kuzadd Posted July 6, 2007 Report Posted July 6, 2007 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6272168.stm Australian Defence Minister Brendan Nelson has admitted that securing oil supplies is a key factor behind the presence of Australian troops in Iraq. He said maintaining "resource security" in the Middle East was a priority. In comments to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, Mr Nelson admitted that the supply of oil had influenced Australia's strategic planning in the region. "Obviously the Middle East itself, not only Iraq but the entire region, is an important supplier of energy, oil in particular, to the rest of the world," he said. "Australians and all of us need to think what would happen if there were a premature withdrawal from Iraq. "It's in our interests, our security interests, to make sure that we leave the Middle East, and leave Iraq in particular, in a position of sustainable security." by security interests he is referring to a secure oil interest. be it supply or profiteering, whatever. Quote Insults are the ammunition of the unintelligent - do not use them. It is okay to criticize a policy, decision, action or comment. Such criticism is part of healthy debate. It is not okay to criticize a person's character or directly insult them, regardless of their position or actions. Derogatory terms such as "loser", "idiot", etc are not permitted unless the context clearly implies that it is not serious. Rule of thumb: Play the ball, not the person (i.e. tackle the argument, not the person making it).
kuzadd Posted July 6, 2007 Author Report Posted July 6, 2007 oh and in a speech Aussie PM Howard says http://www.theage.com.au/news/National/Mid...3351325634.html Mr Howard told a strategic conference in Canberra that energy demand was one of the reasons for establishing a stable, democratic Iraq. but then later....... He later denied that he or Dr Nelson had said troops were staying in Iraq to protect the western world's oil supply. oil,oil,oil,oil, oil, oil, Quote Insults are the ammunition of the unintelligent - do not use them. It is okay to criticize a policy, decision, action or comment. Such criticism is part of healthy debate. It is not okay to criticize a person's character or directly insult them, regardless of their position or actions. Derogatory terms such as "loser", "idiot", etc are not permitted unless the context clearly implies that it is not serious. Rule of thumb: Play the ball, not the person (i.e. tackle the argument, not the person making it).
ScottSA Posted July 6, 2007 Report Posted July 6, 2007 You mean stable energy supplies are important for the west? No...surely not! Quote
kuzadd Posted July 6, 2007 Author Report Posted July 6, 2007 You mean stable energy supplies are important for the west? No...surely not! No scottsa, it's about 'terrorism' rofl!! right, lol!?? oh I mean WMD's oh I mean fweedum and demonocracy. Oil, oil.oil, oil,oil, oil, oil pipelines,pipelines,pipelines,pipelines resources,resources,resources,resources NOT TERRORISM or the 'war on terror' Yeah, scottsa, did the light go on for ya? How many yrs too late? Quote Insults are the ammunition of the unintelligent - do not use them. It is okay to criticize a policy, decision, action or comment. Such criticism is part of healthy debate. It is not okay to criticize a person's character or directly insult them, regardless of their position or actions. Derogatory terms such as "loser", "idiot", etc are not permitted unless the context clearly implies that it is not serious. Rule of thumb: Play the ball, not the person (i.e. tackle the argument, not the person making it).
