|
|
|
Wag
 
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: Today @ 3:57 PM
Posts: 1,040,
Visits: 8,197
|
|
unlike Blair who did the WMD thing. And did they ever clear up what happenned to the scientist that 'committed suicide', the one that penned the WMD document?
_____________________________________________________
RL: Mr Sofar
Curved core weaponry and bespoke stuff.
ShelfordFX
|
|
|
|
|
Champion
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: Wednesday, July 16, 2008 3:56 PM
Posts: 371,
Visits: 870
|
|
I was under the impression that George Bush was very much pushing the WMD line - I've seen a decent number of interviews that show that. maybe he was pushing regime change at the same time, I dont know, but I thought that regime change was something claimed after no WMDs turned up.
In response to both your points, surely invading for oil and invading to improve American interests in the Middle East are not at all mutually exclusive?
------
PD - Machupa Kivull - Sandy coloured great-coated Gnoll
Shards/Ascendancy - Crew
FOIP is short for 'torture me for more info'
|
|
|
|
|
Prodigal
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: Yesterday @ 10:56 PM
Posts: 945,
Visits: 1,362
|
|
| To be honest, I spend my whole life writing reports backed up by a variety of facts and figures- the idea if having to provide references on an internet discussion forum, based almost entirely on personal opinion is just too much of a hassle, so I dont do links. However it was fairly widely reported in the news last year- the new Iraqi government's 1st decision was to allow 4 (I think) western oil companies to manage their Oil fields and maximise production, in return I recall that they were allowed to take between 30 and 40% (negotiated on an individual basis)of the profits. As I said, a very happy coincidence, and nothing at all to do with the war???
|
|
|
|
|
Wag
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: Tuesday, July 15, 2008 10:03 AM
Posts: 1,270,
Visits: 1,732
|
|
Shelford (5/15/2008)
[quote]And did they ever clear up what happenned to the scientist that 'committed suicide', the one that penned the WMD document?
I seem to recall they had an enquiry on a related issue. And like all enquiries since the beginning of time, where the judge, juror and excutioner are chosen by the government, they entirely vindicated Blair et al in what was widely regarded as a white wash. But I could be getting confused with some other war related white wash the government engineered. Another triumph for our democracy.
History is an important source for LRP. Along with other works of fiction.
|
|
|
|
|
Wag
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: Today @ 3:57 PM
Posts: 1,040,
Visits: 8,197
|
|
If I remember correctly the day before the enquiry meeting said scientist went for a walk and then cut his own wrist. The paramedics that attended later called a press conferance where that said there just wasn't enough blood at the scene. They didn't talk about it much after being told off by someone and it all got covered up. All a bit suspicious.
_____________________________________________________
RL: Mr Sofar
Curved core weaponry and bespoke stuff.
ShelfordFX
|
|
|
|
|
Wag
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: Tuesday, July 15, 2008 10:03 AM
Posts: 1,270,
Visits: 1,732
|
|
Shven (5/15/2008)
I was under the impression that George Bush was very much pushing the WMD line - I've seen a decent number of interviews that show that. maybe he was pushing regime change at the same time, I dont know, but I thought that regime change was something claimed after no WMDs turned up.
*shrug* Unfortunately it's a bit difficult to prove now, without extensive research, or at least I thought it would be. So off I trundled to wikipedia. And it gave me some nice quotes like:
Wikipedia
The term has been popularized by recent US Presidents. Bill Clinton and George W. Bush regularly used the term in reference to Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq.
Wikipedia
Regime change in Iraq became a stated goal of United States foreign policy when Public Law 105-338 (the "Iraq Liberation Act") was signed into law by U.S. President Bill Clinton. The act directed that: - It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime.
That's just one source of course, and it's only wikipedia, but my memory of the affair was that prior to extensive British involvement, roughly 6-12 months before the war started, around the time the decision appeared (to my subjective judgment) to have been taken to invade Iraq, the Brush regime talked extensively about regime change and made minimal references to WMD and even terrorism. Blair often boasted about his influence on Bush and in this case I felt he was right. As Bush worked to get Blair and Britain involved, it appeared to me that Blair convinced Bush to spin one great big pack of lies about why they were doing this, and suddenly talk of WMD was everywhere. This was because Blair rightly appreciated that the UN charter (which is a deeply foolish piece of paper) was created to prevent exactly this.
Wikipedia
After leaving the administration, former Bush treasury secretary Paul O'Neill said that an attack on Iraq had been planned since the inauguration, and that the first National Security Council meeting involved discussion of an invasion."
This, it should be noted is BEFORE 9/11. Not just before Afghanistan and Blair with all his ridiculous talk of terrorism as the greatest challenge of the new millenium. Then after 9/11.
Wikipedia
Some Bush advisers favored an immediate invasion of Iraq, while others advocated building an international coalition and obtaining United Nations authorization. Bush eventually decided to seek U.N. authorization, while still holding out the possibility of invading unilaterally.
I could go on at length, but everything you read on Wikipedia and everything I read in the media at the time in the 2-3 years running up to the Iraq invasion gave the same impression. That the Americans always wanted to invade Iraq to change the regime. If you read editorials and articles from neocon writers in the papers at the time they were very clear about why they wanted to do it, namely to transform the region into a democratic area (You'd think the Americans had learned about how wrong Domino theory is by now!). There was no talk in these articles about oil or about WMD, it was about changing the world to suit American tastes. Taking regimes that the neocons felt were poor natural allies of the Americans and replacing them with more loyal and "natural" allies. A sort of democratic version of the Third Reich if I can risk Godwin's ire so foolishly.
