"US will liberate Iraq", says Bush

[Demerzel]

surely they can launder some of the information enough to remove any way to identify the source? some of it will no doubt be from one source so you couldn't launder that as it would be obvious where/who it came from no matter what. In those cases though, you don't really want to trust unconfirmed evidence surely? Especially on something you're prepared to go to war over?

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Demerzel

It's simplistic and no doubt completely facetious but it really does seem that the US & most other nations will ignore the wrongs if something like oil is on the cards.

So what's new. Of course they will - the US government are scum and have a history of dubious military interventions (like many other oligarchic governments). If the US public is too dumb to realise this then they will no doubt suffer for it when disaffected Arabs try to get their own back, which they no doubt will. Among other things this war is a great recruiting drive for all sorts of terrorist lunatics. And then they'll complain that nobody likes them when everyone else says "told ya so".

Why doesn't GWB just send each American citizen a T Shirt with a nice big target on the front and a picture of Salman Rushdie on the back?



I hope my country doesn't get involved in this silly war. Saddam Hussein never tried to force me to park nuclear weapons in my back yard.

[Dinner]

No, I don't totally trust it which is why I said they'll have to release it eventually. The key is to do it right though and the hard part will be give Hans Blix the info without some Arab state leaking everything to Saddam before the weapon's inspectors arrive on the scene.

Also remember that the Iraqis have bugged everything the inspectors use. Their cars, their equipement, their hotel rooms. Everything. So even if old Hans tries to keep it secret as soon as he briefs his staff on hat their going to be doing for the day then he's told the Iraqis.

[Ted Striker]

It's not about oil.

US gets all its oil from ourselves and South America.

Japan and the EU, on the other hand, are dependent on Middle Eastern oil.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Oerdin

A few mouths back Bush, Blair, and all were running around all the news stations talking about "secret dossiers" of classified info proving Sadam was lieing. They then said they didn't want to reveal what was in the dossier because it would reveal sources and methods to the Iraqis.

Do you honestly believe them?

I'll say it again. Why would it matter if they revealed sources and methods to the Iraquis if the information was used to gain public support for a war to destroy the Hussein regime? The sources would no longer be useful, so there would be no point in preserving them.

It's a fact that most people would support a war if compelling proof of Iraq's WMD were available. This is not an easy war to sell internationally, especially for Blair who's supposed to be a Labour Prime Minister.

The Americans are losing a huge amount of international good will among ordinary people from this. Most people in neutral countries (apart from the far left) used to think of the US as a basically benign power; Bush now has them going around talking like Noam Chomsky - it's quite an astonishing change. Look at South Korea - here is a country being protected by the US in which there are huge popular protests demanding that Yankee go home. More people think that Bush is a greater threat to World peace than Saddam Hussein.

You'd think that if they had anything they'd give it up.

[Demerzel]

teach Blix and his inspectors Attic Greek. Only a few thousand peeps speak that language and most surely the Iraqi's might have trouble with it. Or just get Blix some memory lessons, make him commit it all to memory and then get him to write it down for the instructors and then burning it after?

finally Ted regarding your stats,

In 1973, foreign oil accounted for 35 percent of total U.S. oil demand. By the beginning of 1998, the figure had risen to 50 percent. Though OPEC provided 46 percent of U.S. imports, the dominant suppliers are non-Arab members (notably Venezuela, America's number one supplier, and Nigeria). In fact, Saudi Arabia (#3), Algeria (#9) and Kuwait (#12) were the only Arab countries among the top 20 suppliers of petroleum products to the United States in 1997. The Persian Gulf states supply less than 20 percent of U.S. petroleum imports.

True that a serious drop of oil from the middle east is less of a crisis than in 1973 when it caused fuel shortages and queues at "gas" stations but it's still a lot of oil from there. Explains why Kuwait had to be liberated though eh? 12th biggest supplier must be protected

Although the US itself produces about seven million barrels a day, it is responsible for a quarter of world oil imports, so it still imports another 11 million barrels daily. An extra dollar per barrel on the price of this imported oil would drain over $4 billion from the US economy if sustained for a year.

ouch.

For its part, the UK is among the world's top 15 oil consumers, but thanks to the discoveries in the North Sea, is actually a net exporter. In 2001, it contributed in net terms almost 900,000 barrels per day to the world's oil supply.

Hurrah for British North Sea oil!

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Ted Striker
It's not about oil.

US gets all its oil from ourselves and South America.

Japan and the EU, on the other hand, are dependent on Middle Eastern oil.

It's not just about oil - it's also about preserving US dominance in the world.

Where did I get this from - well Bush's own policy statement on pre-emptive war and Zbigniew Brzezinksi's The Grand Chessboard a book everyone should read (He's no crank and has some very interesting things to say).

Like the idea of Attic Greek Demerzel, but no one I know speaks it as it is very hard to say anything useful in a dead language. I know this because I read it myself. But I suppose they could say things like "O dread Lord, The Persians have merely 500 chariots in poor condition and not many good hoplites".

