You really are geopolitically naive aren't you? (That's not meant as an insult, BTW)nodubmanshouts wrote: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 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?
"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).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?
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.
I can give you a whole host of stats about the global energy situation currently as it stands, oil output and growth in demand both current and projected, I can cite a whole host of historical FACTS and still you won't get your head out of the sand and take a long hard look at the world around you and realise what's actually going on geopolitically.
Priavtisation of resources does the exact opposite of spreading wealth around, it funnels it into the hands of a few. Do your research, or are you too scared of discovering the truth and having all your pretty illusions shattered?
As for America being an "evil greedy empire", show me one single empire in the entirety of human history, that wasn't. America is no different from any previous empire that has ever existed in that respect, particularly the British one.
Believe what you want about "America's grace", but the rest of the world has a huge dislike of American foreign policy for a reason and it's not jealousy.
Reading too much "left leaning papers", I don't read papers. I tend to get my information from right across the board and I have no real political affliation. But, from an American POV (with starts at the center right from a European POV), I'd certainly say I'm "on the left." But that still doesn't alter any of the actual FACTS.
Yes, Saddam was a despotic SOB and would've done everything he could to get access to unconventional weapons. He was, however, contained.
WMD were the excuse used to invade Iraq to gain control of their oil fields and secure the oil supply to the US and her allies, and give lucrative contracts to mainly US oil companies, Halliburton in particular.
Tony Blair stood up in Parliament and stated as fact that Saddam could launch a bio-chem attack within 45 minutes of the order to do so being given.
Colin Powell, and the rest of the Bush Administration, on more than one occasion, declared that Saddam had WMD and was actively seeking to gain them.
Unfortunately for both, the UN weapons inspection teams were consistently coming up empty handed and, roughly 24 hours before the green light was given, Saddam had ordered full co-operation with the inspection teams.
The document that the Bush Administration used to "prove" Saddam was touting for yellowcake uranium turned out to be a forgery.
The entire case for war with Saddam over his nonexistant WMD program has since been shown and proved to be based on faulty use of intelligence, forged documents and downright lies.
Now, Saddam's ability to destroy his own oil industry. Don't make me laugh. Have you any idea how big Iraq is and where the main oil fields are? I'll give you that one: Iraqi Kurdistan (northeast Iraq, around Mosel and Kirkuk) and in Southern Iraq around Basra and along the Kuwaiti border. Given that the US/UK had complete air superiority, the like;ihood of that happening was, in fact remote.
Here's a handy map from the BBC to prove my point. I'd also strongly suggest you have a look at the other maps presented by the BBC there. You might actually learn something useful.
Here's something from the BBC's Greg Palast that he did for Newsnight
The BBC can hardly be described as "left leaning."
I will admit that the use of the word "force", in relation to the Iraqi Oil Law, was a bit strong, "pressure" would be a better one. The original plan for Iraqi oil production was drawn up by the Pentagon and has since been amended by pressure from the oil industry. My mistake.
It still doesn't alter that fact, however, about US/UK desire to secure favourable oil supply in the light of their own energy requirements in the face of the fact that their other supply sources have (or are about to) go into decline and preventing the likes of China, Russia and India securing a supply. The other problem is the Export Land Model, where previous oil exporters reduce the amount of oil they export due to increasing domestic demand. This is already happening in Saudi Arabia.
Truth is often unpleasant, unpalatable and rather nasty, but that's the nature of the beast. Nor does truth owe any political alligence.
Oh and just for some more elucidation for you, here's an article from the Asia Times, published Feb 28, 2007: US's Iraq oil grab is a done deal
From above article: ""By 2010 we will need [a further] 50 million barrels a day. The Middle East, with two-thirds of the oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize lies." - US Vice President Dick Cheney, then Halliburton chief executive officer, London, autumn 1999."
Rather damning that quote, isn't it?
I'll rest my case there I think. Unless you want me to continue sailing supertankers sideways through the holes in your arguements?