Iraqi Oil

[ccscott49]

Did I mention the second world war? No, apart from saying since! The Americans fought long, bravely and hard alongside a lot of other people, I wouldn't dream of taking anything away from them for that. To say the americans defended europe against the comunist block alone is a little understating the contribution of NATO, but we won't argue over that, either. But to say they are the good ole boys on the block is also not correct. This is going too far, I don't want to see anymore body bags, I've seen enough. you didn't mention anything about the oil producing countries not having the right to control their own oil, or are you saving that? By the way, were there no British troops in Burma, India fighting the Japanese? Were there no british navy ships in the far east, or australian troops? But never mind.

 

[Artemis]

Yes, but...

I do agree that a great deal of international politics would be better renamed as US-based oil-interest politics. The case of Aung San Suu Kyi springs to mind; the US oil company operating in Myanmar could have exerted considerable influence over that situation.

However, one should also remember that western oil-fuelled democracies allow us freedom of speech & worship. There are many regimes where this forum thread would not be tolerated.

Censor Kim's only interested in whether we are lewd or rude, or both!

 

[jimi]

And in fact the US would not have been in the WWII had they not been attacked at Pearl Harbour. Ok they did support the UK prior to that with lease lend but it would be fair to say that they got more than a fair pound of flesh for it

 

[ccscott49]

Re: Yes, but...

Very true! But we had to fight/vote for the right to be free, even from our own lords and ladies! And whats freedom anyway, it can be described in many ways. Thats not to say lots of people are not now fighting/voting for their own freedom, I just would like them to be able to fight on an equal playing fileld, not one tilted with American influence/money/interests.

 

[Jacket]

I'm not going to join this argument (as I'm really not sure which side I'm on) but would like to make an observation.

Saturday evening we had a College dinner and I was sitting opposite the ex-PA to Condoleezza Rice, the US National security advisor, who's now over here doing a PhD on International Relations. Predictably, after a few drinks, we got talking about Iraq, and one of the interesting comments he made was that in these situations there is always a huge amount of information that is known to the US and UK governments which obviously can't be released ffor security reasons (ie. it would compromise our spies in Iraq). Therefore decisions which seem to us absurd may in fact be vital and unavoidable.

 

[jimi]

Understand what you're saying. But if Blair or Bush said "Trust us!" quite simply I would'nt as Blair has no track record of either performance or honesty. That if you remember was really what some of the recent domestic rows about Blair and New Labour was about. ie If we can't trust what you say now, why should we over anythingelse in the future.

 

[Roberto]

Biggest problem is Americans trust American movies..

 

[Artemis]

Utopia

might be nice, unfortunately human nature decrees that someone, somewhere will always rise to be top of the pile by virtue of having a bigger stick, louder voice. So even if level playing fields are achieved, eventually the captain of one team or the other will dominate, the groundsmen fail to demolish the mole hills, the spectators drift away through apathy....

Pessimistic, but probable.

I am a firm believer that we do still need voices crying in the wilderness though.

 

[Spacewaist]

A century in the making! nm

a

A pontification from the Panjandrum of orotund bloviation AD2002

 

[ccscott49]

The fact that they were also still shipping oil to germany just before pearl harbour leaves a nasty taste aswell! But that's business I guess.

 

[pkb]

Sorry to grind on and on but NATO is and always has been essentially the US armed forces. We saw that all too clearly in Kosovo conflict when virtually the entire air campaign was conducted by US fighters.

Shall we call a halt to this.

Peter

 

[Twister_Ken]

Especially as

>The US will do anything in it's power to ensure the American way of life is not changed<

The American w-o-l is heavily dependent on oil, domestic supplies are running out, some of the oil-producing mid-East is anti American, and more could easily become so.

Having an American army of occupation sitting on top of some of the world's biggest oil reserves would seem like damn fine insurance that Joe Public will be able to carrying driving around in his great big SUV at $1.50 a gallon.

 

[Twister_Ken]

\'They\' didn\'t

It wasn't the Iraquis that attacked the US.

 

[sailbadthesinner]

Re: \'They\' didn\'t

sorry by they
I meant the arab terrorists



Ok brain let's just do this and I can get back to killing you with beer.

 

[Twister_Ken]

So we\'re all agreed then...

...it IS about oil, not about Weapons of Mass Destruction

 

[Twister_Ken]

To quote Mandy Rice-Davies

>one of the interesting comments he made was that in these situations there is always a huge amount of information that is known to the US and UK governments<

"Well, he would say that, wouldn't he?"

 

[Twister_Ken]

Re: \'They\' didn\'t

As far as we can tell, Arab terrorists (yes, I can't spell Al Kai Eda either!) had nothing to do with Iraq. At least until Dubya started stamping his foot at Sodding Insane.

 

[Jacket]

>when virtually the entire air campaign was conducted by US fighters

Possibly because the vast majority of military aircraft in the western world are American?

 

[Twister_Ken]

Weapons of Mass Destruction - Handy Hint

Don't drop an empty, 20 year old, chemical shell on your foot. You might get a nasty bruise.

 

[jimi]

Bush baby

Acshully I've got this mental image of Dubya & Tony as a big stupid buck kangaroo with big boxing gloves on accompanied by a little bush baby hopping behind waving its paws ...