Andy Mcnab and the war on terror
POSTED BY: citizen
UPDATED: Friday, November 21, 2025 14:50
VIEWED: 3743
PAGE 3 of 4
Of all the motivations for this war in Iraq, oil is one of the least credible. If Oil was what we wanted then we should have been on the side of the French and the Russians, because the Iraqi oil was a lot cheaper under Saddam Hussein and the Oil-for-Food program then ever will be again. The Iraqi people will not be as quick to sell their oil at below market value as Hussein was, and you have the US and the UK to thank for that.
And then there is the cost of the war - billions per month, which basically means that the price of any oil we purchase from Iraq is doubled as a result of that overhead. Furthermore, one wonders why the US fails to attack Venezuela or Saudi Arabia, if the oil is what the US is after. And for those who insist that there was never any reason to attack Iraq but oil, why hasn’t the US invaded the UAE, a nation with considerable oil supply, yet virtually no military or allies capable of fielding a defense against the US? A perfect target for a country with such amoral priorities as is suggested by some on the Left.
Finally, there has never been any evidence of a policy to go to war for oil or any endemic or secret corruption within the Bush or Blair administrations. Although accusations are thrown around recklessly by people with little or no knowledge of what they are talking about or obvious bias, there is scant evidence, just speculation. On the other hand, there is plenty of evidence that corruption for oil did exist on the side of the countries who adamantly opposed the war and the UN bureaucracy going all the way to the top of the United Nations leadership.
The principle arguments that are often used to justify the “war for oil” speculation are that Iraq has considerable oil deposits, and that no other motivations exist. Indeed Iraq does have considerable oil deposits but so do many other countries which the US has not invaded, many of which are much easier targets then Iraq. Finally, the assertions that no other motivations exists is pure fantasy.
The best evidence anyone has been able to provide for such accusations is simply the existence of Iraqi oil, and that’s pretty weak. On the other hand, there are many other motivations for which there is considerable evidence. There was a legitimate interest in the disarmament of Iraq by the international community, and Hussein refused to disarm or demonstrate any evidence of such disarmament despite a decade of pressure by the UN and other counties including 17 Resolutions. Iraq was one of, if not the largest, threat to stability in the Middle East, prompting two majors wars, one involving 34 nations and a UN mandate. Iraq was a state sponsor of terrorism and had made at least one assassination attempt against a former US president. The US and the UK were in constant conflict with Iraqi troops over the no-fly zones. And without a doubt one of the concerns for the US and the UK was that Hussein was a Cold War ally and a beneficiary of US aid who may have become too belligerent to control, and many in the administrations felt responsible for removing Hussein. There are other motivations that I didn’t mention, but of all except the most ridiculous, oil is among the least likely.
-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I really think a lot of Finn's points here are valid. The War for Oil argument has always seemed to me be too simple and too simply a slam against the Administration. It really doesn't belong in the discussion any more than the statement "The Bush Administration is a bunch of corrupt mother
s!" The War for Oil argument really undermines any discussion. There is no evidence other than a kind of look-at-the-big-picture gestalt. Am I wrong about this?
HKCavalier
Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I am wondering why people are still pointing at the French and the Russians to blame for the Food for Oil fiasco....
If the UN security council wasn't chained by the veto, I think it would have lifted the sanctions more or less completely at an early date...
I have read of the opposition to these policys of France, Russia, Germany and others.... As well as the fact that two seperate UN high commisioners overseeing the project had resigned saying that the sanctions were equal to genocide.
In addition, the US did and still does control the gulf.... as well as the primary overland exports out of Turkey, and for a large part it was American companys moving the oil.
So HK... if not for oil, then why ? could you explain US policys in the region for the past fifty years ?
When my eloquence escapes you
My logic ties you up and rapes you
http://www.oldielyrics.com/lyrics/the_police/de_do_do_do_de_da_da_da.h
tml
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Sorry for generalizing, Gino. When I said "a lot of Finn's points here are valid," I didn't mean the Food for Oil argument (frankly, I didn't really want to read his post again to itemize my response; the guy bugs me
). I was merely speaking to what I saw as a fruitless discussion. That some arguments are weaker than others, doesn't mean they're less true. If that were how things worked, our legal system would be foolproof. The war for oil argument is like a lot of marxist arguments, it comes down to questions of interpretation, philosophy and most importantly motives which are very hard to argue about unless they're you're own.
Why do we care about the Middle East at all? Oil has a lot to do with it, certainly. But I think a major reason for our willingness to kill over there is their difference and their military inferiority. It's very similar to how we say we "settled" America, instead of saying we commited a genocide against the original inhabitants. The arabic peoples are different enough from us to make it less like killing a person and more like seccuring rights to a bit of oil rich land. If the Iraqis were english speaking white people, I think we'd handle them a little differently. I think our utter lack of respect for difference and our confidence that we can kick their butts in a fight, have as much to do with why we are at war as the greed that makes us want what is theirs. But how am I gonna argue these points with the likes of Finn and Hero and AJ?
