Oil a Motive for Aussies in Iraq

[Aliantha]

According to Mr Howard, our esteemed PM, the need to protect oil resources is a big part of the reason we're in iraq.

From here

Australia's defense minister said Thursday that protecting Iraq's oil supplies is one of his country's motivations for keeping troops in Iraq, adding a new government justification for its mission.

Defense Minister Brendan Nelson's inclusion of global energy security as a reason for keeping troops in Iraq is likely to ad weight to war protesters' arguments that the 2003 U.S.-led invasion was more an oil grab than a bid to uncover Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction, which proved to be nonexistent.

So here we go. What do you think about that?

[Undertoad]

What's the price of gas where you are?

[Hagar]

Petrol is at about $1.25/litre at the moment. It jumped up a bit this week.

As for the "we're there for the oil", meh.

I heard a segment of the interview on the radio yesterday, and oil was mentioned as one of the motivations for staying there. Nelson's only voicing what we all know to be true, but if the media reports were a bit less sensationalised, we'd all be better off.

It's all a bit "stability, blah - Iraq, blah - security, blah - terrorism, blah - oil, OMG!!!! he said "OIL" - There's the headline boys!"

[elSicomoro]

Originally Posted by Aliantha

According to Mr Howard, our esteemed PM, the need to protect oil resources is a big part of the reason we're in iraq.

I suspect its one of the main reasons why the US is there too, and why we went to Kuwait in 1991. Oil is currently the true power...water is on its way to replacing oil though, IMO.

[Undertoad]

Well, if we are really there to steal the oil, why don't we do it already? The price per barrel of crude has since more than doubled, over high demand and lack of security, exactly what this is supposed to be about? Let's take the freakin oil already, if that's what it's all about.

If we really have no agenda other than to secure all the world's oil, why did we focus on Iraq's 10% of it? Why didn't we go right after Iran's 11%? It would have been easier, would have prevented Iran from colluding in Afghanistan and Syria and Lebanon and the West Bank. And there's no doubt about their WMD plans. And the Arabs would be overjoyed. So why didn't we do that, if oil was the reason? Why why why why why?

[elSicomoro]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Well, if we are really there to steal the oil, why don't we do it already? The price per barrel of crude has since more than doubled, over high demand and lack of security, exactly what this is supposed to be about? Let's take the freakin oil already, if that's what it's all about.

My reasoning is more along the lines of what Mercenary said...it's not about taking the oil, but making sure nothing happens to it.

UT, you seem to be assuming that what was initially said was, "This is only about oil." No one said that prior to your post. If I'm misreading you, I apologize.

[Aliantha]

In what way would it have been easier to invade Iran?

The fact that no one's made a grab for Iraq's oil yet is definitely no indicator of anyone's intention not to do so in the future.

The whole invasion of Iraq and 'liberating' the people etc is simply colonialism. I've mentioned this before and it's unlikely anyone will convince me otherwise simply because all the clues are there.

A. We want to show the people of Iraq a 'better' way of life. (better in who's eyes)

B. We're there fighting Muslim extremists (supposedly) who threaten our way of life. (as opposed to cannibals and heathens of the past)

C. They have something we don't but we want it.

Historically, the stronger nation has taken what they want from the weaker one and it's always been couched in lies and deciets to make the general population of the stronger country feel good about what they're doing. Over time, the culture and history of the weaker country is destroyed until very few of the indigenous residents even remember or care anymore.

This is a historical fact.

Explain to me how these things are not happening in Iraq. Are you going to tell me there has been no further introduction of Christian churches since this invasion? Are we not trying to change the way the people of this country have always lived? Do we not need oil?

[Undertoad]

Originally Posted by Aliantha

In what way would it have been easier to invade Iran?

I'm no expert, but: because you get almost two fronts just from having a huge border with Afghanistan, and a third front is easily negotiated for with Armenia instead of having an insane last-minute debacle with Turkey, and it's roughly 500 air miles to Teheran from both Kuwait and western Afghanistan.

The fact that no one's made a grab for Iraq's oil yet is definitely no indicator of anyone's intention not to do so in the future.

Well WTF are they waiting for? I really wish they would get on with it, my truck's tank is 18 gallons (68 litres).

[TheMercenary]

I don't believe we are there to steal oil, only to ensure a stable supply continues to come our way for the foreseable future. If we pull out, Iran moves in.

