Canadians surveyed about Middle East

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear August1991,

America is much less dependent on oil now than 25 years ago. Furthermore, it depends on its own oil or Canadian oil

The US is the world's largest consumer of oil, about 20% of the world's consumption. Even China, with it's massive growth, is on track to consume about 9% by the year 2020.

The US is interested more in controlling the price and the currency of oil, rather than the barrels themselves. Iraq had stated that they would only trade in euros for oil, and since they have (arguably) the world's largest reserve of oil in the ground, this would have been another blow to the already over-valued US greenback. It would be a tremendous blow to the US economy if another country besides the US-friendly Saudis set the price (and currency) for barrels of oil.

[Boondoggle]

Also, provide a link for the Kissinger quote

I got that quote from a documentary, which is why I didn't provide a link. However, I looked for an online source and found this:

http://www.balkanalysis.com/modules.php?na...e=print&sid=251

The second paragraph under Categorizing the Axis has it, and explains how Scott Taylor (a Canadian war reporter) uses it in the opening of his book. The exact quote goes like this: "oil is much too important a commodity to be left in the hands of the Arabs." - Henry Kissinger

While searching, I also found this:

U.S. Mulled Seizing Oil Fields In '73 - British Memo Cites Notion of Sending Airborne to Mideast

Scott Taylor was held hostage in Iraq, and offers a very interesting inside view of the resistance in Iraq:

Veteran War Correspondent Held Hostage in Iraq Describes His "Five Days in Hell"

Canadian Journalist Recalls Captivity in Iraq

It's amazing what you can find with a little curiosity and a search engine.

Boondoggle, you seem absolutely intent on blaming the US (or the West) for the madness in Iraq.

When the shoe fits... There's plenty of blame to go around. For example: both the US and Iraq are to blame for the problems with the UN inspections, but you don't have to take my word for it; listen to what the inspectors say. I recommend checking out what Scott Ritter has to say about that, and I already provided links. In the case of sanctions, read what Denis Halliday and Hans von Sponeck have to say about it. Again, I already provided links.

You somehow suggest that the US provoked Saddam into invading Kuwait. Then, you suggest that US imposed sanctions crippled Iraq's economy and impoverished its people. The US then invaded Iraq because it wants to give Iraqi oil to Halliburton and establish military bases there.

The tension between Kuwait and Iraq already existed. I'd say that the US took advantage of it. I've provided links to support what I've said, and in the case of a documentary, I explained how to get it. It is a fact, not a suggestion, that the US was the main driving force behind the sanctions, and keeping them long after it was necessary. Here's what Fmr. Asst. UN Secretary General Hans Von Sponeck has to say about it in an article that I gave a link to in the previous post:

"The UN doesn't impose sanctions. It's the UN Security Council member governments who come together and impose sanctions. The UN, we are the UN: we are implementing what we are allowed to implement, so I don't see the distinction between US sanctions, in broad terms, and what is done and coming out of the Security Council of the UN. The leader in the discussion for the sanctions is the US side and they are the ones, together with the British, that have devised many of the special provisions that govern the implementation of the 986 [oil-for-food] program. They are coming together, in that Security Council of 15 nations and work as a team, and that's the outcome, but I don't see a separate US sanction regime that is markedly different from the UN Security Council regime"

It is also a fact that the sanctions crippled Iraq's economy (that's what sanctions do) and impoverished its people. If you chop the GDP down in any country to 25%, regardless of whether leadership is good or bad, you're going to create serious problems for the people. Add to that the difficulty of importing important items that are considered dual use, but needed for things like clean water.

Further, if you bother to read what former weapons inspectors, such as Scott Ritter, have to say about WMD, which was the reason for the sanctions, you'd know that they stated that Iraq was fundamentally disarmed by 1996. What that means is that 90-95% of the weapons were destroyed, which is why they found no sotckpiles (as stated in the Duelfer report) and they destroyed the manufacturing facilities. The remaining chemical and biological weapons (Iraq never developed a nuclear weapon) have a shelf life of about 3-5 years under ideal storages conditions, and nothing in Iraq resembles ideal storage conditions. Therefore, what you're left with is intent to start a new program, and perhaps some leftover material and dual use items. In other words, they could have used a monitoring program to address any remaining concerns and lift sanctions for the sake of the people.