After Blair got involved he seemed to get strong commitment from the Americans to go the UN route in the belief that he couldn't get an illegal invasion past his party and his electorate (wrong as it turned out) and probably because he really did believe that invading people "legally" was better than doing it "illegally". Regime change is illegal under the UN charter, so they needed a casus belli, and they felt WMD was the one to go with. From then on the talk was all about WMD and the close links between Iraq (a socialist secular state led by a chain smoking, drinking, womanising "muslim") and the muslim extremists, despite the fact that no WMD existed and neither did any links between Al Qaeda and the Baathists. Occasionally Bush would go wildly off message, and talk about regime change and the fact they were gonna do it anyway, but then Blair would fly over and they'd stand together and say things like "Must wait for the UN process to run it's course" "WMD" "Terrorists" "Terrorists" "WMD". So in the time space between the decision to invade and the abandonment of the UN resolution giving authorization to do so, there was plenty of talk of WMD but it never seemed very credible. And critically before Blair's involvement the tone of the Americans was very different.
In response to both your points, surely invading for oil and invading to improve American interests in the Middle East are not at all mutually exclusive?
Quite the contrary. There are a lot of unpopular, unhelpful, non-obedient regimes in Africa but there has never been a neocon agenda to transform that region through firepower that I know of. The middle east is the region of interest to American foreign policy and fundamentally that's because of oil. I think if you try to classify it as an invasion for oil, the analysis is too thin and misses the fact that for many of the neocons involved the war was about a philosophical principle, namely bringing democracy to the region. Their purpose in doing so, however, was not to shower the Iraqi people with love and joy but to ensure that they ended up with a government in control of Iraqi oil which was highly sympathetic to American policy. It's also true that the 9/11 attacks inflated the sense of threat posed by regimes like Iraq which added urgency to the neocon argument for replacing them using overwhelming firepower. In that sense WMD were an issue, but the true motivation was always regime change, as far as I could tell.
History is an important source for LRP. Along with other works of fiction.
|
|
|
|
|
Wag
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: Tuesday, July 15, 2008 10:03 AM
Posts: 1,270,
Visits: 1,732
|
|
Andy Rimmer (5/15/2008)
To be honest, I spend my whole life writing reports backed up by a variety of facts and figures- the idea if having to provide references on an internet discussion forum, based almost entirely on personal opinion is just too much of a hassle, soI dont do links.
That's fair enough, it is only the Muggers Alley after-all. I asked because I'm genuinely interested, if there was evidence to support your claim, which I don't believe there is, then I'd like to see it. I personally like to quote things in support of my claims these days because I find it stops me diverging as wildly from reality as I am otherwise prone to do. I've heard both sides of this argument a few times, so it would take some evidence to convince me what you said was true, particularly in light of the fact that it doesn't make sense to me, given what little I can see of the political, military and economic situation regarding Iraq.
However it was fairly widely reported in the news last year- the new Iraqi government's 1st decision was to allow 4 (I think) western oil companies to manage their Oil fields and maximise production, in return I recall that they were allowed to take between 30 and 40% (negotiated on an individual basis)of the profits.
Ok. Is that the Lion's share? What profit would you expect them to take? Presumably you'd accept that a commercial enterprise like Haliburton, tying to rebuild an oil industry in a war zone wouldn't do it for nothing. So what rate is acceptable?
I honestly don't know, I think it would be interesting to compare the rates of return that oil companies get in other countries to have a better idea. I'd expect the rates to be higher in Iraq, but a comparable region might be the operations of Shell in the Niger delta region. So... off I went to wikipedia! And it said.
Wikipedia
The joint venture is composed of Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation (55 percent), Shell (30 percent), TotalFinaElf (10 percent) and Agip (5 percent) and operates largely onshore on dry land or in the mangrove swamp.
My grasp of the oil business fu is weak, but it would appear to me that the foreign multinationals have a combined stake of 45% in the oil pumping in the region, which unless I've messed up (which is possible) means that they are entitled to 45% of the profits. So 5-15% higher than the profits awarded to the multinationals in Iraq.
Which would fit with what I would expect. Multinationals clamouring for profit (as they should, that's their job), from a very unpleasant place to work and do business weighed against an American administration's desire to see as much of the money go into rebuilding the country as possible, so that they can get the hell out of Dodge.
30-40% might be the Lion's share to you, but it doesn't seem out of line with the normal returns for the oil industry? To me, at a glance at the figures. (Obviously the complexities of who paid for what are much deeper than this in reality, but these are the easiest figures to hand).
AsI said, a very happy coincidence, and nothing at all to do with the war??? They didn't spend a trillion dollars invading Somalia. No oil in Mogadishu. I freely accept that oil was what made the area important to the Americans. I just don't accept that the whole thing was explicitly designed to profit big oil companies. Of course they've benefited, but ironically I suspect that those oil companies not in Iraq right now have benefitted more from the invasion than those oil companies who are in Iraq. I'd much rather run a multi-national benefiting from oil prices of $120 a barrel because oil production in Iraq is fucked up and not be having my employees shot at than be benefiting from it despite being involved in a fucked up attempt to rebuild Iraq that involved having my employees shot at. But I think if you deliberately ignore the wider philosophical position that underpins the neocon approach and simply claim it's down to graft and corruption and a desire to make money for Haliburton then I think you miss too much of the complexity of what happened and why.
History is an important source for LRP. Along with other works of fiction.
|
|
|
|
|
Prodigal
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: Yesterday @ 10:56 PM
Posts: 945,
Visits: 1,362
|
|
| | |