|
Contributor: marl
Date: 2003-01-30 13:47:15
Just in case there is anyone out there who still feels that the war against Iraq is not about oil, consider the following extracts from a Greenpeace Foundation article.
"Ever since former oil-man George W. Bush came to the White House, well before September 11th, his administration was announcing that the US faced an energy-supply crisis. Although there is little evidence to support this, Bush made it a cornerstone of his policies.
Coincidentally, Iraq has the second largest proven reserves of oil in the world, but its production has been severely reduced since the Gulf War, due to effects of economic sanctions and the destruction of infrastructure. Rebuilding that infrastructure and increasing production will take years. Oil executives hungrily eyeing those reserves are enthusiastic to take on that work.
And they've never had such close ties to the White House. For Vice President Dick Cheney, this may well be round two for his post-war dealings with Iraq. Cheney is a former head of Halliburton, the world's largest oil service contractor. In August 2000 Cheney publicly stated that, as the head of Halliburton, "I had a firm policy that I wouldn't do anything in Iraq, even arrangements that were supposedly legal." And yet, as the Financial Times eventually proved, Cheney oversaw $23.8 million in sales to Iraq in 1998 and 1999.
Top oil analyst Dr. JJ Traynor of Deutsche Bank sees the US's largest and undoubtedly most politically influential company, ExxonMobil, as being in "pole position" to take full advantage of a regime change in Iraq. (Find out more from www.stopesso.com. )
ExxonMobil has worked hard to ensure demand for oil by pressuring the US government into abandoning its commitments to the Kyoto Protocol on global warming. During the 2000 election cycle, ExxonMobil gave $1,375,250 to political campaigns - second only to Enron among oil and gas company campaign contributions. Of this total, 89 percent went to Republican candidates. By undermining efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, ExxonMobil prolongs US's oil dependence and prolongs its entanglements with often politically unstable oil producing countries.
However, unlike its French, Russian and Chinese counterparts, ExxonMobil, the world's biggest oil company, has had to stay away from Iraq due to the US political situation in the last ten years. Exxon previously owned 25 percent of Iraqi oil fields and a new war with Iraq would again open up access to Iraq?s large oil reserves.
Holes in Bush's cover story for the war
Though it's no secret that the White House cozies up to oil executives, declaring war on Iraq required a bit of a cover story. The "War on Terror" launched in the wake of September 11th was the perfect vehicle. With the world reeling from the threat of more chaos and destruction, Iraq was quietly slipped into key speeches. Bush quickly diverted attention from Osama Bin Laden to Saddam Hussein and now the hunt is on for his weapons of mass destruction.
The US is prepared to negotiate with North Korea, which has a known capacity to develop nuclear weapons, domestic sources of enriched uranium and production capability for plutonium. But the US is preparing to invade Iraq -- despite the absence of evidence of any nuclear weapons program.
Bush calls them both "evildoer" states, so why the double standard?
A quick look at the US's own policies on weapons of mass destruction (WMD) quickly dispels their argument for using WMD as a determining factor for a war with Iraq.
As a signer of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), the US has a legal obligation to reduce it's nuclear arsenal, stop nuclear testing, and negotiate a binding a treaty on nuclear disarmament under strict international control. However, the current US administration is increasing its budget to build nuclear weapons, scrapping existing disarmament treaties, and restarting nuclear tests.
One of the first acts of the Bush administration was to slash funding for programs safeguarding and destroying nuclear weapons and materials in the countries of the former Soviet Union almost 21 percent while increasing nuclear weapons funding by almost 5 percent.
The Bush administration's prevalent tendency to ignore, abandon, or destroy international treaties is especially evident with regard to arms-limitation agreements:
-- In December 2001, President Bush torpedoed talks to give the Biological Weapons Convention (BWC) real force. A last minute refusal after five years of negotiations infuriated negotiating countries.
