them, he certainly had a vested interest in convincing his neighbors that he was. That makes the 'Bush lied!' case a little more problematic.

[Syberberg]

You're quite correct on both counts there.

I'm going to split hairs a bit here, but change "money" to "resources" and you're spot on (in the wider historical context).

Ah, but while we'll splitting hairs, what do you get when you get resources. I mean, oil, gold, or whatever is pretty useless unless you can sell it. And what do you get when you sell it? Filfee lookah

True.

Depends how far we want to go back here though. Go far enough back (Stone Age/Copper Age/Early Bronze Age) and the main thing driving wars was the need for land to grow food for an expanding population coupled with a megalomaniac. (Although the only possible exception to this was Alexander The Great). Once civilisation went from barter to money, then that's when it became a game of economic domination. Having a pliable megalomaniac also tends to help things along, but not always, as these days a handy collection of closet psychopaths will do just fine.

[EvilBastard]

Can I ask you; do you feel that you and your family live in a safer world, following the Iraq war? For me, and everyone i know, the answer is "yes".

The answer to that is, I'm afraid, a very loud and resounding "no". I grew up in the shadow of The Bomb, so the threat of imminent nuclear destruction was also front and centre, and maybe this influences my opinion. In addition, the IRA were an everyday presence when I lived in London, but I am happy to say that while I've been in range of bomb attacks by some of the finest terrorist groups around (the Provos, offshoots of the Red Army Faction, ETA) they've yet to get me in any permanent way, so they can't be all that effective. Most of the rest of the world (or at least, most of Europe) is familiar with acts of terrorism, and very much takes it in their stride.

I appreciate that 9/11 came as something of a rude awakening to the existence of terrorism for a lot of Americans (especially those in Boston who were more than happy to give money to support republican terrorist activities in Northern Ireland - I don't want to say "just desserts" but...), but what amazed many of us is that the Bush administration went off and made all of the same mistakes in trying to eradicate terrorism as everyone else did. The British, French, Germans, and Spanish all offered a wealth of advice as to how Washington could deal with the problem, and all offers were turned down.

But while I don't feel that the world is a safer place as a result of the war, I don't believe it's any more dangerous either. It is really just as safe (or dangerous) as it was yesterday, or 5 years ago, or 10 years ago. There will always be radical groups who want something and think that they can get it by means of the bomb and the bullet. The war won't stop that, any more than September 11 started it.

[eotunun]

Can I ask you; do you feel that you and your family live in a safer world, following the Iraq war? For me, and everyone i know, the answer is "yes".

For me, the answer very definately is no. This conflict is like a tumor to the world.
Then: The only country in the middle east that owns "WMD" as a fact is Israel. Amyone who attacked Israel like that would face a most decicive and fierce retaliation. Not a good idea for any attacker. And the question is if such an attack would reach Israeli ground at all.
Talking about stabillity and peace in the world, the decay of the Dolar worries me way more than any Osama or "WMD" in his hands. Would the USA be able to take a place in a second row of importance?

[nodubmanshouts]

Personally, I feel safer with a few terrorist groups kicking around, armed only with small high explosives, than a large country with an army in procession of WMDs, which could easily trigger another World War. Not that either situation is ideal, of course...

Just to point out though, that I am a dual citizen of the US and UK, and also grew up in the shadow of the bomb and was very nearly killed by an IRA bomb 15 years ago.

I agree the whole thing is a mess, and "tumor" is quite apt, but just to re-iterate my point; the war was not fought "for oil". Its myths and re-writing of history like this that make the US sound like a bad country, when it has really done so much good for the world.

USA bashing is getting real old (not to say anyone here is doing that), its just some of these myths are said so often, they become the truth in many peoples' minds, and that ain't cool.

[Syberberg]

Too many points, too many points!

I'll start with math; Iraq produces around 2,000,000 barrels of oil a day. Assuming the Coalition gobbled up all those barrels, at $100 per barrel, thats $200,000,000 per day. When you consider that troops in Iraq are costing the US *alone* over $300,000,000 per day to run, it becomes obvious that either

a) the war was not financial gain, or
b) the UK and the US are really bad at math.