Bonam Posted July 6, 2007 Report Posted July 6, 2007 A secure and stable state is beneficial not just for foreign oil interests but for the citizens of that state themselves. If properly managed, Iraq will make plenty of money and will be able to improve the quality of life of its people through the export of oil. I mean, of course it is completely obvious that with its 100+ billion barrels of oil, it is one of the important considerations in Iraq. But that doesn't mean that the presence of that oil is the only or even the primary reason for either the initiation of the war or its continuation. In fact, Iraqi oil production dropped drastically (and predictably) as a result of the war. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted July 6, 2007 Report Posted July 6, 2007 You mean stable energy supplies are important for the west? No...surely not! Wow! This is amazing....who woulda thunk it? I do recall some guy named Jimmy Carter spouting about oil and his plan to bomb anybody who messed with the supply. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
GostHacked Posted July 6, 2007 Report Posted July 6, 2007 You mean stable energy supplies are important for the west? No...surely not! Wow! This is amazing....who woulda thunk it? I do recall some guy named Jimmy Carter spouting about oil and his plan to bomb anybody who messed with the supply. You can't use Carter as an example. He supports Cuba. So Buch Cheney... tell me the real reason that Iraq was invaded? If it was for the oil, then you can stop talking about the War on Terror in any thread here on MLW. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted July 6, 2007 Report Posted July 6, 2007 You can't use Carter as an example. He supports Cuba.So Buch Cheney... tell me the real reason that Iraq was invaded? If it was for the oil, then you can stop talking about the War on Terror in any thread here on MLW. I've already told you....Iraq was invaded for one stop shopping to achieve several American foreign policy goals going back to at least 1991: 1) Overthrow of Saddam Hussein per US Public Law (Iraq Liberation Act - 1998) [complete] 2) Extinguishing WMD capabilities, real or imagined (from previous administrations) [complete] 3) Continuation of forward projection for military operations in the Mideast sans Saudi turf (it's holy!) [complete] 4) Recovery of large oil reserves for a world market with increasing demand (China, India, Australia) [in progress] 5) Iran (how ya doing neighbor!?) [in progress] 6) Al Qaeda roach motel [in progress] PMs Blair and Howard agreed...now what's for lunch!? Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
GostHacked Posted July 6, 2007 Report Posted July 6, 2007 2) Extinguishing WMD capabilities, real or imagined (from previous administrations) [complete] I wonder what else was REAL or Imagined. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted July 6, 2007 Report Posted July 6, 2007 I wonder what else was REAL or Imagined. Yea...who needs INSPECTIONS? LOL! Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
AndrewL Posted July 6, 2007 Report Posted July 6, 2007 I've already told you....Iraq was invaded for one stop shopping to achieve several American foreign policy goals going back to at least 1991:1) Overthrow of Saddam Hussein per US Public Law (Iraq Liberation Act - 1998) [complete] 2) Extinguishing WMD capabilities, real or imagined (from previous administrations) [complete] 3) Continuation of forward projection for military operations in the Mideast sans Saudi turf (it's holy!) [complete] 4) Recovery of large oil reserves for a world market with increasing demand (China, India, Australia) [in progress] 5) Iran (how ya doing neighbor!?) [in progress] 6) Al Qaeda roach motel [in progress] PMs Blair and Howard agreed...now what's for lunch!? No 3,4,5 are certainly true. The rest is just up-selling to the american public. Andrew Quote
kuzadd Posted July 9, 2007 Author Report Posted July 9, 2007 You can't use Carter as an example. He supports Cuba. So Buch Cheney... tell me the real reason that Iraq was invaded? If it was for the oil, then you can stop talking about the War on Terror in any thread here on MLW. I've already told you....Iraq was invaded for one stop shopping to achieve several American foreign policy goals going back to at least 1991: 1) Overthrow of Saddam Hussein per US Public Law (Iraq Liberation Act - 1998) [complete] 2) Extinguishing WMD capabilities, real or imagined (from previous administrations) [complete] 3) Continuation of forward projection for military operations in the Mideast sans Saudi turf (it's holy!) [complete] 4) Recovery of large oil reserves for a world market with increasing demand (China, India, Australia) [in progress] 5) Iran (how ya doing neighbor!?) [in progress] 6) Al Qaeda roach motel [in progress] PMs Blair and Howard agreed...now what's for lunch!? BC knows full well the "war on terror" is the sales pitch and nothing more. He merely plays along for the dupes who believe, fanatically, that is actually the case. Iraq was invaded for one stop shopping, that much is true, but the foreign policy goals, go back further then '91. There were no WMD's of any concern, the Bush administration was fully aware of this, Condoleeza and Colin Powell, had both made statements to this effect, wrt Iraq, until propaganda time began. AlQuaeda was NEVER in Iraq, under Saddam, so that is just more BC, BS! Here's why they went to Iraq: Militarily, Iraq, as a launching pad for further wars. OIL, for Money, Oil for Control of other countries, (by controlling the resource, one can control the economies of other countries) Oil for power. as the other poster says, all the rest is upselling. Quote Insults are the ammunition of the unintelligent - do not use them. It is okay to criticize a policy, decision, action or comment. Such criticism is part of healthy debate. It is not okay to criticize a person's character or directly insult them, regardless of their position or actions. Derogatory terms such as "loser", "idiot", etc are not permitted unless the context clearly implies that it is not serious. Rule of thumb: Play the ball, not the person (i.e. tackle the argument, not the person making it).