-- At the NPT review conference in 2000, the US and the other signatories agreed to end nuclear weapons testing by bringing the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty into force as the first of 13 specific disarmament commitments. Shortly thereafter, the US Senate announced disapproval of the treaty. Last year the US said it no longer agreed with the additional commitments, putting the Non-Proliferation Treaty's future in jeopardy.
-- The Bush administration has also reneged on an additional commitment to strengthen the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty by pursuing its Star Wars missile defence programme. The programme is one of the primary reasons that international talks to rid the world of weapons of mass destruction have not progressed for the last three years. It also provides an excuse for other nations to improve and increase their nuclear arsenals.
Overall, Bush's weapons of mass destruction policy is arbitrary, hypocritical, and inconsistent. The world desperately needs a multinational and fair approach to the elimination of weapons of mass destruction. A war with Iraq will only serve to strengthen the existing hypocrisy."
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: OJ
Date: 2003-01-30 15:54:41
marl, the US government itself has clearly said that Hussein does threaten and has threatened (remember those oil well fires?) oil supplies in the Middle East. Who exactly are you referring to when you talk about people who deny oil is a factor?
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: marl
Date: 2003-01-30 18:15:02
OJ, do you believe everything the U.S. government says? It doesn't take much research to find a multitude of inconsistencies in U.S. government policies. Are you suggesting that it is justifiable to wage war against Iraq in order for U.S. oil companies to control the oil fields? Also, in your arguments you often mention Saddam Hussein as if he were the only one who is under threat. What about the thousands (perhaps hundreds of thousands) of innocent civilians whose lives will be eliminated or ruined. Is this something that you would feel comfortable with in order that America secures its future oil supplies?
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: OJ
Date: 2003-01-30 21:37:05
marl, I would greatly appreciate it if you would resist the temptation to dismiss my arguments as the rantings of someone who has been brainwashed by the US government. I could just as easily have made a similar argument about you in relation to Iraqi propaganda, but I choose not to so that we can have a mature and civilized discussion. I would appreciate the same courtesy from you.
Now, I would again like to point out that your argument here is flawed because it is entirely based on the premise that the US is only interested in an oil grab. Indeed, if one considers that there are other regions such as Venezuela or parts of the Caspian Sea basin that have both more oil than Iraq and less ability to resist an American attack, one wonders why they simply don't go there.
The reason is because there are other factors at play that I'm afraid you are neglecting. Saddam Hussein has proven himself to be an irresponsible tyrant who continues to violate UN sanctions by firing on planes patrolling the no-fly zone, continuing to acquire chemical/biological weapons (as well as the means for their delivery including rocket engines), and has still failed to provide evidence that the stocks he had as of 1995 have been destroyed. Twelve years later, we're still at the same position. The UN has been very patient with Iraq, but there comes a point where one has to draw the line and realize that diplomacy by the current means is not working.
You also have neglected the fact that thousands of Iraqis are ALREADY dying in Iraq, because of the UN sanctions that were put into place to prevent Hussein from re-attempting to invade other countries or pursue his weapons programmes. Yes, people will die if the US attacks, but even more will die if the world community remains complacent and refuses to do anything to enforce UN resolutions. Continuing to impede the UN's ability to enforce its own resolutions means that people will no longer take that organization seriously. As such, complacency will force the UN to become a non-credible and, by extension, irrelevant actor in promoting peace and stability. Sometimes war is necessary. Peace for the sake of peace completely ignores the realities that exist in that country right now.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Justsomeguy
Date: 2003-01-31 09:42:08
OJ:
Somewhat solid argument, but I'm afraid there are a few points YOU are "neglecting." It seems absolutely obvious that the US has targeted Iraq largely due to its vast untapped oil reserves, but there are other reasons.
For one, it's a convenient target at this point in time. Over the last year, Bush has slowly been building a connection in the public mind between Hussein and Al Qaeda. Of course he has not supplied any real proof (what's new?), but regardless, many people have bought in. It would have been much more difficult--if not impossible--to make that case against a nation such as Venezuela.