[Aliantha]

Yes, and someone else gets the oil you want. That's exactly the point.

Colonialism isn't always as blatant as simply taking over. It's changing the structure of a country to suit the stronger country's needs. In the world as it is today, it would be almost impossible to just go in there and declare Iraq a US or British or even Australian colony (call it what you will). Instead, these governments have to achieve the outcome they desire by alternative means.

[Aliantha]

UT, considering the fact that we absolutely know and have known for a very long time that Iran does and has had WMD for a very long time, I would think that'd be a pretty good reason not to piss them off too much.

Of course, I could be wrong, but it makes more sense to me that the countries around Iran are begining to unite which would certainly make life easier if anyone from the 'coallition of the willing' did decide to have a go.

What are they waiting for? They're waiting to set the government up and then do a contra deal with them about who gets the best price for their oil, considering who put them in power and how much it cost to put them there.

[Undertoad]

UT, considering the fact that we absolutely know and have known for a very long time that Iran does and has had WMD for a very long time, I would think that'd be a pretty good reason not to piss them off too much.

And remember, the rapist might have a gun, so just lie back and do whatever he demands.

They're waiting to set the government up and then do a contra deal with them about who gets the best price for their oil, considering who put them in power and how much it cost to put them there.

Oh! OK! So when ExxonMobil gets a better rate per barrel than Royal Dutch Shell or (France's) Total S. A., we'll know the fix is in!!

So which US government official will be at the meetings where they negotiate the rates? And what discount will be enough reward?

[tw]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

And remember, the rapist might have a gun, so just lie back and do whatever he demands.

Funny how nobody needed a gun until the rapist - the United States - started imposing its unlateral will on other nations. There is good reason why wacko extremists in the American government are called 'big dic' thinkers. Containment worked just fine - especially in Iraq. Suddenly wacko extremists want to fix the world?

Iran had no significant nuclear program until "Axis of Evil". Even the Iranian people were, instead, advocating reform and removal of their wacko extremists. And then the 'big dics' took over in Washington. Suddenly America was going to fix the world as defined a paper that became the basis for Project for a New American Century. Its called pre-emption. Historically, it does not work. Containment worked just fine for everyone except those who rewrite history with a 'big dic' mentality.

That original draft that resulted in PNAC openly called for 'Pearl Harboring' of India, Germany, or Russia. And yet still the world did not take these wacko American extremists seriously.

Who now is the rapist? Who has made it necessary for most every nation in the region - including Turkey - to have nuclear weapons? Who advocates unilateral wars to impose their government on all others? Who is the rapist that openly states it will unilaterally attack other nations only for a political agenda?

I never thought you were an arsehole before UT.

But UT advocates military solutions even though "Mission Accomplished" and Nam both proves those to be foolhardy.

Every nation in the Middle East should consider every WMD they can master. It is necessary to protect the region from those who advocate solutions in unilateral military excursions - also called pre-emption.

What do we call the next war? "Mission Gratification"? It would be appropriate.

Why is Mahmoud Ahmadinejad popular enough to be elected? Iran's Hitler is found in a recent version of Mein Kampf - the 'Axis of Evil' speech. Even moderate Iranians now support Iran's nuclear program. They would be unpatriotic to oppose it.

Those who did not see the danger and threat to all Americans in that 2003 speech never learned history - never learned what made America a great and respected nation especially during and after the Cold War.

The only hope we have of bringing long term stability to the region - concepts from good people such as Mohamed ElBaradei and negotiation. But then that had always been the solution. The US, instead, is even advocating the destruction of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. When wacko Americans (President Cheney) threatened unilateral war, well now Iran must develop a nuclear program. Only those with one-side perspectives (who also endorse something stupid called pre-emption) would not see beyond the testosterone thrill of more war.

What UT advocates will only lead to more war. But then that is what Cheney wants, what the most wacko of Israel's Lukid also want, and what Islamic extremists advocate. Makes one wonder is UT has thought this out far enough to appreciate the massive reality in Aliantha's post.

[Aliantha]

I never thought you were an arsehole before UT. Why would you say such a thing?

You don't like my reasoning so you decide to say something personal that you know is difficult for me?

I never thought you'd bring yourself so low.

I'm done with this thread.

[Undertoad]

I didn't know that. I'm sorry.