ou812 Posted May 2 Report Share Posted May 2 U.S., U.K. Waged War on Iraq Because of Oil, Blair Adviser SaysBy James KirkupLondon, May 1 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. and U.K. went to war against Iraq because of the Middle East country's oil reserves, an adviser to British Prime Minister Tony Blair said.Sir Jonathan Porritt, head of the Sustainable Development Commission, which advises Blair's government on ecological issues, said the prospect of winning access to Iraqi oil was ''a very large factor'' in the allies' decision to attack Iraq in March."I don't think the war would have happened if Iraq didn't have the second-largest oil reserves in the world,'' Porritt said in a Sky News television interview.Opponents of the war, including some members of Blair's Labour Party, have said that the conflict was aimed at securing Iraqi reserves to benefit Western economies and oil companies. U.S. and U.K. leaders have repeatedly rejected that, saying the war began because Iraq held illegal weapons and threatened other countries.Blair has said he wants Iraqi oil revenues to be held in a United Nations-run trust fund and spent on rebuilding Iraq. Secretary of State Colin Powell said yesterday the U.S. may encourage Iraq to set up an oil revenue-sharing system that would distribute some proceeds from what he called the ''marvelous treasure'' to Iraqi citizens.Oil production in Iraq was halted before the U.S.-led attack that toppled President Saddam Hussein. According to UN data, the nation is losing about $55 million a day in oil revenue as the U.S., the European Union and the Iraqi people debate postwar reconstruction plans.Porritt's commission was set up in 2000 to advise the U.K. government on making economic and business activity compatible with environmental-protection policies. The body reports directly to Blair.This isn't the first time Porritt has criticized the U.K. government. In October 2000, he said Blair and his ministers had failed to fulfill election promises on ecological issues. this was taken from www.fromthewilderness.com which took it from www.bloomberg.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cintron Posted May 2 Report Share Posted May 2 somehow i'm not suprised a member of the government would criticize it by making a statement like that. We could get an ambitious congressman to say the same over here and use it as a basis for popularity, even if it isn't entirely accurate.hell i could get Roseanne Barr on TV to say it was about oil. Doesn't mean it was. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kramadas Posted May 2 Report Share Posted May 2 Originally posted by cintron somehow i'm not suprised a member of the government would criticize it by making a statement like that. We could get an ambitious congressman to say the same over here and use it as a basis for popularity, even if it isn't entirely accurate.hell i could get Roseanne Barr on TV to say it was about oil. Doesn't mean it was. I don't think you'd believe it if even Blair and Bush came out and said it was for oil!!! Thats the irony of it! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr mahs Posted May 2 Report Share Posted May 2 Originally posted by raver_mania I don't think you'd believe it if even Blair and Bush came out and said it was for oil!!! Thats the irony of it! I hope it was all about oil... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frenchbread Posted May 2 Report Share Posted May 2 Originally posted by raver_mania I don't think you'd believe it if even Blair and Bush came out and said it was for oil!!! Thats the irony of it! ...that's also what i think...and that's sad...and cintron, he's not "Roseanne Barr"...he's the head of a commission that advises blair...but like raver_mania said, you guys wouldn't believe it even if bush, cheney, powel, blair and straw came out on fox news and swore it on the bible...Originally posted by mr mahs I hope it was all about oil...oh so now it's about oil?...please man...how many times have you guys changed the reason why we were going there?...u.n resoultion...wmd's...al qaeda...liberation of iraqi people...now oil...?...why denying it so hard for so long then?...and if you agree(or hope) that "it was all about oil", don't you think it's immoral and wrong to claim it's for the good of the iraqi people?... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr mahs Posted May 2 Report Share Posted May 2 Originally posted by frenchbread ...that's also what i think...and that's sad...and cintron, he's not "Roseanne Barr"...he's the head of a commission that advises blair...but like raver_mania said, you guys wouldn't believe it even if bush, cheney, powel, blair and straw came out on fox news and swore it on the bible...oh so now it's about oil?...please man...how many times have you guys changed the reason why we were going there?...u.n resoultion...wmd's...al qaeda...liberation of iraqi people...now oil...?...why denying it so hard for so long then?...and if you agree(or hope) that "it was all about oil", don't you think it's immoral and wrong to claim it's for the good of the iraqi people?... Easy croisant boy I said that I PERSONALLY hope it was all about oil.. What I want and the facts are 2 diffrent things.. Now just suck it up the world is a better place.. the left has been exposed for their partisan errounous rants.