Oil a Motive for Aussies in Iraq

Aliantha · 07-05-2007, 04:15 AM

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

Quote:

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 · 07-05-2007, 07:15 AM

What's the price of gas where you are?

Hagar · 07-05-2007, 04:16 PM

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 · 07-05-2007, 04:33 PM

Quote:

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 · 07-05-2007, 04:50 PM

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?

Aliantha · 07-05-2007, 05:29 PM

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?

TheMercenary · 07-05-2007, 05:32 PM

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 · 07-05-2007, 05:51 PM

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.

Undertoad · 07-05-2007, 05:58 PM

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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).

Aliantha · 07-05-2007, 06:02 PM

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 · 07-05-2007, 06:15 PM

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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?

Aliantha · 07-05-2007, 06:22 PM

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 · 07-05-2007, 06:25 PM

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

piercehawkeye45 · 07-05-2007, 06:34 PM

Attacking Iran is the stupidest thing we can do, especially now.

Iran is much more united and has a much stronger military, plus it would hurt relations with China. Just allowing Iran to breathe for the next few years is the best thing we can do for it.

Contrary to popular belief, Ahmadinejad is not the ruler of Iran, they have a postion called the Supreme Ruler. The guy who has that postion right now, Ali Khameni, is much more sane. I don't have a cite for this but everything I've heard (right and left sources) say that the current administatraion in Iran is very unpopular with the people and the people of Iran just hate the American government, not the people.

Plus, Iran can not get nuclear weapons for at least 13 years.

Quote:

With such a small number of machines, it would take 13 years to produce enough highly enriched uranium for a nuclear weapon,

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing...an-nukes_x.htm

TheMercenary · 07-05-2007, 06:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

Attacking Iran is the stupidest thing we can do, especially now.

Iran is much more united and has a much stronger military, plus it would hurt relations with China. Just allowing Iran to breathe for the next few years is the best thing we can do for it.

Contrary to popular belief, Ahmadinejad is not the ruler of Iran, they have a postion called the Supreme Ruler. The guy who has that postion right now, Ali Khameni, is much more sane. I don't have a cite for this but everything I've heard (right and left sources) say that the current administatraion in Iran is very unpopular with the people and the people of Iran just hate the American government, not the people.

I would certainly agree with these statements.

Quote:

Plus, Iran can not get nuclear weapons for at least 13 years.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing...an-nukes_x.htm

Not sure I would buy this one. There are many subject matter experts out there who would disagree.

07-05-2007, 05:29 PM	#6
Aliantha trying hard to be a better person Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Brisbane, Australia Posts: 16,493	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? __________________ Kind words are the music of the world. F. W. Faber

07-05-2007, 05:32 PM	#7
TheMercenary “Hypocrisy: prejudice with a halo” Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Savannah, Georgia Posts: 21,393	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. __________________ Anyone but the this most fuked up President in History in 2012!

07-05-2007, 05:51 PM	#8
Aliantha trying hard to be a better person Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Brisbane, Australia Posts: 16,493	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. __________________ Kind words are the music of the world. F. W. Faber

07-05-2007, 06:02 PM	#10
Aliantha trying hard to be a better person Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Brisbane, Australia Posts: 16,493	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. __________________ Kind words are the music of the world. F. W. Faber

07-05-2007, 06:22 PM	#12
Aliantha trying hard to be a better person Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Brisbane, Australia Posts: 16,493	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. __________________ Kind words are the music of the world. F. W. Faber

07-05-2007, 07:15 AM	#2
Undertoad Radical Centrist Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Cottage of Prussia Posts: 31,423	What's the price of gas where you are?

07-05-2007, 04:16 PM	#3
Hagar Master of the Domain Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Brisbane, Australia Posts: 220	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!"

07-05-2007, 04:50 PM	#5
Undertoad Radical Centrist Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Cottage of Prussia Posts: 31,423	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?

07-05-2007, 06:25 PM	#13
Undertoad Radical Centrist Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Cottage of Prussia Posts: 31,423	I didn't know that. I'm sorry.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)