Are We at War in Iraq for the Oil? Australian Defense Minister says so.
July 6th 2007 06:08
Are We at War in Iraq for the Oil? Australian Defense Minister says so.
The build up and reasons for the war in Iraq and why Australian troops are still there is a contentious issue. The original justifications of the war: ‘Weapons of Mass Destruction,’ is no longer disputed as being dead wrong. The intelligence was dead wrong and suspicions remain over why there was such an effort to push toward war but the political leaders of USA, Britain and Australia.
The reasoning of the architects of the war changed reasons for the justification from WMD to links with Osama Bin Laden. Regime change and democratization was eventually touted as the positive despite the mistakes. We were told by Prime Minister Howard and co that despite the mistakes in the build up to the war they meant well and removing Saddam would make things better. Now as the whole conflict goes pair shaped the new improved post Saddam Iraq looks worse than the old Saddam Iraq. Instead of one Saddam the insurgency and civil war has created thousands of Saddam copies.
Over 4 million Iraqi nationals have left the country since the invasion by the ‘Coalition of the Willing’ began. Many are held up in refugee camp of neighboring countries and are unable to return. If the war was meant to bring stability, safety and security to the Iraqis on this measure alone it is a dismal failure. There is little point in hailing a democratic process that leaves millions too afraid to return to their own nation out of fear of persecution. Such a democracy is a farce.
So little good has come from the war so why did it happen?
The last few days of media interview shed some light on the attitude of our Australian government representatives:
In a rare candid remark on radio Australian Minister for Defense Brendan Nelson said, ‘it was important to secure Iraq because it was an important supplier of energy and "oil in particular".’
Almost immediately Prime Minister John Howard has moved to quash this claim on 2GB Radio saying that, ‘We did not go there because of oil ... Oil is not the reason.’
This puts him in direct conflict with the Minister of defence about the reason why Australian Soldiers are in Iraq. Opposition parties and independent have slammed the government for putting the price of oil over the price of a human life. ‘No Blood for Oil,’ motto may see the light of day once more.
It is difficult to understand why Dr Brendan Nelson MD would make such a damaging statement and not realize its ramifications. The government may be hoping that this can be forgotten as nothing more than gaff or at worse Brendan Nelson’s stupid statement. There is also the possibility that rather than a slip of the tongue that it was actually a ‘Freudian Slip’ where the truth was spoken unintentionally. For now only Brendan Nelson would have that answer.
However if we are to assume that this was just the slip of the tongue then we must also believe that it was a very well articulated and thought out slip of the tongue. By stating the issue once as ‘Energy security’ and reinforcing the same statement with the words ‘oil in particular’ we have no just a slip but an avalanche of statements. This is why it will be hard for the government to make everyone forget this statement.
In the big picture of why certain leaders decided to go to war the converting of Iraq’s oil reserves was the unspoken but primary reason. If such a base desire was at the heart of their ambitions then we who are paying huge fuel prices have been duped.
Perhaps we are again learning that is still no such thing as a winnable war.
Our Minister of defense. In happier times. Why would a medical doctor want to be the minister of defense anyway?
The reasoning of the architects of the war changed reasons for the justification from WMD to links with Osama Bin Laden. Regime change and democratization was eventually touted as the positive despite the mistakes. We were told by Prime Minister Howard and co that despite the mistakes in the build up to the war they meant well and removing Saddam would make things better. Now as the whole conflict goes pair shaped the new improved post Saddam Iraq looks worse than the old Saddam Iraq. Instead of one Saddam the insurgency and civil war has created thousands of Saddam copies.
Did he just say that we are in Iraq for the Oil?
So little good has come from the war so why did it happen?
The last few days of media interview shed some light on the attitude of our Australian government representatives:
In a rare candid remark on radio Australian Minister for Defense Brendan Nelson said, ‘it was important to secure Iraq because it was an important supplier of energy and "oil in particular".’
Almost immediately Prime Minister John Howard has moved to quash this claim on 2GB Radio saying that, ‘We did not go there because of oil ... Oil is not the reason.’
This puts him in direct conflict with the Minister of defence about the reason why Australian Soldiers are in Iraq. Opposition parties and independent have slammed the government for putting the price of oil over the price of a human life. ‘No Blood for Oil,’ motto may see the light of day once more.