HKCavalier
Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
I really think a lot of Finn's points here are valid. The War for Oil argument has always seemed to me be too simple and too simply a slam against the Administration. It really doesn't belong in the discussion any more than the statement "The Bush Administration is a bunch of corrupt mother
I agree. But here's a bizarre irony related to this argument. I've run into a fair number of Bush supporters (not all or even most, but a significant number) who do see this as a war to secure our access to oil. And they'll argue that that is a fair justification for going to war.
I'm not say Bush supports this POV, but I'm curious if many of you have seen the same kind of attitude?
SergeantX
"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Thats is an interesting arguement.....
kinda leads to questions like if atomic weapons were available before the defeat of Germany, would they have been used... or is that sort of thing reserved to the yellow, black, or brown of this world.
I have heard an arguement that the control of oil is what is at question, not actually the use of it... deny the developing economys of China, India, etc access to making deals for cheaper oil and gas( like India did with Chavez ) so that the US economy isn't as threatened by competition.... Sort of getting everyone to jump on the free trade bandwagon, but making sure that the other guys up front cost are going to be more.
When my eloquence escapes you
My logic ties you up and rapes you
http://www.oldielyrics.com/lyrics/the_police/de_do_do_do_de_da_da_da.h
tml
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
Thats is an interesting arguement.....
kinda leads to questions like if atomic weapons were available before the defeat of Germany, would they have been used... or is that sort of thing reserved to the yellow, black, or brown of this world.
I think it's important to understand that consciousness has been raised in the world since 1939. Yes, genuine progress has been made in the fight for human rights. As the world gets smaller, it actually does get harder for bigotry to find footing. I think that's the central reason for this campaign against Islam and the Koran; to promote and sustain the idea that Muslims are fundamentally different from us. Turning off their human, makes it that much easier to turn off our own.
HKCavalier
Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Those would be the nuclear weapons hidden under that bush in Syria, right.
Can anyone name for me the ONLY country to deploy nuclear weapons in war?
By that I mean, what country is the only nation with a proven track record of using nuclear weapons?
Quote:
original post by lynchaj:
If cheap oil was all the US wanted we would have just white washed the UN weapons inspection program and lifted the sanctions at any time. Presto, cheap Iraqi oil floods the market...
Oh I forgot, America being the only country in the world means they are the only country to have any say on UN policy.
Iraq has the second largest oil fields in the world, and some we havent even explored yet to add to that.
I thought the North Sea oil supplies had been exhausted, but even if they're not they are severly depleted, Britain can't supply her own need from the North Sea, let alone any one elses.
Likewise Venezuela's supplies are running out, and Russia has less Oil left than north America.
Quote:
"I did not think so at first. But the US is incredibly dependent on oil," news agency TT quoted Blix as saying at a security seminar in Stockholm.
"They wanted to secure oil in case competition on the world market becomes too hard."
Quote:
Iraq has the second largest proven reserves of oil in the world, behind only Saudi Arabia. 112 billion barrels lie below the country's desert sands, together with another probable 220 billion barrels of unproven reserves. What's more, the US Department of Energy says, "Iraq's true resource potential may be far greater, as the country is relatively unexplored due to years of war and sanctions."
This, plus the fact that "Iraq's oil production costs are among the lowest in the world, makes it a highly attractive oil prospect," says the department's latest country analysis. No wonder many critics believe that the campaign to topple Saddam Hussein is really a battle for Iraq's oil.
Theres also the fact that we were getting Oil from Iraq, but lets just ignore that, eh.
I don't think anyone has to accept the false premise that George Bush Jnr and the people who helped put him in power have nothing to gain from war with Iraq.
A woman drove me to drink and I didn't even have the decency to thank her.
--W.C. Fields
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I don't really want to argue about the situation at the end of WW2, but you seem to be saying that the US was justified for commiting genocide by leveling japanese cities with nuclear weapons because it meant they didn't have to commit a bigger attrocity...
Without Britain and France there's no UN.
In fact all UN nations have an equal say, it doesnt matter who started the organisation.
Using your argument there would be no USA without Britain, therefore there would be no UN with Britain, therefore Britain is more important than the US, or anyone else for that matter, to the UN.
Maybe your talking about financing, and yes, the US has the highest percentage of this, well on paper. The US is millions of dollars in arrears.
And financing issues do not effect who has a bigger say.
As far as I know North Korea has never been under as close a watch and control as Iraq.
A woman drove me to drink and I didn't even have the decency to thank her.
--W.C. Fields
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Lynch was part right, Operations Coronet, and Olympic did calculate a huge butchers bill...
But the thing he doesn't say it that there was a peace movement in the Japanese high command. From the loss of the Phillipines on the Japanese high command were looking for any reasonable terms, the American government of course does not negotiate, and was only looking for total surrender and occupation...
Options did exist, and were ignored
When my eloquence escapes you
My logic ties you up and rapes you
http://www.oldielyrics.com/lyrics/the_police/de_do_do_do_de_da_da_da.h
tml
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME