Rumsfeld-Is this Guy Playing With A Full Deck?

[El Duque]

The latest proof Iraq has weapons from The Don

Rumsfeld: Lack of evidence could mean Iraq's hiding something

Why even bother with inspections when we all know they're gunna bomb the joint.

 

[SpaceMonkey]

Yeah, thats one of the stupider statements to come out of the US recently. Just drop the bloody bombs will ya?

 

[dubopov]

This man was handpicked by George Dubya...so this is what I'd expect..although it doesn't top his superb quote from a year ago "Bin Laden is either dead or he's alive..If he's alive,he's either in Afghanistan or he's not" !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Willow]

ABC radio played interviews with US servicepersonsin the middle east... these people are being mobilised for an attack on Iraq.
When asked why Iraq had to be invaded, they came up with a volley of different answers.

Things like,
'To stop terrorism'
'Because of the WTC on Sep 11th'
'Because they have weapons of mass destruction'
'Because Saddam Hassein is a mad dictator'
'To stop the spread of [Muslim]fundamentalism'

Interestingly, not one said it was because of the OIL.... that being the real reason.

 

[Willow]

These extracts from the CNN article that El Duque linked to:

"The fact that the inspectors have not yet come up with new evidence of Iraq's WMD program could be evidence, in and of itself, of Iraq's noncooperation," Rumsfeld said. "We do know that Iraq has designed its programs in a way that they can proceed in an environment of inspections and that they are skilled at denial and deception."

This is follow on from earlier comments from George Jnr who basically said, 'just because Iraq doesn't have weapons of mass destruction, doesn't mean they won't have any in the future, so we must stop them'
And equally, it is a contradiction in terms.
How could we have noevidence and then call it evidence?

"Rumsfeld said the United States and the United Nations have no obligation to prove that Iraq has continued efforts to develop nuclear, chemical or biological weapons. Instead, he said, Iraq must prove that it has abandoned them. "

So Iraq have to provide proof but the USA does not have to provide proof... am I missing something here?

 

[Cronulla_Mania]

"Interestingly, not one said it was because of the OIL.... that being the real reason."

Im not saying your wrong Willow, but its a big call to say that oil is the definite reason why they are over there. If we all take off our cynicism hats for just one second, is it just possible that perhaps Saddam is a guy that needs to be kicked out of power? At the very least, the way he controls his people is deplorable. Spends up on the weaponary, the elections have not been fair for a long time. And thats not to mention the lack of an opposition party

Its a genuine question

Moffo

 

[Willow]

Fair enough Moffo... Saddam Hussein is one bad fella. But there are quite a few like him who don't seem to be bothered. Why is that? It may be because they toe the line or maybe they simply don't have anything that the USA wants.
Maybe its a bit of both.

Nevertheless, history tells us that invasions (and it is an invasion in this case) are to do with aquiring something that doesnt belong to you. America isenforcing itscontrol over Arab oil.

It shouldn't be forgotten that when Iran was trying to spread Fundamentalist ideals across the Arab world, it was Iraq who stood up to them. Iraqwas prompted into action when the Iran-backed Kurds started attacking Iraqi installations.

Back then (in the eighties), Iran was the enemy of the USA and we had US citizens calling for the annhilation of the Iran and the Ayatollah Khemani.
Sadam Hussein and Iraq was seen as fighting the good fight.

Times have changed. In 1990/1, Saddam marches into Kuwait, which is a US puppet state and annexes it as part of Iraq. Keep in mind that Kuwait is the fuel stop for the US Navy and Airforce and it goes without saying, that this would not be tolerated. Then the shit has been hitting the fan ever since.

Domestically, the Yankshave the cheapest fuel in the world and the biggest economy in the world. Keeping the US consumer in motor vehicles is an important part of their economy.

Nevertheless, its well known that the USA has massive oil reserves at its disposal and wants to hang onto them. Its like Fort Knox to them. When the world oil powers run out, the USA will be left standing and holding all the cards.

The only trick is that they have to keep buying up the oil from elsewhere at bargain basement prices.
Thus far, they have managed to get most of the Arab states to fall into line, that is, except for Iraq who wants to charge more than the US are willing to pay. The sanctions were all part of this...the 'oil for food' sham showed were the western priorities were kept.

It is all to do with oil, Moffo. And its all to do with burning it off atrapid rate they keep selling us more. Bugger the rest of the world...the US (and Aust)don't give a stuff about the global warming and the Kyoto Protocol.

In the end, the USA can give us as many reasons as they like, but the aquisition of foreign (and cheap) oil supplies is the key to their well being.

 

[CanadianSteve]

I don't totally buy the oil conspiracy idea, Willow, but I'm sure there's some truth in it. Hypothetical - what would happen if an alternative energy source was developed that replaced oil? I'm not expecting you or anyone to have a definitive answer; I just think it's an interesting speculation.

 

[imported_JoeD]

I have to back up Willow, its all about the oil. Yes Saddam is a bad guy but there are plenty of bad guys in the world and you don't see Bush running off to try and stop them. As for the service men being interviewed you can't really blame them for what they said. If you were going to go risk your life half way around the world then you'd have to believe it was for a good cause and not just for the oil. The one and only (and last) time I was in Bali, we ran into some US marines coming back from the Gulf. They were on shore leave and drinking it up. Calls of "AMERICA RULES" were not uncommon. Just being in the army and hearing the same propoganda every day, you'd be brainwashed almost instantly.

 

[imported_midas]

Willow
There are too many holes in the oil conspiracy theory.Today oil has jumped to $US33.21 a barrell,mainly because of the Venezuelan situation.Pump prices in the US have gone to 65c. per litre and their inventory has dropped to 272.0 m barrells-about 20 days supply and just above the critical level.
Where is the US control in all this?
OPEC have agreed to increase production to make up the Venezuelan shortfall but this will take a couple of months to kick in.
So if one producer like Venezuela can have this effect on the market,having control of Iraq,s oil would only give you minimal influence in the market place-it is no more important than,say,Nigeria.
The reason for George Dubya,s zeal lies elsewhere-personal,strategic,idealogical,who knows?Only George Dubya and his advisors.

 

[Willow]

Canadian Steve: "I don't totally buy the oil conspiracy idea.. but I'm sure there's some truth in it..."
IMO, its not so much a conspiracy but an observation. You only have to look at what they were fighting over in the last Gulf War. They say it was to liberate the small state of Kuwait (not a democratic country, btw) but even a republican will agree that it was also to 'protect American interests'.
One can only speculate as to what was more important:
1.) To liberate Kuwait who have a political system which denies the vote to its own citizens.
or,
2.) To protect American interests.

Its up toeach individual to decide what is the overiding factor.

"Hypothetical - what would happen if an alternative energy source was developed that replaced oil?"
If that happened, we would find the US suddenly losing interest in Iraq.

I know its not an environmental debate but there is a link.
Alternative fuel sources exist. Examples include solar energy, wind power, hydro electricity, tidal generators, solar funnels etc.
It all depends on the conditions offcourse but these arealternatives to oil and coal.
These alternatives are not as efficient but this can be traced back to lack of funding into research. For example, the development of solar funnels in southern NSW and Northern Victoria is being stilfled. Another example; people complain about wind generators (there's one report that saysthey look ugly) but once again, the development of this is a slow process.
There arethose in Australiawho don't really want to see us with an alternative to coal.
There's still plenty of coalto dig up and its fetches a good income.

The same with oil. It is there and is available NOW. Furthermore, it is hard wired into the US economy.

In the meantine, alternative fuel research has to survive on a shoe string budget and even though we have have abundant re-usable energy in Australia, the development of this is simply not a government priority.

JoeD: "As for the service men being interviewed you can't really blame them for what they said."
It was just to illustate that a lot of people are not sure what they are fighting for. I guess they have to be confident and I don't blame them for that.

Interesting parallel with Vietnam though. The troops then thought they fighting against the evil Ho Chi Mingh who was trying to take over the world. Communism was seen as the threat and communist leaders were seen as the oppressors.
It was after the soldiers landed that they they started questioning the logic of this. To this day, people are still unsure as to why the US got involved in Vietnam.

 

[imported_JoeD]

Midas, I'm not surehow the oil stocks of Venezuela compare with those of Iraq but my guess is that they would be fairly small. (please correct me if I'm wrong as the following argument is based on that presumption) So assuming I'm right and a small oil producing nation can have that kind of influence over the market, imagine what effect you could with control over large stocks of oil.

 

[Willow]

midas:
You're right, they can't control everything.
Havent read the news about oil prices and the situation in Venezuela. But imo, these are more fluctuations (or 'corrections' in stock market terms?) and not really an issue in the long run.
The aim of any expanding economy is to control such things. The US cannot control everything but thats the direction (through foreign policy)they are heading in.

 

[imported_JoeD]

I agree Willow, they don't know what they are fighting for, they are completely brainwashed. An excellent movie is 'Three Kings' starring Mark Wahlburg and George Clooney. To anybody who hasn't seen it, go and rent it.

 

[chilli]

FIX THE SADMAN UP U.S.A OR HE WILL GIVE NUKES TO BINLADEN & NUKE KOREA WHILE YOUR AT IT

 

[dubopov]

Willow...A couple of points..
1.The upcoming Yank invasion is more about EGO than OIL....Dubya wants to get Hussein because "he tried to kill my daddy"..Howard also is motivated by EGO..He wants to go down in History as a great PM..so being PM during a war would ice his cake !! The poor deluded fool..He makes Billy McMahon look good !!
2.Kuwait was actually a part of Iraq but was taken from them by the Poms after WW1...as far as I'm concerned it should be given back !!...Same deal with Israel..it is Palestinian territory..

 

[imported_JoeD]

I have a feeling this could be the new 'thoughts on society thread' . . .

Ego undoubtedly has a part to play but there is much more than just one man behind this decision. As for give back Kuwait because it used to be part of Iraq? How about let the Kuwaitis make up thier own mind? Or to take another tack why don't you give australia back to the aborigines because it used to belong to them.

 

[imported_midas]

Dubopov
Don,t know about the ego thing with George Dubya.I find it impossible to understand that someone would want to go to those lengths to balance his Daddy,s scorecard.
If this was true ,it would mean Bush is as big a madman as Saddam or Osama and I would rather not believe that at this stage.I mean,he,s a dope but I hope not a madman.
As for John Howard,there is no ego involved imo.our only means of protection against an aggressive neighbour (and we have one) is our alliance with the US ,so yes we have to be their lackeys,like it or not.

 

[imported_JoeD]

Midas, how did being mates with Bush help protect you in the Bali bombings? Surely it was the relationship with the US that your government has that made you a target in the first place.

 

[dubopov]

Midas..Your fears are realized...The 'daddy' quote is real..a direct quote from Bush..I'll agree to disagree with your Howard view..