It is difficult to understand why Dr Brendan Nelson MD would make such a damaging statement and not realize its ramifications. The government may be hoping that this can be forgotten as nothing more than gaff or at worse Brendan Nelson’s stupid statement. There is also the possibility that rather than a slip of the tongue that it was actually a ‘Freudian Slip’ where the truth was spoken unintentionally. For now only Brendan Nelson would have that answer.
However if we are to assume that this was just the slip of the tongue then we must also believe that it was a very well articulated and thought out slip of the tongue. By stating the issue once as ‘Energy security’ and reinforcing the same statement with the words ‘oil in particular’ we have no just a slip but an avalanche of statements. This is why it will be hard for the government to make everyone forget this statement.
In the big picture of why certain leaders decided to go to war the converting of Iraq’s oil reserves was the unspoken but primary reason. If such a base desire was at the heart of their ambitions then we who are paying huge fuel prices have been duped.
Perhaps we are again learning that is still no such thing as a winnable war.
| 75 |
| Vote |
Add To: 
Subscribe to this blog
Comment by Stanley
it has always been about oil and the reality is no one in the howard government has ever been held to account over anything! as long as our footy teams are winning and money is lining our pockets than we in oz aren't outraged enough to take a stand! argh! makes me want to tear my hair out.
Comment by Damo
For the Sake of Argument
My Apologetics
Thanks for your comments
This statement by Nelson certainly has raised the issue of the War for Oil question once more. it will be interesting to see how the government tries to get rid of this problem.
Gaffe or Freudian Slip.
Either way it is not a good look.
But a gaffe looks stupid rather than vile.
Yes the university system does indeed suck.
Comment by tlcorbin-raginravensview
Coffee Quip
A Global Citizen
Paranormal Paranormal
Is Why
Alaska Chronicle
That was a primary reason for the US's involvement in WW2. Who ever controls that area has a virtual strangle hold on the worlds economy.
So, by extension aren't we trying to preserve the status quo by intervening in the area?
Control over those oil fields is a huge 'big stick' which equates to power.
Who do you want to carry the big stick in a crisis; someone that will use it but doesn't abuse it or the radical who will abuse it out a misguided belief system.
I am not sure even Solomon has a clue.
Raven
Comment by Damo
For the Sake of Argument
My Apologetics
Thanks for your comments
I'll leave WW2 for another post as it is a subject in itself.
"Who do you want to have the Big stick"
The Romans completely destroyed Cathiage on the same grounds. Rival power with growing wealth and political structure. A percieve threat used to justify a slaughter.
Interesting moral values. Some would call radical and misguided to the point of fanaticism.
However I won't dew on this matter.
There is a question of ownership.
Do you own the oil?
No. It belongs to Iraq.
Do have your own oil?
Yes. But not as much.
Does this justify theft?
Pick the moral structure that justifies theft and is not a misguided belief system.
See who many people would really wish to subscribe to such a system.
Not me for starters.
Using political power as the ultimate rules for national morality put a nation on par with the worste excesses of Empirialism. Similar justifications were used to continue the British Empire rule of India. Similar justifications were used to justify apparthied in South Africa.
It is also the same justification that terrorist use.
I think Solomon may have clue which path he would choose.
Comment by Brenton
Dr Spin
Tales From The Other Side
Downwrite
Blip Blog
Gadget Museum
Raven? We need to keep the status Quo? Sounds like a way to say 'America is scared it won't get to rule the World any more.'
Comment by Damo
For the Sake of Argument
My Apologetics
Thanks for your comments.
Not sure how to respond other than I am fairly indifferent to Nelson as a person. He does have seem to a sense of humour with protestors.
Comment by Brenton
Dr Spin
Tales From The Other Side
Downwrite
Blip Blog
Gadget Museum
Just was unimpressed with his role in Education.
Comment by Damo
For the Sake of Argument
My Apologetics
Fair enough.
One has the right to like who one pleases.
Comment by tlcorbin-raginravensview
Coffee Quip
A Global Citizen
Paranormal Paranormal
Is Why
Alaska Chronicle
I'll leave WW2 for another post as it is a subject in itself.
WW2 was brought up to illustrate a point; liberal media did not want the US involved in that war; and once we were engaged they advocated that we as a nation pull out early. Had we done so, Australian history would most likely be different.
Here in Alaska, we fought the Japanese in the Aleutians, but it isn't common knowledge; had they not been expelled, our history would have been different.
Research articles in the Saturday Evening Post 1938-1940 or there about.