As for the second war, did the original case for war hold up? No. The fact is that the US is by far the biggest consumer of oil, and has to import over half of what it uses. It is also a fact that over half the worlds known oil reserves are in the Middle East. Industrialized nations run on oil, and the oil price is directly connected to the economy. Therefore, by controling the flow of oil, you can create economic security for youself and allies, and possibly create economic insecurity for opponents.

As for the military bases, I thought it was common knowledge, but you can read about it here:

US 'to keep bases in Iraq'

According to you Boondoggle, all the US actions have been planned in advance with, I gather, the purpose of enriching Halliburton shareholders.

Are you talking about the second Gulf War, Desert Storm, or US foreign policy for the Middle East in general?

With regards to your comment about Halliburton comment, you'll notice that I provide details and sources to support what I say while you provide little beyond sarcastic comments.

You're a man on a mission, Boondoggle. You are going to prove by as many weblinks as you can find that the US=evil and Saddam=innocent bystander.

So are you going to contribute anything to this debate, or just talk out your ass? At least I provide sources to support what I say.

Boondoggle, you are a garden variety of conspiracy theory leftist.

You make a typical mistake of bringing partisan politics into this. I criticize the sanctions and operation Desert Fox under the Clinton administration, and criticize the Bush administration with regards to the war. I've also criticized Canada's support of the sanctions under the Liberal party.

Boondoggle's got the Liberal government as witting members of the conspiracy.

No, I criticized the support of the sanctions and rightfully so. August1991 is having problems refuting what I say though so he has to resort to smart ass comments.

[Boondoggle]

The Hidden wars documentary that I talked about explains some of the misleading things the US did with the Desert Storm war. For example, it talks about how the US grossly exaggerated the number of Iraqi forces that invaded Kuwait to get the Saudis to Support US military forces in their country. General Norman Schwarzkopf states in an interview that a very large portion of the Iraqi military never entered Kuwait. He also talks about how the US needed a military HQ in the Middle East, but no Arab country would allow it. The documentary mentions satellite photos being used in news reports, which show a large US build up in Saudi Arabia, but not the huge Iraqi force in Kuwait as the US government stated. I decided to do an online search, and found one of the articles, which you can read here:

St. Petersburg Times Photos don't show buildup

[Stoker]

General Norman Schwarzkopf states in an interview that a very large portion of the Iraqi military never entered Kuwait.

Of course they didn't.......at the time, Iraq had the third or forth largest standing army in the world........so it's not a stretch to beleive, that though a small portion (compared to the entire army), the consripts in Kuwait where infact a large number in relative terms.

He also talks about how the US needed a military HQ in the Middle East, but no Arab country would allow it.

The United States built command facilties and airbases in the 70s and 80s in Saudi Arabia as part of the deal to sell the Saudis modern American weapons, such as the F-15 fighter and the E-3 Sentry airborne early warning aircraft.

King Khalid Military City

The documentary mentions satellite photos being used in news reports, which show a large US build up in Saudi Arabia, but not the huge Iraqi force in Kuwait as the US government stated.

Odd that American forcers would show up easier well in camps in the middle of the desert, when compared to Iraqi forces that where garrsioned within Kuwait city

[Guest eureka]

The US did indeed manipulate Canada with respect to oil. Under NAFTA, we cannot reduce oil exports to the US without a corresponding redustion in our own consumption.

Is that manipulation enough when we have no control of our oil policies.

The rest of your questions to me appear to have been answered. I think that this is the most important issue of domestic interest where Canada is concerned. One more blow to Canadian sovereignty.

[August1991]

The US did indeed manipulate Canada with respect to oil. Under NAFTA, we cannot reduce oil exports to the US without a corresponding redustion in our own consumption.

We did not agree to what you say. In any case, our negotiators were not "manipulated". They knew fully what they were doing - as did the Canadian public who elected Muylroney in 1988. Lastly, according to many on this Forum, the oil is not Canada's - it belongs primarily to the Albertan government.

[August1991]

Boondoggle, you seem to be under the mistaken belief that if you provide many quotes and links, your argument will somehow become more valid. Your belief is false.

A good argument can often stand alone although it may require a judicious use of quotes and links for questionable points or to reinforce a point. You seem to use the machine-gun approach, to little effect. (Boondoggle, are you an American?)

1. Kissinger quote. Boondoggle, there are many web sites that repeat the quote but none say when and where Kissinger said it. I suspect it's either an Urban Legend or taken completely out of context. In any case, is it really relevant what a retired Sec of State says? And is the quote critical evidence of some dastardly plan to take over the world?