bush_cheney2004 Posted July 9, 2007 Report Posted July 9, 2007 Here's why they went to Iraq:Militarily, Iraq, as a launching pad for further wars. OIL, for Money, Oil for Control of other countries, (by controlling the resource, one can control the economies of other countries) Oil for power. Don't forget...OIL for Canadian oil services companies, like the one at Himrin Field... LOL! Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
kuzadd Posted July 9, 2007 Author Report Posted July 9, 2007 Here's why they went to Iraq: Militarily, Iraq, as a launching pad for further wars. OIL, for Money, Oil for Control of other countries, (by controlling the resource, one can control the economies of other countries) Oil for power. Don't forget...OIL for Canadian oil services companies, like the one at Himrin Field... LOL! lol, yah! But it sure as heck wasn't for the "war on terror" that's for the suckers! lol!!!! Quote Insults are the ammunition of the unintelligent - do not use them. It is okay to criticize a policy, decision, action or comment. Such criticism is part of healthy debate. It is not okay to criticize a person's character or directly insult them, regardless of their position or actions. Derogatory terms such as "loser", "idiot", etc are not permitted unless the context clearly implies that it is not serious. Rule of thumb: Play the ball, not the person (i.e. tackle the argument, not the person making it).
geoffrey Posted July 22, 2007 Report Posted July 22, 2007 Alberta is alot closer than Iraq, and the US can have as much oil of ours they want to buy. It doesn't make alot of logical sense. Throw the Iraq war money into oil sands investment and they get many times the oil. I'm not buying this 'no blood for oil' bullshit, it actually just doesn't add up. Quote RealRisk.ca - (Latest Post: Prosecutors have no "Skin in the Game") --
bush_cheney2004 Posted July 22, 2007 Report Posted July 22, 2007 I'm not buying this 'no blood for oil' bullshit, it actually just doesn't add up. Thanks, but Alberta doesn't have enough to satisfy US demand, nor is it cheap to recover. Bituminous sand is not the equivalent of higher quality and far more easily extracted crude oil reserves in Iraq. Canada's production is part of a diversification strategy for the Americans, and is now the #1 supplier at 17%. You are correct in that it's not just about the oil, but it is a major objective and consistent with Anglo-American policy since WW2. The "doesn't add up" argument usually pits real costs of military adventures and other opportunity costs against the cost of just "buying" the crude at market prices. The problem with this approach is that supply, political stability, and other economic considerations are discounted or ignored entirely. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
B. Max Posted July 22, 2007 Report Posted July 22, 2007 (edited) Don't forget...OIL for Canadian oil services companies, like the one at Himrin Field... LOL!lol, yah! But it sure as heck wasn't for the "war on terror" that's for the suckers! lol!!!! It's all part and parcel. Our enemies in this war would use oil as a weapon. What part of that don't you understand. Edited July 22, 2007 by B. Max Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted July 22, 2007 Report Posted July 22, 2007 It's all part and parcel. Our enemies in this war would use oil as a weapon. What part of that don't you understand. Precisely....no need to be coy about this. The world's hydrocarbon economy worships at the crude oil alter, and anyone who threatens that will be engaged. Today, people complain about petrol that costs more than $1.00 per liter....many of them have no idea how much worse it could get if supplies were threatened. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
betsy Posted July 22, 2007 Report Posted July 22, 2007 (edited) Here's why they went to Iraq:Militarily, Iraq, as a launching pad for further wars. OIL, for Money, Oil for Control of other countries, (by controlling the resource, one can control the economies of other countries) Oil for power. as the other poster says, all the rest is upselling. Just like all the rest of of anti-war supporters are upselling. Tell me, who isn't selling? At least there's more substance in what we "sell". Honestly I don't see any reason why the USA and allies need to take into consideration the so-called concerns of some alleged bleeding hearts and radicals. At least be thankful they (The USA, Australia and other allies) have not been as blackhearted as the terrorists-backing despot leaders...and had not resorted to just pounding the daylights out of these problem countries with total disregard for humanity! The USA has the power over life and death for any of these backwood countries that proved no more than malignant cancers in this world. You may not like it, but that's just what it is. If it were the other way around, let's say Iran has that power....do you think it will hesitate to storm any countries, and do so with any form of restraint? When one has the power, he has the power! It's is indeed fortunate for the rest of the world that the USA is the one who wields that kind of power. Edited July 22, 2007 by betsy Quote