Secondly, Hussein already has evil cult of personality status in the US. The White House doesn't have to plead that he is evil, they only have to hide the fact that they spent the 1980's supplying him with all the weapons he wanted. That's much easier than fabricating your case from scratch, much like they did in the 80's with Noriega.
Thirdy, Hussein is Arab, and more importantly, Iraqis are Arab. It seems to go without saying that Westerners value Arab life less than that of most other cultures. Americans don't bat an eye at the millions of Palestinian refugees, or at the hundreds of thousands of children who die in Iraq due to the santions. Simply put, they're an easy people to write off.
Bush knows perfectly well that he can get away with massive civilian casulties of war, much like he did in Afghanistan, and that the American public won't particularly care. Mark my words, for every newspaper story about Iraqi civilian death, there will be at least twenty about the "courageous small town hero who piloted his F-16 in defense of freedom, only to be shot down in combat." The point is, Arab civilian casulties are easy to sweep under the rug.
Now, couple this with the fact that Bush Jr. can keep up the facade of his "war on terror" after failing to kill Bin Laden, and you've got all the reasons you need to go kick the crap out of some Arabs.
Did America learn nothing from watching the disintegration of 19th century European imperialism?
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: OJ
Date: 2003-02-03 17:25:27
On your first point, of course it would be impossible to link the case to Venezuela. After all, Venezuela hasn't been violating UN sanctions for the last 12 years. Iraq has. Regardless of any link between Hussein and bin Laden, Iraq violates UN sanctions and instigates terrorism and instability in the region. The war on terror is a lot bigger than just Osama bin Laden.
On your second point, I'm unclear about what US aiding Iraq in the 1980s has to do with Hussein's ongoing violation of UN sanctions and ambitions to develop WMDs. The US was trying to contain Iranian fundamentalism (and its Soviet ties) from spreading into the West's oil supply. Let's try to look at the bigger picture here. The US wasn't aiding Iraq on a whim.
Thirdly, of course Americans value the lives of their own over the lives of others. Just as Iraqis value their own lives more than American lives. And if Hussein was so concerned about the lives of children in his country, he would cooperate with the United Nations. He does not. He also gasses his own people. Why is it that those who are critical of removing Hussein completely ignore his transgressions and insist on focussing on contradictions in US foreign policy instead?
Finally, I'm unclear on what anything we're talking about here has to do with 19th century European imperialism. Let's try to avoid resorting to sensationalism.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: marl
Date: 2003-01-31 10:30:57
Just to address a couple of your comments. Who has authorized the so-called "no-fly zones"? Certainly not the U.N. The constant bombing of these areas of Iraq is illegal in the international community. As for Venezuela, the U.S. has tried twice ( the first time last April) to effect a coup of a democratically elected president in order to gain a foothold and more control of Venezuelan oil. Unfortunately for the U.S., President Chavez is immensely popular with the citizenry and their efforts have failed.
Finally, perhaps this interview with Hans Blix will address your concerns about Iraq's supposed WMD. This story was in the New York Times, Jan 31, in a two hour interview conducted in his office.
"Mr. Blix took issue with what he said were Secretary of State Colin L. Powell's claims that the inspectors had found that Iraqi officials were hiding and moving illicit materials within and outside of Iraq to prevent their discovery. He said that the inspectors had reported no such incidents.
Similarly, he said, he had not seen convincing evidence that Iraq was sending weapons scientists to Syria, Jordan or any other country to prevent them from being interviewed. Nor had he any reason to believe, as President Bush charged in his State of the Union speech, that Iraqi agents were posing as scientists.
He further disputed the Bush administration's allegations that his inspection agency might have been penetrated by Iraqi agents, and that sensitive information might have been leaked to Baghdad, compromising the inspections.
Finally, he said, he had seen no persuasive indications of Iraqi ties to Al Qaeda, which Mr. Bush also mentioned in his speech. "There are other states where there appear to be stronger links," such as Afghanistan, Mr. Blix said, noting that he had no intelligence reports on this issue."
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: OJ
Date: 2003-02-02 01:56:13
To respond to your comments:
- Actually, yes it was the UN who authorized the no-fly zones.