The Romans completely destroyed Cathiage on the same grounds. Rival power with growing wealth and political structure. A percieve threat used to justify a slaughter.
Interesting moral values. Some would call radical and misguided to the point of fanaticism.
However I won't dew on this matter.
Blowing up the twin towers was based upon quirky thinking; whose moral values validates the bombing of innocents in another country and cry foul when our troops show up on their doorstep to discuss the matter.
Our Alaskan and Gulf of Mexico oil reserves are huge: Google that for yourself. We probably should stop buying oil on the world market and build new refineries just to observe the the impact on the worlds economy.
We don't need Iraq's oil. But regional stability is beneficial to everyone. If they can't police themselves who will? The US and coalition forces stepped up to the plate and are getting the job done.
And arguments about the abusive treatment of prisoners fall on deaf ears with me; show me any indicator that the combatants there want to play by the rules. The restraint exercised in this theater is remarkable, as is the transparency of troop actions in the field; Russia, China, N. Korea, Mayamar, Laos can be very heavy handed controlling their population and it isn't likely to be played out on the worlds TV Screen.
The demonstrated willingness to hold the coalition actions up for world scrutiny; indicates to me, who ought to hold the 'big stick' in Iraq until the government is fully in place. Leaving now, may not be a realistic options.
Remember the warthogs? The highway of death? Not finishing the job was a lesson in restraint and came to be a problem later. Carnage; smart bombs kept collateral damage to a minimum. I say that because carpet bombing is not discriminating in any form or manner.
Do you own the oil?
No. It belongs to Iraq.
Do have your own oil?
Yes. But not as much.
Does this justify theft?
Pick the moral structure that justifies theft and is not a misguided belief system.
See who many people would really wish to subscribe to such a system.
Not me for starters.
Ownership of the oil in Iraq has never been in dispute. How much of it have you seen carted away by coalition members? The UN had a recent oil based scandal, are you thinking that is was the US and not the UN stealing oil? Theft of Iraqi oil? Sure, but by whom?
Hmmm, remember this? The Kofi Annan oil for food scandal, there's a pillar of morality, but that aside, here is some information that may shed some light on this topic.
Really Long Link
Oil-for-Food Programme
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
The Oil-for-Food Programme, established by the United Nations in 1995 (under UN Security Council Resolution 986) and terminated in late 2003, was intended to allow Iraq to sell oil on the world market in exchange for food, medicine, and other humanitarian needs for ordinary Iraqi citizens without allowing Iraq to rebuild its military.
The New York Time has a story about this missing oil matter dated May 12, 2007, click on the link:
Really Long Link
I hope the article is interesting and provided you with some additional insight.
What has any of this to do with Iraq? Like it or not, coalition forces were invited to stay in Iraq after Saddam was disposed. The populace of the US would revolt against our government for even thinking about colonizing another country; crap, we still can't get rid of Puerto Rico and Mexico from our welfare rolls.
Most terrorists have a singular agenda, the extortion of some tangible resources. This group of terrorists are strong arm criminals formed into large gangs, syndicates or what ever other label that you want to use to describe them.
The justification those terrorists and insurgents operating in Iraq and other points on the globe is summed up in one word: jihad. Kill or destroy anything or anyone that isn't Islamic.
Then we have the elite terrorists like the IRA, but there is an extensive list for you to peruse at this link:
Really Long Link
By the tone of this remark, you seem confident that your argument was all convincing and persuasive; but I remain full of questions.
Thank you for humoring me, it's been entertaining.
Raven
Comment by Damo
For the Sake of Argument
My Apologetics
I will try to brief as it is getting late and I want to go to bed.
So jumping over WW2 out of sheer laziness I move down to what I think is the thrust of what you are telling me.
I quoted what Brendan Nelson said in an interview and instead saying he must not have meant to say that. You agree that it is true we went to Iraq to get the oil because oil is the big stick.
Shift the ground to all and sundry does nothing to address the original post. Kofi and the IRA are what I would describe outside the scope of this post.
Twin Towers and Iraq? No connection so that is outside the scope.
Man you have a long list of enemies that fall outside the scope of this post,
Nothing person but if I chased all these issues in this post I would be worn out.
So I will try to stick to the point.
In reply to you original comments I was questioning the validity of you appearent support for going to war to aquire Iraqs oil feilds.
If there is a misunderstanding about your support for this please point it out. I am happy to be corrected if I got it wrong.