How US helped Iraq build deadly arsenal

On Tue, 31 Dec 2002 23:25:40 +0000, Pete Loud wrote:


Don't think I support Iraq, I don't. Bush got into power on the
contributions of the oil industry towards his election expenses, it's now
pay-back time. He has to wrest control of the Iraqi oil fields from Iraq and
put control into the hands of US oil industry stooges. It's tough that
thousands will be have to die to boost the oil company profits.

I actually don't buy that. For one thing, by and large, the business
community is against a war. Just look at how the markets are reacting.

Military action for physical control of oil is just not the American way
of doing things. A large fraction of European opinion sees this as a (the
only sensible, seemingly?) rationale for a war, given that it otherwise
makes no sense at all. But I don't buy it.

I am still not convinced there actually will be a war. I guess I have
been indulging in wishful thinking when I theoretized the noise would
subside after the mid-term elections. Anyway, which rationales are we
left with, besides the assumption that this administration is living in a
parallel universe, fightinmg windmills out of their own imagination?

One would be simply an exercise of killing Arabs. For the sake of the US
collective psyche, which needs revenge after the loss of face we all know
of. Which US right wing, now out of the closet en masse, is really
craving for.

Another one, somewhat less cynical if also more stupid is that this
administration may have decided they can't live any longer with our friend
Saddam making them look like fools time and again. Except, of course, if,
after the war is over, no weapon of mass destruction is found and their
dishonesty/stupidity becomes clear. Which would be the man's last irony...

devil writes
Military action for physical control of oil is just not the American way
of doing things. A large fraction of European opinion sees this as a (the
only sensible, seemingly?) rationale for a war, given that it otherwise
makes no sense at all. But I don't buy it.

What do you make of this?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3333995.stm

The United States considered using force to seize oilfields in the
Middle East during an oil embargo by Arab states in 1973, according to
British government documents just made public.

The papers, released under the 30-year-rule, show that the British
government took the threat so seriously that it drew up a detailed
assessment of what the Americans might do.

It was thought that US airborne troops would seize the oil installations
in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait and might even ask the British to do the same
in Abu Dhabi.

--
Simon Elliott
http://www.ctsn.co.uk/

On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 23:00:23 +0000, Simon Elliott wrote:

devil writes
Military action for physical control of oil is just not the American way
of doing things. A large fraction of European opinion sees this as a (the
only sensible, seemingly?) rationale for a war, given that it otherwise
makes no sense at all. But I don't buy it.

What do you make of this?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3333995.stm

The United States considered using force to seize oilfields in the
Middle East during an oil embargo by Arab states in 1973, according to
British government documents just made public.

Right. If you don't let them buy, of course one has to look at plan B...

Seriously though, this was a much more critical situation, and they didn't
do it.

"Simon Elliott" wrote in message
...


The United States considered using force to seize oilfields in the
Middle East during an oil embargo by Arab states in 1973, according to
British government documents just made public.


You mean Britain *thought* the United States considered using force ....

Just a small difference.

Tosser writes

The United States considered using force to seize oilfields in the
Middle East during an oil embargo by Arab states in 1973, according to
British government documents just made public.

You mean Britain *thought* the United States considered using force ....

Just a small difference.

Nope. The US Defence Secretary told the British Ambassador that the US
was considering using force.

Simon Elliott wrote in message ...
devil writes
Military action for physical control of oil is just not the American way
of doing things. A large fraction of European opinion sees this as a (the
only sensible, seemingly?) rationale for a war, given that it otherwise
makes no sense at all. But I don't buy it.

What do you make of this?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3333995.stm

The United States considered using force to seize oilfields in the
Middle East during an oil embargo by Arab states in 1973, according to
British government documents just made public.

So? Did they do it? No. A lot of things get "considered". Nixon and
Johnson both "considered" using nukes in Vietnam.

Part of every analysis is to look at all the options and decide what
is best.

The US did not go to war for oil when it had some reason for doing so
(in 1973) and when the oil embargo was causing a huge problem. Why? As
has been said, that simply isn't how the US does things.

Same thing in Iraq. Oil had absolutely nothing to do with it.

"Tchiowa" schreef in bericht
om...

Same thing in Iraq. Oil had absolutely nothing to do with it.

And you _really_ believe that? You must be one of the very few people in
the world to believe such a lie.

Sjoerd

On Sat, 03 Jan 2004 13:13:32 +0100, Sjoerd wrote:


"Tchiowa" schreef in bericht
om...

Same thing in Iraq. Oil had absolutely nothing to do with it.

And you _really_ believe that? You must be one of the very few people in
the world to believe such a lie.

I certainly do.

I see possible reasons for the war as:

1. Offering the US folks revenge for 9/11, by just go kill Arabs.

2. Providing a showcase for the Bush doctrine of preventive attacks when
it suits him.

3. Dream on, trying to redo the map of the Middle East. A la post-WWII
Japan.

On oil, surely it would have been much much cheaper to hear Saddam begging
for negociation and offering whatever cash he wanted.

As to the 1973 story, it's quite different in the sense that these
countries *refused to sell.* That's of course a crime beyond salvation.
Imagine...

"Sjoerd" wrote in message ...
"Tchiowa" schreef in bericht
om...

Same thing in Iraq. Oil had absolutely nothing to do with it.

And you _really_ believe that? You must be one of the very few people in
the world to believe such a lie.

Absolutely I believe it. It doesn't make any sense that oil had
anything to do with it.

BTW, that's the business I'm in. I know for unquestioned fact that the
US oil companies would prefer it if Iraqi oil stayed off the market.
It forces the oil prices up and the oil companies are making near
record profits because of it.

Tchiowa wrote:
BTW, that's the business I'm in. I know for unquestioned fact that the
US oil companies would prefer it if Iraqi oil stayed off the market.
It forces the oil prices up and the oil companies are making near
record profits because of it.

Think about infrastructure contracts for both rebuilding and on-going
operation. France and Russia had those, albeit severely limited by sanctions.
Now the US has lifted scanctions, cancelled the existing contracts and is
goving those contracts to US firms.