- Though I do not deny it is possible, there is no evidence to confirm US involvement in the attempted coup of Chavez. But please also note that Chavez himself has attempted a coup (also of a democratically elected government). So he's no innocent either. And if one looks at the riots in that country, it doesn't look like Chavez is as popular as you seem to suggest...
- On the al-Qaeda/Iraq link, I'm skeptical as well. That being said, Iraq is still a critical piece of the puzzle when it comes to peace and stability in the Middle East (which, by extension, links to Islamic terrorism in countries like the United States).
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: teststuart
Date: 2003-02-01 02:05:50
So how does Canada fit into this? Should Canada support the UN position of diplomacy, or the American foreign policy of brinksmanship?
I think both marl and OJ present valid perspectives. I feel the need to understand how to make those positions work together, and then how to build a nation on the principles that allow us to cooperate.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: OJ
Date: 2003-02-02 01:50:38
Well, being typically Canadian, I say we go straight down the middle.
Canada SHOULD promote the UN as the most appropriate forum to encourage peace and stability across the globe. But the UN needs to be given more teeth than it currently has. As Iraq has demonstrated, UN resolutions can easily be broken with absolutlely no fear of punishment for doing so (apart from sanctions...and we all know how well THOSE work).
In supporting a military intervention in Iraq, Canada is SUPPORTING the UN by setting a precedent to other countries that the UN is a credible organization, and that its members are serious about enforcing its resolutions. For this reason, I think that doing nothing is what is degrading UN credibility and authority in international relations. Diplomacy has been tried for 12 years to no avail. There comes a point where one has to draw the line and enforce UN resolutions...I believe that time is now. Therefore, Canada should support military action in Iraq. To do otherwise is to shirk our international responsibilities, and allow the UN to wither into irrelevance.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: marl
Date: 2003-02-10 21:13:44
Since you mentioned that Iraq is firing on planes in the so-called no-fly zones, perhaps you should read this.
“The issue of no fly zones was not raised and therefore not debated: not a word. They offer no legitimacy to countries sending their aircraft to attack Iraq.” – Dr. Boutros-Ghali, former Secretary General of the United Nations. [http://www.ccmep.org/2002_articles/Iraq/122002_secret_war.htm]
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: cfallon
Date: 2003-01-31 11:33:21
marl, millions of Iraqis and their neighbours are under threat so long as Saddam controls and profits from the oil fields that should be profiting the Iraqis as a whole.
And let me ask you, do you disbelieve everything the US government says? Is it only Hollywood that tells the truth about the evil conspiracies to liberate people and bring the rule of law to countries like Iraq?
Why does the Canadian left feel so good about providing the rhetorical fodder for corrupt leaders in that part of the world?
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: marl
Date: 2003-01-31 15:20:47
cfallon, since you asked, yes, I do disbelieve almost everything this present U.S. administration says. This has not always been my belief. There was a time when I thought most of the U.S. government's actions were based on a desire to improve the lot of humanity. However, since 911, there have been signs of increasing aggressiveness by the U.S. and outright lies being told to us in order to justify this war. Whatever happened to last year's bogeyman, Osama Bin Laden? Why does the present U.S. administration feel that there are no alternatives to bombing Iraq? Why is there such a rush to war? Why can't the weapons inspectors be given more time? None of these questions have been answered to my satisfaction or to the satisfaction of millions of other people on this planet. Have you taken note of the increased violence around the globe since the U.S. has taken this aggressive stance? Sadly, the U.S. has changed its largely beneficial influence in the world to that of a bully.
I am sure that you have noticed the sharp downturn in the U.S. economy. Could it possibly be true that the present U.S. administration, led by the IMF and others of its ilk, feels that a war and the death of thousands of civilians is justified in order to jumpstart the economy? Well, I don't want Canada to be a part of that. I do believe there is a better way.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: cfallon
Date: 2003-02-04 10:47:28
marl, first, let me say that I appreciate your unease with the US attitude. But I must respond:
1) Osama bin Laden is still a bogeyman. We removed Afghanistan as a state sponsor of his life work. We are now in the process of removing all potential sponsors of his work. He is on the run and without an infrastructure to support him, his work becomes much more difficult to complete.