2. Kuwait and Iraq. Seriously, Gillespie and all, blaming Kuwait or the US is a bit like blaming Poland or France for September 1939. (Poland should have been more polite and France more belligerent. Huh?) I remember extremely well that summer and the events surrounding Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. (Incidentally, your crazy and wrong theory misses out on the much more interesting factors hidden behind the invasion. Iraqis and Kuwaitis are very different people.)

3. Sanctions. The purpose of sanctions, as you have noted, was to isolate Iraq, put pressure on Saddam's regime and with luck, render Iraq less of a threat to the region. Many of the people opposed to the Coalition invasion of Iraq (Gulf War II) argue that sanctions should have been maintained and left to work. What's your argument exactly?

4. Oil. I repeat, the US imports its oil largely from Canada. Japan imports its oil largely from the Middle East. Do you mean that Americans are fighting on behalf of Japanese car drivers? In any case, it's much easier to buy oil in a market. There are very few 19th century imperialists around now.

5. Liberal Party, Clinton, Bush Snr and Bush Jnr. I think you are missing Jacques Chirac and Boris Yeltsin. How do they fit into your grand theory? (BTW, what is your grand theory?)

6. Halliburton. Did you check out its share price over the past 10 years? You'll be surprised. The market players are not so dumb after all.

Lastly, I am sorry that you interpreted my previous posts as sarcastic. I think it's admirable that you have a mission to inform the world, through this forum, of the dark secrets of world affairs.

[Guest eureka]

Neither Mulroney or the Canadian Public knew what was up. The belief was, for both, that we would gain corresponding benefits in trade for sacrifices such as the surrender of our control of our oil production. That did not materialize but our forfeiture of control iver that and many other internal economic matters does continue.

America does not get its oil largely from Canada. It gets about 14%. Some 50%, I think, is from its own, rapidly depleting resources, and the balance from the Midle East and a few other places.

I would suggest that it is entirely relevant what a retired Sec, of State says. His statement reflects the policy of the United States which is to ensure control of Middle East oil. It has had that control without force for a long time - shared, in part, by European powers. Loss of the security puts America on the knife's edge of a Depression that would inevitably follow any serious and prolonged interruption of supply. It lacks the sophistication to maintain its security through diplomatic channels and even trade relationships.

We all remember well the events of the lead-up to the Gulf War. It may well be that Iraq was mistaken in its understandings. It is no longer arguable that Saddam thought that he had the blessing of the United States. I do not see how he could hold that belief without some grounds: grounds like the friendly visits of American luminaries and the open support for Iraq in the preceding years. America without any doubt wanted a friendly ally in Iraq aginst its loss of Iran.

Samctions were, as you ay, supported by more than the US. However, there had been a growing demand for their removal on humanitarian grounds. Few wanted to continue the horrors that they were inflicting on Iraq. The economic decline is what Boondoggle posted, though I did not know the statistics. The human cost was greater in actual lives lost.

When you look at Halliburton's share price, do you also calculate what it might be if it had not profited from Government action? Do you look at other American contractors and interests? Have you considered the Administration's declared intent to give the rebuilding of Iraq over to American corporations, one of which will be Halliburton? That phase has not arrived because the Iraqis have shown that they will not lie down and let the US take over.

I don't think that Boondoggle is informing anyone of the dark secrets of world affairs. Neither is he being anti-America. He is, however, attempting to make some complacent non-observers open their eyes to discover what the intent of this administration truly is.

[The Terrible Sweal]

Oh when was this?????

August of 1990.

And when did Dumbya invade?

More than a decade later. He attacked a defeated, long quiescent country, for no valid or useful reason.

[The Terrible Sweal]

The US did indeed manipulate Canada with respect to oil. Under NAFTA, we cannot reduce oil exports to the US without a corresponding redustion in our own consumption.

We did not agree to what you say. In any case, our negotiators were not "manipulated". They knew fully what they were doing - as did the Canadian public who elected Muylroney in 1988.

The public? You can't be serious. The public had no clue about the details of the deal.

Lastly, according to many on this Forum, the oil is not Canada's - it belongs primarily to the Albertan government.

[Stoker]

And when did Dumbya invade?

More than a decade later. He attacked a defeated, long quiescent country, for no valid or useful reason.