I'm really not sure why Mr. Syberbeg believes that Iraq would not attack Isreal with WMD? Iraq has attacked Isreal in the past, and used biological weapons on its own citizens. Why then, wouldn't it have used biological weapons on Isreal? Its not such a leap of faith.

The belief that Iraq had WMD was extremely high, even among the detractors of the war. Once they had acquired WMD it would have been nigh on impossible to rectify the situation.

Ultimately, I do not believe this was mainly a war of money, but a war to prevent a larger war. I agree that access to the oil supply (not just Iraq, but the whole region) was a factor in the war, but not THE factor.

As for comments about the UN, I should really be saying Coalition. And anecdotes are, according to Wikipedia, always based in fact -- I wasn't indicating that those statements are untrue, just that they have no relevance and are circumstancial.

Can I ask you; do you feel that you and your family live in a safer world, following the Iraq war? For me, and everyone i know, the answer is "yes".

In all honesty, I'm not sure where you're getting your info from, but it's wrong.

Iraq used up most of it's bio-chem weapons in the war with Iran, some of what was left was dropped on the Kurds and, if memory serves, the Shi'a Marsh Arabs as well. BTW, the Kurds are not and have never been "Saddam's own people". Saddam is a Sunni Desert Arab. And yes, these distinction are very important. Oh, hang on, you said "citizens", sorry for misquoting/misunderstanding you there.

Saddam had the opportunity to use bio-chem loaded SCUDs on Israel in the first Gulf War. He didn't. The obvious answer to that is to look at a map, take into consideration the prevailing winds and figure out who would be hit if one dropped short. Using bio-chemical weapons against fellow Muslims like the Iranians and the Kurds is one thing, but accidentally hitting the Palestinians is another matter entirely Then have a wild guess at the reaction from Damascus, let alone the Iraqi members of the Ba'ath Party. SCUDs have really crap targeting capabilities, in that they're only slightly better at finding their target than the German V-2. Which is fine if you've loaded it with a 100kiloton nuclear warhead, but not much good if it's just 2000lbs of HE. Don't forget, he also targeted Saudi Arabia, launching 46. Six more than launched at Israel.

Also, by the end of the war, Iraq didn't have a suitable delivery system to hit Israel.

The rest of his stockplies were destroyed by the RAF, USAF (and I think the Saudi Royal Air Force) with bunker busting munitions that are specifically designed to do that particular job. They cause enough heat in the resulting explosion to incinerate any bio-chem weapons present.

Iraq's bio-chem weapons were supplied to Saddam by...the US and UK, but mainly the US. So the US and UK knew pretty well exactly what he had and where it was.

As for "bad maths", the sale of Iraqi oil was supposed to pay for the war, unfortunately, the Bush Administration completely effed-up the post-war planning and hadn't realised just how badly in need of rebuilding the Iraqi oil industry was. They completely screwed up.

Answer me the following:

Why do you think the first duty of the Royal Marines was to secure the oil terminals in southern Iraq?

Why do you think the first Iraqi government building secured by US troops in Baghdad was the Oil Ministry?

Why do you think the Bush Administration is attempting to force the Iraqi (puppet) government to sign an oil law that will privatize the Iraqi oil industry, rather than letting them keep it nationalised?

As for the belief about Saddam's WMD. Amongst the intelligence community it was extremely low as the majority of it was old and the rest came from one source, via the German intelligence agency, namely "Curveball". When Blair presented the intelligence to (first) his Cabinet and then Parliament, he omitted the caveats that MI5 and MI6 had placed there.

Google "Iraq Dossier" for more info.

"War to prevent a larger war." Garbage. Completely bought the propaganda haven't you? It's destablised the Persian Gulf region, tensions are higher there than they have been since the Iran/Iraq war, there's an active and ongoing insurgency in Iraq as well as a Shi'ite power struggle in the south and the Kurds, well the PPK, are stirring up trouble with Turkey in the full knowledge that the US won't allow Turkey to fully invade Iraqi Kurdistan (as it's the main route out of Iraq for oil if you want to bypass Syria). It's brought the major players in geopolitics one step closer to confrontation, the final step would be an attack on Iran.

As for my points about oil I made in my previous post, they most certainly are not circumstantial, but highly relevant. Well, that's if you take your head out of the sand for long enough to look at the wider, geopolitical and global energy picture.