2) I understand that you feel there is a rush to war. I don't think anything can be done to appease that legitimate concern.
3) Actually, violence on the planet was pretty dreadful even during the times when the US was isolationist. The 90s saw a spate of ethnic conflict that cannot be attributed to US aggression. (Rwanda, Angola, East Timor, IRAQ, Chechnya, Sierra Leone...)
4) No way. To suggest that people send soldiers to war to boost the economy is to call those people "evil". Also, an oil war is the most painful war the US must undertake as the US economy depends mightily on a LOW cost per barrel of oil. Even if a few fat cat oil execs make money, it pales in comparison to the hit that 300 millions US citizens take when oil is above $20 per barrel.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: marl
Date: 2003-02-16 14:50:54
cfallon, you state: "To suggest that people send soldiers to war to boost the economy is to call those people "evil". "
I would just like to quote a statement quoted today in the Canadian Press.
MALCOLM MORRISON
Canadian Press
Sunday, February 16, 2003
"Some Wall Street analysts expect a rally if bombs start falling on Baghdad, pointing to past stock surges coinciding with the outbreak of hostilities."
Does this constitute "evil" as you stated in your earlier message?
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: mark173
Date: 2003-02-05 14:47:18
Well said, reading statistics, believable or not, on life expectancys in Iraq, as well as the number of doctors per capita, it certainly seems to me that there are a few problems with the way funds are allocated in that country. If having oil makes a country rich, then Iraq must be rich? If they are so rich, why do they have such a high infant mortality rate? If oil equals money, then Iraq should have a non-existent infant mortality rate! It makes sense for a dictator to control the people in such a way as to also control their thoughts. I have never been there, so I guess I'm guessing, does Iraq share the same freedom of the media or information that we do? Would it be safe to say that Iraqi people watched the same news coverage of the UN Security council that I watched today? For some reason I think not.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: afrancis
Date: 2003-01-31 14:45:43
OJ,
Marl might have been responding to Liam who denied that oil prices were a factor in the "IRAQ" thread. We all agree that Liam is wrong.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Vermillion
Date: 2003-01-31 14:02:09
Circumstantial.
You make a liberal number of points about the importance of Oil to the United States, but can draw no links between them. You say Exxon donated $1.3 million to elections, so it must be about oil. The NRA donated $1.6 million to state and federal elections last year, does that mean it must be about guns?
I am tired of people saying that this potential war is about nothing but oil, which feeds conspiacy-theorists but ignores everything that has been going on in the region for 10 years. If its about oil, then the US would be invading Saudi Arabia which has more oil, is not as well defended, has MORE of a record of supporting terrorists and a worse human rights record.
I am not apologising for the US, I think their actions are wrong in a lot of ways. But the existing oil contracts are held by French and Russian companies for the most part, do you not thinkthey might object to the US unilaterally cancelling these contracts?
Afganistan was not about some penny-anny pipeline, Iraq is not about Oil. Both were and are about fear: fear of the United States of attacks against its home soil, fear of the Government of looking powerless, fear of mushroom clouds or clouds of spores appearing in Seattle or Miami, fear of loss of prestige and power in the world, fear of the unknown.