Do you think it would be more prudent to have attacked him in a few years when he would have rebuilt?

Do you (or anyone else) think that the contaminate stance would have worked? Sanctions & Embargoes etc?

Will the average Iraqi be better off with a democratic country or a dictorship and sanctions?

Do you not think that down the road when Iraq is stable and Democratic, that this will be a plus for the middle east? The World?

[Guest eureka]

Some might consider it a plus if you were to quickly develop arthritic fingers. That way you would not be able to post any more supports for brutalit : a plus for the forums. It might also be a plus for you in the long term in that you could sit in front of the televicion and watch movies and reruns of sitcoms; thus enabling you to someday compete on Jeopardy and win a lot of money.

I doubt that you would consider it a plus now in having a different, and soulless "American Way" of life of necessity.

[caesar]

Good post eureka

[caesar]

Will the average Iraqi be better off with a democratic country or a dictorship and sanctions?

Do you not think that down the road when Iraq is stable and Democratic, that this will be a plus for the middle east? The World?

You mean the ones that survive; that are not maimed for life. Democracy is not the be all end all of anything. A good benevolent dictatorship could be more effective.

At least you know where things stand instead of the constant flip flops changes we do here in Canada. Fortunately, our federal government is more stable than our provincial. Suddenly what you have planned for is down the drain as benefits are taken away, particularly for seniors; Democracy is a joke. We get to vote once every four years and in between; the politicians break all the promises and make changes without much public input. Sometimes it seems we just elect a different dictator every 4 years.

[August1991]

Some might consider it a plus if you were to quickly develop arthritic fingers. That way you would not be able to post any more supports for brutalit : a plus for the forums.

True, freedom of speech is vastly overrated.

A good benevolent dictatorship could be more effective.

True, responsible government is usually incompetent government.

We just comemorated 11 November and you guys think the world of Mussolini.

[Stoker]

I doubt that you would consider it a plus now in having a different, and soulless "American Way" of life of necessity.

You mean the ones that survive; that are not maimed for life. Democracy is not the be all end all of anything. A good benevolent dictatorship could be more effective. At least you know where things stand instead of the constant flip flops changes we do here in Canada. Fortunately, our federal government is more stable than our provincial. Suddenly what you have planned for is down the drain as benefits are taken away, particularly for seniors; Democracy is a joke. We get to vote once every four years and in between; the politicians break all the promises and make changes without much public input. Sometimes it seems we just elect a different dictator every 4 years.

We just comemorated 11 November and you guys think the world of Mussolini.

No kidding.......I think this topic has leaped to the next level of stupidity.

I shall gracefully bow out.......

[caesar]

True, freedom of speech is vastly overrated.

And actually does not really exist any longer;

We just comemorated 11 November and you guys think the world of Mussolini.

You may have considered him a "benevolent" dictator I did not. Nor do I find Bush to be a "benevolent" dictator; but a dictator all the same. Perhaps not techinically, in the USA but he is making decisions outside of the USA where we do not get to vote.

[maplesyrup]

PM offers to help run Palestinian elections

This is a good move on PM Martin's part, keeping Canada neutral, and helping out. Canadians will support this initiative.

Anyone sent there though should make sure they are wearing their bullet-proof vest, etc.

[caesar]

Anyone sent there though should make sure they are wearing their bullet-proof vest, etc.

A man I know works in Iran waters (oil rig); the only fears he has is the Americans.

[maplesyrup]

Right. Tell that to Hussan's family.

[maplesyrup]

Beyond Fallujah

Interestin' commentary by a Canadian journalist - not quite the kinda news we get in our daily mass media hype.

[August1991]

True, freedom of speech is vastly overrated.

And actually does not really exist any longer;

We just comemorated 11 November and you guys think the world of Mussolini.

You may have considered him a "benevolent" dictator I did not. Nor do I find Bush to be a "benevolent" dictator; but a dictator all the same. Perhaps not techinically, in the USA but he is making decisions outside of the USA where we do not get to vote.

Caesar, I wake up to find this. Caesar, I believe that you are seriously clueless. I have reported your post.

Caesar, do you know what democracy is? Do you know what Mussolini did? Do you know why many Canadians have gravestones in Europe? Do you really believe Bush is like Mussolini? Caesar, have you ever visited a country under dictatorship? Caesar, do you have any idea what dictatorship is?