[Demerzel]

heh nice

[Ted Striker]

Explains why Kuwait had to be liberated though eh? 12th biggest supplier must be protected

Regarding your stats, I don't see anything that differs from what I've said. You should also list your source though when you list stats, otherwise they lack complete credibility.

In Gulf War 1, after Kuwait was taken, the Iraqi army was then lined up to go after the Saudis. You remember the whole "Desert Shield" thing right? And oil did play a part in that one, but is that necessarily a bad thing?

Perhaps you would have prefered the world community stand by (remember Gulf War 1 was a large coalition -- it wasn't just a US coalition, though the US gave it teeth. Even Syria was in on the coalition back then) and watch as an Arabian peninsula empire led by Saddam Hussein is formed? I'm sure that would work wonders for the world economy right?

This time around I really don't see any oil connection. I mean #1 Saddam can't go anywhere and take over anybody. #2 if we were doing this to prevent him from using his own oil as a weapon, he would have done it by now and I haven't seen any oil problems whatsoever.

Recently prices have gone up because of the Venezualan oil worker strike, if anyone is the most important in terms of oil, it's Mexico, Venezuala, and the Russians.

Perhaps you should also investigate the recent deals going on between the US, Russia, and all of the former Soviet Republics. The Administration is striking deals with the former Soviet Republics specifically to undermine any dependence on Middle Eastern oil that is left. Makes more sense to travel the path of least resistance right?

There is a marked difference between the motivations between Gulf War 1 and Gulf War 2.

This isn't the British East India Tea Company or DeBeers we are talking about here.

[Ted Striker]

Present situation: European Union weaknesses
The European Union's external dependence for energy is constantly increasing. The Union imports 50% of its energy requirements and if no measures are taken within the next 20 to 30 years this figure will rise to 70%. This external dependence has economic, social, ecological and physical risks for the EU. Energy imports represent 6% of total imports, which means in geopolitical terms that, 45% of oil imports come from the Middle East and 40% of natural gas comes from Russia. The EU does not yet have all the means possible to change the international market. This weakness was clearly highlighted at the end of 2000 by the strong increase in oil prices.

That was a self-assessment.

http://europa.eu.int/scadplus/leg/en/lvb/l27037.htm

10/04/2002
BRUSSELS -- The European Commission Tuesday announced that 31.11 percent of its oil needs comes from the Middle East, excluding Iraq.

http://www.qipc.net/news/april2002/apr11004.htm

And another self-assessment.

[Ted Striker]

Asia, led by its four largest economies — Japan, China, South Korea and India — imports 60 percent of its oil. The International Energy Agency in Paris expects this figure to rise to almost 90 percent in 2020, ‘‘with a corresponding increase in Asian vulnerability to any oil supply interruption.’’

While the U.S. economy will increasingly be fed by oil from the Gulf of Mexico and other relatively nearby sources, Asia is being forced to forge new relationships with key Gulf suppliers.

http://www.iht.com/articles/1745.html

[Berzerker]

we'll see whether it's wise or not, I'm prepared to be persuaded but the way that Bush is portraying himself as bloody-thirsty at the moment can't be wise.

The only reason Saddam let inspectors back in is because of Bush's saber rattling. If I was in charge, I'd remove all sanctions on Iraq and leave the region telling Saddam not to invade any other countries. If Bush 1 had done that through Ambassador Glasby prior to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, there wouldn't have been an invasion, no Gulf War, and no reason to be in this mess with Iraq now. But Bush 1, the supposed "foreign policy President" really goofed (or he wanted an Iraqi invasion of Kuwait).

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Ted Striker

Perhaps you should also investigate the recent deals going on between the US, Russia, and all of the former Soviet Republics. The Administration is striking deals with the former Soviet Republics specifically to undermine any dependence on Middle Eastern oil that is left. Makes more sense to travel the path of least resistance right?

Well well - this is similar to what Mr Brzezinski says - except that he thinks that there is no way that the US would want pipelines from the energy rich Caspian basin under the explicit or implicit control of the Russians. Hence having client regimes in Iraq and Afghanistan would be geostrategically useful. If you look at the map Iraq is almost perfectly situated.

It isn't surprising that there would be conflict and maneuvering in this area - look at the map - here you have an energy rich area right next to two major powers, Russia and China. You would think that the US would like some leverage in this area. It's not about oil for the US - its about the leverage obtained by controlling supplies.

[Ted Striker]

Actually, regarding upcoming conflicts, some have argued that the next wars aren't going to be over oil, but rathar water.

It's interesting reading. Does Mr. Brzezinski cover this in his book?

[Sava]

He's going to "liberate" the oil as well...

Oil might not be the only reason Bush is doing this, but its a damn strong one. I'm not suggesting the US is simply going to steal the oil. They'll simply allow US corporations to "buy" it from the Iraqi people and then make insane profits from it.

Iraq has what, the second largest oil reserves in the world? Anyone who thinks oil isn't a factor is fooling themselves.