To just yell 'Oil, Oil!, every time the US acts is to diminish the reality of the middle-east, and to deminish the potential threat ofthe current Iraqi regime to regional stability.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Fleabag
Date: 2003-02-10 22:09:48
The US could not and would not dare invade Saudi Arabia. I agree with you that Saudi hands are very dirty in this whole matter. Most of the 9/11 terrorists were Saudi. Yet the US does not invade. They are the #1 producer of oil so is the case against them not greater than Iraq? The whole mess is more complex than many realize. Osama Bin Laden would not call Saudi Arabia by it's name (in the televised footage after 9/11)but instead referred to it as 'the land of the two holy places, those of course being Mecca and Medina. It is felt by many in the middle east that the Saudi Royals betrayed Islam by growing vastly wealthy on US dollars while Islam got nothing. The US cannot invade the holiest land in Islam without millions, perhaps billions, dying, and they know it. They are going in the Iraq to secure another source of oil before Saudi Arabia 'goes Muslim' and having no hope of a US friendly regime controlling the majority of Mid-East oil supply.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Waterloo
Date: 2003-02-02 20:38:11
Marl, the argument that the US is going to wage war for the sake of oil only is so ridiculously simplistic that it makes me laugh. I am sure that you are an intelligent person, however, your arguments are ignorant and ill informed.
Saddam Hussein does not account for thousands of WMD's he had only a few years ago, and there are few credible records of them being destroyed. He has proven to be a liar and it is far too great a risk to simply 'take his word for it'. Even the UN is dissatisfied with Iraq's 'declarations', and their lack of co-operation. Why do they not fully co-operate? Why do they not allow their scientists to speak without a government official present? It is painfully clear that they have a lot to hide.
Since Canada's security is also at risk from Iraq, we too must do our part in stopping this threat. We cannot have other nations sacrifice, while we sit back and merely reap the benefits of their sacrifices. No one wants war but a lot of people died in previous wars to ensure that we live free, and without fear. We cannot let those sacrifices be made in vain because of this generation's inaction.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Roberge
Date: 2003-02-05 21:02:25
As I was just saying to Cfallon (before reading your message), it's because they wanted peace and neutrality that Chamberlain signed the Munich Agreement with Hitler. If they had reacted before, we might have been dissuasive enough and avoided the Second World War.
It's by preparing war that we get peace and stability.
I think we are quite hypocritycal by leaving the Republicans doing the dirty job and then enjoying the benefits ourselves while blaming the Americans. (I already heard a commentator on CNN saying the same about the Democrats versus the Republicans.)And it's not because I'm a Republican. If I were an American, I would be a Democrat, but a Democrat at the center; I could negotiate some issues with the Republicans when a vote would come. Besides, I like very Colonel Powell.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: cfallon
Date: 2003-02-07 11:54:28
Roberge, thank you for your thoughts.
War is the worst activity a society must engage in. Everyone agrees with that.
But, if after much deliberation and reflection, you decide that war is the best of awful options, you will immediately be declared a butcher, or someone trying to grab at oil reserves, blah blah blah.
Never do the self-proclaimed "peace" activists give you the benefit of the doubt. Nor do they give you alternative courses of action.
And they are self-proclaimed peace activists. In the end, they do little to nothing to bring about peace on Earth.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: YvonLattrapé
Date: 2003-02-06 00:18:25
I agree with you, dear Waterloo. And in my opinion, I think we must support the war wanted by the USA, because if we don't, we would loose our access to cheap oil, which is necessary to our democratic society, because if oil is too expensive, how come would we freely travel?
I think also that President George W. Bush is a man of vision who is dedicated for the happiness of human kind. That's why we should support him, because he is a great thinker who can do so much to improve our world. He is a genious and I believe Canada should stand at his side.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: sara
Date: 2003-02-15 15:34:52
Whether oil is an issue or not, there is no concrete evidence proving Saddam Hussein has the nuclear weapons George W. Bush claims he has. Saddam Hussein has not threatened to attack his neighbours, nor the United States. According to international law,no country can attack another country unless that country itself has been attacked. So when was the United States attacked by Irak? Or does George W. Bush think his country is exempt from the rules that govern our international system? We cannot participate in an attack motivated by the hunch that Saddam Husseing might be lyeing. The weapons inspectors need sufficient time to come to their own unbiased conclusions. We must base our decisions on evidence, on the truth. What if Saddam Hussein isn't lyeing and the United States bombs thousands of innocent citizens based on a feeling it had that Saddam Hussein was an evil man? Would a "hunch" be recognized as valid evidence for killing innocent people in an international court?
Reply to this message
|
|