As for feeling safer? Well, I presume you mean from terrorist attack. Quite frankly, in that respect, I feel a lot safer than I did when conducting counter terrorist ops in South Armagh, Northern Ireland. But that's because the current crop of Islamic nutjobs are a bunch of complete amateurs (and that's being polite). As for feeling safer from a possible nuclear exchange, nope, it's slightly below where it was when I was living 10 miles north of a primary Soviet nuclear target during the Cold War, because I don't trust the American Administration given their foreign policy record (regardless of party).

I appologise for any bluntness in the above, but I don't really have the space to be anything other than direct.

[EvilBastard]

You mean the Carlyle Group, EB?

No no no - to suggest that there is a connection between Carlisle and the Bush family, that all of them are raking in the cash as a result of one of the most misguided pieces of foreign policy since Olaf the Hairy, High Chief of all the Vikings, ordered 80,000 battle helmets with the horns on the inside, would be foolish, treasonous, downright anti-American (although my passport says "Honi Soit Qui Mal Y Pense" on the front of it), and is likely to get you the same treatment as Bilal Hussein.

I was thinking more about KBR

[Syberberg]

Right then, hopefully these articles will help clarify the situation for you nodubmanshouts.

Brookings Institute

Opening paragraph of above article, published May 12, 2003: "Now that Iraq's oil has been secured by coalition forces and hopefully will soon be brought back on stream, it is time to solve a potentially important mystery: how much Iraqi oil is actually there?"

From the UN Global Policy Forum, document entitled "Oil and Natural Gas in Conflict" (quoted in full): ""Black gold" often brings hardship and misery to the societies where it is found. Petroleum-producing countries are plagued by corrupt and authoritarian governments, lopsided and unsustainable economic development and violent conflict. Foreign powers and their huge multinational oil companies often maneuver for control of the oil fields through clandestine operations or outright military intervention. In addition, disaffected rebels challenge governments in hope of winning a share of the lucrative oil revenues. Environmental damage by oil extraction can spark protest movements, which are frequently met by violent repression. Boundary disputes between states over oil reserves represent yet another link between oil and violence. As worldwide oil and gas production peaks and consumer demand continues to rise, prices soar, making conflicts for this increasingly scarce resource even more likely in the future."

From The Guardian, Scramble to carve up Iraqi oil reserves lies behind US diplomacy, published Sunday October 6 2002: "Russian business has long-standing interests in Iraq. Lukoil, the biggest oil company in Russia, signed a $20bn contract in 1997 to drill the West Qurna oilfield. Such a deal could evaporate along with the Saddam regime, together with a more recent contract with Russian giant Zarubezhneft, which was granted a potential $90bn concession to develop the bin Umar oilfield. The total value of Saddam's foreign contract awards could reach $1.1 trillion, according to the International Energy Agency's World Energy Outlook 2001."

(Above emphasis mine).

I could continue, but I won't. There's more than enough evidence out there to destroy your precious belief that Iraq war wasn't all about securing supplies of oil for America and her main allies, namely the UK and Australia.

[Syberberg]

No no no - to suggest that there is a connection between Carlisle and the Bush family, that all of them are raking in the cash as a result of one of the most misguided pieces of foreign policy since Olaf the Hairy, High Chief of all the Vikings, ordered 80,000 battle helmets with the horns on the inside, would be foolish, treasonous, downright anti-American (although my passport says "Honi Soit Qui Mal Y Pense" on the front of it), and is likely to get you the same treatment as Bilal Hussein.

Ah, hello Cpt. Blackadder.

[nodubmanshouts]

Why do you think the first duty of the Royal Marines was to secure the oil terminals in southern Iraq?

Why do you think the first Iraqi government building secured by US troops in Baghdad was the Oil Ministry?

Oil represents 95% of Iraq's economy. The Hussein regime had previously attempted to destroy Kuwait's oil industry when defeated. I don't think its a stretch to believe that he would try to cripple the Iraq oil industry when defeated.

Why do you think the Bush Administration is attempting to force the Iraqi (puppet) government to sign an oil law that will privatize the Iraqi oil industry, rather than letting them keep it nationalised?