Drea Posted July 22, 2007 Report Posted July 22, 2007 We all know this is about oil. Why did the Bush Admin feel the need to lie? Why not just put the cards on the table "Hey American citizens, we are going to war with Iraq to fight for the oil supply. Perhaps in the future they will cut us off and we are just making sure y'all can heat your homes." Why lie about the reasons for the war? Terrorism issues - wmd issues - biological weapons issues - human rights issues -- all lies. Why? Quote ...jealous much? Booga Booga! Hee Hee Hee
bush_cheney2004 Posted July 22, 2007 Report Posted July 22, 2007 Why did the Bush Admin feel the need to lie? Why not just put the cards on the table "Hey American citizens, we are going to war with Iraq to fight for the oil supply. Perhaps in the future they will cut us off and we are just making sure y'all can heat your homes." Why lie about the reasons for the war? Terrorism issues - wmd issues - biological weapons issues - human rights issues -- all lies. Why? Because that's what a "pretext" for war is. And it worked. "WMD" was just the sizzle in the steak. The UK/USA have been attacking Iraq since 1992....I guess it's only an illegal war when Bush Jr. is president. Iraq was/is not a major supplier of US crude oil, but it is part of world production and proven reserves, and it is the fast growing world demand that must be addressed because it impacts the economies of many industrialized nations. Issues like human rights, very good for upselling in Canada (see Kosovo), wouldn't do well for Iraq when we were already sanctioning them to death to the tune of 50,000 per month according to the same war detractors. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
cynic43 Posted July 22, 2007 Report Posted July 22, 2007 Alberta is alot closer than Iraq, and the US can have as much oil of ours they want to buy.It doesn't make alot of logical sense. Throw the Iraq war money into oil sands investment and they get many times the oil. I'm not buying this 'no blood for oil' bullshit, it actually just doesn't add up. You're forgetting that it wasn't supposed to be like it is today... awolBush and his handler Cheney figured it would be a cake walk ( remember the famous theatrical " mission accompished" ) In all honesty did you ever in you wildest dreams think that the mighty US military could be fought to a seven year war by a rag tag band of Iraquis? If the US could have won the war in 6 month the oil would have been very cost effective but as foolish wars tend to make a mockery of the best laid plans it turned out very different as we now know. Quote
betsy Posted July 22, 2007 Report Posted July 22, 2007 Alberta is alot closer than Iraq, and the US can have as much oil of ours they want to buy. It doesn't make alot of logical sense. Throw the Iraq war money into oil sands investment and they get many times the oil. I'm not buying this 'no blood for oil' bullshit, it actually just doesn't add up. You're forgetting that it wasn't supposed to be like it is today... awolBush and his handler Cheney figured it would be a cake walk ( remember the famous theatrical " mission accompished" ) In all honesty did you ever in you wildest dreams think that the mighty US military could be fought to a seven year war by a rag tag band of Iraquis? If the US could have won the war in 6 month the oil would have been very cost effective but as foolish wars tend to make a mockery of the best laid plans it turned out very different as we now know. Well they've made a mistake in underestimating it as a cake walk. BlowjobClinton made a mistake in the oval office and compounded that mistake by another mistake (since the reason behind it is to distract from the mistake done under the desk). He bombed Iraq. My point is who can really give any guarantee? You know the saying about the best-laid plans can still go awry. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.