I believe strongly in the right of an individual to express what she or he thinks. But that freedom does not mean that I must read nonsense.

I ask you again, because it bothers me, did Canadians die in Europe so that you would have the right to say Mussolini was as good a leader as Bush?

I enjoy the freedom of this Forum but if I have to wade though such nonsense, I too will retire politely.

[Boondoggle]

I believe strongly in the right of an individual to express what she or he thinks. But that freedom does not mean that I must read nonsense.

I feel the same way about your posts, and that's why I couldn't be bothered to continue. There's no point in talking to a closed minded fool that thinks that being able to support what you say is not important. Let's just use one example to drive the point home:

3. Sanctions. The purpose of sanctions, as you have noted, was to isolate Iraq, put pressure on Saddam's regime and with luck, render Iraq less of a threat to the region. Many of the people opposed to the Coalition invasion of Iraq (Gulf War II) argue that sanctions should have been maintained and left to work. What's your argument exactly?

Clearly you didn't read what I posted. In the post you replied to, I said this:

It is also a fact that the sanctions crippled Iraq's economy (that's what sanctions do) and impoverished its people. If you chop the GDP down in any country to 25%, regardless of whether leadership is good or bad, you're going to create serious problems for the people. Add to that the difficulty of importing important items that are considered dual use, but needed for things like clean water.

Further, if you bother to read what former weapons inspectors, such as Scott Ritter, have to say about WMD, which was the reason for the sanctions, you'd know that they stated that Iraq was fundamentally disarmed by 1996. What that means is that 90-95% of the weapons were destroyed, which is why they found no sotckpiles (as stated in the Duelfer report) and they destroyed the manufacturing facilities. The remaining chemical and biological weapons (Iraq never developed a nuclear weapon) have a shelf life of about 3-5 years under ideal storages conditions, and nothing in Iraq resembles ideal storage conditions. Therefore, what you're left with is intent to start a new program, and perhaps some leftover material and dual use items. In other words, they could have used a monitoring program to address any remaining concerns and lift sanctions for the sake of the people.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you read it, you wouldn't ask that question, or try to twist what I said. However, not only do you not bother reading articles that are linked, you don't read what is posted. Of course, this isn't important, and neither is supporting what you say, or offering links to additional information that others might be interested in.

[caesar]

Caesar, do you know what democracy is? Do you know what Mussolini did? Do you know why many Canadians have gravestones in Europe? Do you really believe Bush is like Mussolini? Caesar, have you ever visited a country under dictatorship? Caesar, do you have any idea what dictatorship is?

I sure do and the way Bush is pushing countries around is acting as a dictator. What right does he or his Ambassador have to pressure other countries how to respond to international actions. We do not have a choice in voting for him, do we.

There are Canadian bodies in Europe; there are many many Iraqi bodies in Iraq and body bags being sent home to many countries on an INVASION that had no justification.

A democratic country acts democratically on the international stage TOO. That is why the UN was set up after WWII. Bush went against the wishes and intelligence of the majority of NATO. War was never declared as it had no validity in IraQ. Bush and his coalition INVADED Iraq much as Hitler invaded other countries. When a country is in the right; they have no problem declaring WAR.

The USA should have kept their sights on reigning in the terrorists that they were searching for in Afghanistan; instead of allowing them to spread out and thanks to Bush's pre emptive strike on Iraq; they were able to have many many Muslim recruits join them because of the unjustified attack on a Muslim country that was cooperating with the weapons inspectors and even destroying some borderline illegal weapons.

Being American does not make one RIGHT; being American does not allow them to attack any country they choose. Beign Canadian does not mean we must follow the Americans into an illegal invsion.

[The Terrible Sweal]

And when did Dumbya invade?

More than a decade later. He attacked a defeated, long quiescent country, for no valid or useful reason.

Do you think it would be more prudent to have attacked him in a few years when he would have rebuilt?

International law does not allow you to attack other countries merely because they have armed forces of their own. Iraq was confined by the Gulf War Cease Fire Agreement as to what it could and could not build. By and large it is clear they were not in breach of those restrictions, although not compliant in every detail of transparency.

Do you (or anyone else) think that the contaminate stance would have worked? Sanctions & Embargoes etc?

The inspections process was effective against WMD, evidently.

Do you not think that down the road when Iraq is stable and Democratic, that this will be a plus for the middle east? The World?

When do you imagine that happening, though?