Canadian Mac Forums at ehMac banner
1 - 15 of 15 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
18,002 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Al Jazeera

Australia has admitted for the first time that securing the supply of oil is a key motive for its involvement in the US-led war in Iraq.

Brendan Nelson, the defence minister, said "energy security" was one of the main priorities behind his country's support for the war, which is unpopular among Australians.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,705 Posts
I didn't even know they had people over there....sounds like an anti-American...

I could be wrong tough. I am sure it could play a role in not pulling out until things are just right but to say it's about oil...hard to say.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
15,710 Posts
2GB.com - Brendan Nelson's got it wrong: Howard

Brendan Nelson's got it wrong: Howard

By Stephen Spencer
Political Editor
Macquarie National News

Defence Minister Brendan Nelson has been publicly slapped down by the Prime Minister for linking the Iraq conflict to oil.


Dr Nelson today became the first Howard Government Minister to publicly link Australia's involvement in the Iraq conflict to the need to secure oil supplies in the Middle East.

“Australia, I think, gets about 20 percent of its oil supplies from the Middle East,” Dr Nelson said.

Labor leader Kevin Rudd says the government cannot make up its mind why we are involved in the war.

“This government simply makes it up as it goes along on Iraq,” Mr Rudd said.

But the Prime Minister then publicly repudiated Dr Nelson.

“We didn’t go there because of oil, we don’t remain there because of oil,” Mr Howard said.

Mr Howard has told Philip Clark Australia remains in Iraq to defeat terrorism and give the Iraqi people a chance at democracy.
Until you show that Australia is siphoning oil out of Iraq, or depending on Iraq for its oil reserves at all--more so, than what they buy from, say, Iran, or Iraq before the war, when they didn't really have to support any kind of invasion--then Nelson saying so doesn't even make this plausible, let alone true.

That said, it's hard to see how the war in Iraq has anything much to do with terrorism, except that Iraq no longer sends those oversized cheques for $25,000 each to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers anymore.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,473 Posts
Sorry, not to kill the mood, and as much as I hate to quote Dyer's new book, but Iraq produced more Oil pre-war and sold the lion's share to the the U.S. even in the days before the invasion.

Not about oil.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
7,966 Posts
Sorry, not to kill the mood, and as much as I hate to quote Dyer's new book, but Iraq produced more Oil pre-war and sold the lion's share to the the U.S. even in the days before the invasion.

Not about oil.
Why be sorry about quoting Dyer? He's usually right.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
14,050 Posts
2GB.com - Brendan Nelson's got it wrong: Howard



Until you show that Australia is siphoning oil out of Iraq, or depending on Iraq for its oil reserves at all--more so, than what they buy from, say, Iran, or Iraq before the war, when they didn't really have to support any kind of invasion--then Nelson saying so doesn't even make this plausible, let alone true.

That said, it's hard to see how the war in Iraq has anything much to do with terrorism, except that Iraq no longer sends those oversized cheques for $25,000 each to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers anymore.
i wonder how iraqi and afghani civilians who have been killed or maimed in the "war" feel about being victims of paid military personnel

difference between terrorists and military; air support
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,473 Posts
i wonder how iraqi and afghani civilians who have been killed or maimed in the "war" feel about being victims of paid military personnel

difference between terrorists and military; air support
You sir disappoint me. How about intent? How about honour? How about the fact that in many cases civilians are used as human shields by terrorists?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,270 Posts
Sorry, not to kill the mood, and as much as I hate to quote Dyer's new book, but Iraq produced more Oil pre-war and sold the lion's share to the the U.S. even in the days before the invasion.

Not about oil.
It's certainly not about stopping terrorism. More terrorism was created because of the invasion. It's certainly not about providing Iraqis a more safe and secure environment. More Iraqis are living in daily violence than when Saddam was is power. More Iraqis civillians have died during the invasion and occupation than during the same number of years under Saddam's rule before the invasion.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
31,013 Posts
Or killed "just in case" ..your argument cuts both ways and there thousands if not perhaps 100s of thousands of civilian deaths to be laid at the feet of the US military ...."collateral damage".