"force"? Well, I don't know about that; be happy to read any evidence on that. But overall, the USA is a great believer in privatization and more equal distribution of wealth (compare with other non-publically held oil-rich Arab companys).

The papers you link to are interesting, but I don't really see how they indicate that the Iraq war was oil motivated.... I like money, I talk about money, I have some money and would like more; but it does not mean I was the one who broke into the ATM down the street last night.

Re: weapons. I'm not talking about the weapons they had, but the weapons they could easily have had. That's where the issue lies.

Propaganda? I don't believe so... there's just as much of that on both sides, with the ever-fashionable view that the USA is an evil, greedy empire. I feel that you, sir, have read too many left-wing leaning papers. Perhaps I have read too many of the other kind.

[eotunun]

You mean the Carlyle Group, EB?

No no no - to suggest that there is a connection between Carlisle and the Bush family, that all of them are raking in the cash as a result of one of the most misguided pieces of foreign policy since Olaf the Hairy, High Chief of all the Vikings, ordered 80,000 battle helmets with the horns on the inside, would be foolish, treasonous, downright anti-American (although my passport says "Honi Soit Qui Mal Y Pense" on the front of it), and is likely to get you the same treatment as Bilal Hussein.

..but, depending on the wearer's hairstyle, a helmet of such design might stay on his head longer.

I was thinking more about KBR

That almost sounds like Siemens! News of last week suggest there's a tight connection between Siemens and the Bundesnachrichtendienst. furthermore, a documentary on German Telly about the bribery affair Siemens is involved in said the contemporary Russian secret service is more or less depending on Siemens' communication products.
I wonder who should be worried most now: The Russians, the Germans or Siemens' shareholders.

Why do you think the first duty of the Royal Marines was to secure the oil terminals in southern Iraq?

Why do you think the first Iraqi government building secured by US troops in Baghdad was the Oil Ministry?

Oil represents 95% of Iraq's economy. The Hussein regime had previously attempted to destroy Kuwait's oil industry when defeated. I don't think its a stretch to believe that he would try to cripple the Iraq oil industry when defeated.

Point. It still does smell like Iraq has mainly been the unlucky one with a weak military and great wealth, thus the one to get plundered. So Iraq had a big army? Yes: But a one which obviously couldn´t compete with a modern one.

But overall, the USA is a great believer in privatization and more equal distribution of wealth (compare with other non-publically held oil-rich Arab companys).

I couldn't think of two things more contradicting each others than privatization and equal distribution of wealth. Especially in the USA you see a concentration of wealth in a small section of the population. And you'll hardly find a place anywhere in the world where it is as hard to escape poorness as in the USA. Europeans seem to catch up in that field, though.
Privatization: I, being a Kraut, had my fun with a greedy monopolist who dictated the prices for all german competitors, as the ever wise government donated all the infrastructure (Which had been built with tax money just to get billed to the customers again by that conglomerate, with 16%VAT added) to that behemoth. Now the German Government spends a lot of money on an office for holding down the illegal activities of Telecommunication's monopolists, of which we have only one.. (Don't fear they learnt from that experience, the privatization of the Bundesbahn, Germany's Railway, is to come soon. Yet again, they are to receive every inch of railway as a gift and thus get enabled to kill all competition before it starts. Like this you prevent every disturbing factors such as low prices.. But that's OT.)
And, nodubby, if you take a closer look at the thread, there's something said between the lines, that is: In some way, that war wasn't only a one between the USA and Iraq, considering the resources of oil. That war was a one between the interests of the U.S. economy's desires for oil and the Europan and Russian one's. They have so little of the resources themselves and need so much that this must lead to confrontation someday. Only right now the political climate didn't suit for an anti European campaign as such in the USA, but remember Herren Rumsfeld's verbal outrages against "Old Europe" and the anti French blurp of 2003.
The fundamental problem underneath all of that is the unfeedable hunger for energy by our cultures. The myth of ever growing economies. And the mental lazyness that prevents a turn for a leaner life. The desire to operate SUVs and BMW/Audis/Mercedes no longer having 150HP, but 600 of them, even despite speed limits which render such overpowered machines mere dick enlargements.
Next comes the unfeedable hunger of the people in poor countries.
Then comes what?
It's like there had never been a Club of Rome.