•••

If it wasn't about oil isn't it odd the Oil Ministry Building in Iraq was so carefully protected and preserved. Just coincidence I guess.

That Iraq has the second largest and easiest accessible reserves ...purely coincidence.

That Saddam "happened" to covert to Euros for oil and Iran HAS and is now threatened...coincidence......oh entirely.
Two months after the United States invaded Iraq, the Oil for Food Program was terminated, the Iraqi Euro accounts were switched back to dollars, and oil was sold once again only for US dollars.
The Guardian

Just WHAT do you think PNAC's "vital US interests" in the Persia Gulf consists of??.......sand???

Indeed Australia went along for the ride as did Blair - ALL acknowledging and still trying to turn their oil dependence into valid reasons to confront Iran now and Iraq then.

Today's apologia

Politics, oil and war
Stable oil supplies are crucial to world order

THAT resource security, particularly oil, represents the greatest strategic issue facing a world struggling to manage the rapid simultaneous economic expansion of China and India is nothing new. It is one of the key topics for discussion wherever global leaders meet, including last year's G20 meeting hosted by Treasurer Peter Costello in Melbourne. Manipulation of energy markets has the potential to spark a rapid breakdown of free trade into protectionism. At worst, if used as a political weapon, restricting access to resources that fuel the world economy has the potential to trigger much greater conflicts that could cause great hardship and easily spin out of control. In this context, there is nothing particularly revolutionary in John Howard's observation in his address on Australia's strategic future yesterday that many of the key trends to which security planners must stay alert converge in the Middle East. The Prime Minister said these trends included terrorism and extremism, challenging demographics, aspiration to acquire weapons of mass destruction, energy demand and great power competition. These circumstances, Mr Howard said, made it all the more critical that the coalition succeed in establishing a stable, democratic Iraq that is capable of defending itself against al-Qa'ida and the internal enemies that wish to tear it apart, and against external forces.

Mr Howard's critics, by seizing on these comments as evidence the Iraq war had always been motivated by oil, are offering a superficial analysis that does them no credit. The reality of this is acknowledged in comments by Kevin Rudd. The Opposition Leader said there were grave consequences for global oil supplies from instability in Iraq and the extension of Iran's strategic leverage across the wider Middle East region. The extent to which the coalition campaign to this point has exacerbated those threats is open to debate. But the unpalatable reality of the Iraq conflict is that it is part and parcel of confronting much longer term ambitions on the part of Iran to expand its regional power. This includes the West's initial support for the regime of Saddam Hussein.

There certainly is much to be concerned about should any nation succeed in getting a stranglehold on the world's oil supplies, through which to disrupt the world economy. To equate the horrific death toll being suffered in Iraq, mostly at the hands of insurgent terrorists and sectarian violence, as the cost of securing profits for multinational companies and cheaper petrol for Western motorists belittles the extent and significance of the threat. Mr Howard has at least offered an honest appraisal of why it is so important that the West shows resolve in its attempts to bring stability to the region.
Editorial: Extended horizons in shrinking world | Opinion | The Australian

I'd say if anyone was HONEST in the appraisal it was Bob Hawkes.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
31,013 Posts
By George she's got it....;) Bush always was linguistically challenged.....:D
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
18,002 Posts
Discussion Starter · #15 ·
Four years... probably the oldest thread resurrection (is there a record? :)

Why, you ask? Because...

Secret memos expose link between oil firms and invasion of Iraq

Plans to exploit Iraq's oil reserves were discussed by government ministers and the world's largest oil companies the year before Britain took a leading role in invading Iraq, government documents show.

....

The papers, revealed here for the first time, raise new questions over Britain's involvement in the war, which had divided Tony Blair's cabinet and was voted through only after his claims that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.
(The Independent)
 
1 - 15 of 15 Posts
Top