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr mahs Posted May 2 Report Share Posted May 2 Blair has said he wants Iraqi oil revenues to be held in a United Nations-run trust fund and spent on rebuilding Iraq. Secretary of State Colin Powell said yesterday the U.S. may encourage Iraq to set up an oil revenue-sharing system that would distribute some proceeds from what he called the ''marvelous treasure'' to Iraqi citizens.This statement from Colin Powell says it all we are not after full control but advise them on how to handle the process of rebuilding their economy... The OIL is a big part of the war it will help rebuild that former shithole country look at Kuwait & Qatar perfect example of the oil revenue falling into the right hands... Are we in control of Qatar oil to?How about Kuwait???The war for oil argumant is SOOO STALE it staring to grow penicillin on it...Oh French the pipe line in Afghanistan that is being developed...Good idea Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frenchbread Posted May 2 Report Share Posted May 2 Originally posted by mr mahs Easy croisant boy I said that I PERSONALLY hope it was all about oil.. What I want and the facts are 2 diffrent things.. Now just suck it up the world is a better place.. the left has been exposed for their partisan errounous rants.... ok first of all it's "croissant"...second, i know that is your opinion, that is why i directed my question to you and not bush...so are you going to answer it?...third of all, is over-simplifying all you guys can do?...cintron: saying that the word of a top u.k. politician currently part of the gov't is the equivalent to the word of some out-dated u.s. sitcom "star"... (how low is that?)you: justifying war because now the world is a better place...that's so wrong man...but that kind of shit works here, because people, just want to look at the surface...no depth...sure hussein is gone...and that's a good thing...that was never the question...the question was, how to do it, and why are our leaders doing it?...for the good of the world or for their own profit...and i think it's a bit early for you to say that the world is a better place...haven't seen many iraqis dancing in the street lately...but who cares, since the u.s. public's attention span is 2 weeks, and it's already been over stressed with this month-long ordeal...nobody here is really paying attention to it anymore...on to the next media-exploited story...if you say simple shit like that, then i'm going to say, let's have a country invade us, and stop us from poluting this planet to death...the world will definitely be a better place then...Originally posted by mr mahs The war for oil argumant is SOOO STALE it staring to grow penicillin on it... the war for liberating the iraqi people is SOOOOOOOOO STALE...the war for the good of the u.s. people is SOOOOOOOOO STALE...Originally posted by mr mahs Oh French the pipe line in Afghanistan that is being developed...Good idea whatever do you mean by that?...that it was a good idea for the u.s. to invade afghanistan and take over by putting a former UNOCAL consultant in charge of the country (hamid karzai) since it allowed for the construction of the pipeline that UNOCAL was depending on...pipeline that UNOCAL try to negociate the construction of with the taliban but failed when the taliban said "no!"... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cintron Posted May 2 Report Share Posted May 2 Originally posted by frenchbread third of all, is over-simplifying all you guys can do?...cintron: saying that the word of a top u.k. politician currently part of the gov't is the equivalent to the word of some out-dated u.s. sitcom "star"... (how low is that?) apparently higher than taking a politician's words at face value.god, as a liberal i'd expect the first thing you would do would be to QUESTION the word of politicians. apparently you guys don't question anything so long as it serves your cause Reporter: "The US war plan has failed and they have to write another plan."Liberal: "SEE?! We are sending our sons and daughters to be murdered by an incompetent military fighting a war about oil and imperialistic aggression!"Politician: "Oil was a major consideration during this war..."Liberal: "SEE?! The GREED of western capitalist dominated governments has finally been unmasked!!"Ever stop to think that Oil was a major consideration during the war because of two things?1.) GLOBAL oil prices, not just local oil prices. Oil prices shoot through the roof and economies all over the world will suffer. Hello? Reality check?2.) The ability of the Iraqis to HAVE oil to sell in the first place. HEllo? Iraqi national debt? Gross domestic product? Trade? You know, the things that WOULDN"T happen if Saddam had torched all the wells? Apparently this is something you all conviniently forget about when you go looking for a reason to park your self righteous ass in front of the white house with a bullhorn and a cheaply drawn sign. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr mahs Posted May 2 Report Share Posted May 2 Originally posted by cintron apparently higher than taking a politician's words at face value.god, as a liberal i'd expect the first thing you would do would be to QUESTION the word of politicians. apparently you guys don't question anything so long as it serves your cause Reporter: "The US war plan has failed and they have to write another plan."Liberal: "SEE?! We are sending our sons and daughters to be murdered by an incompetent military fighting a war about oil and imperialistic aggression!"Politician: "Oil was a major consideration during this war..."Liberal: "SEE?! The GREED of western capitalist dominated governments has finally been unmasked!!"Ever stop to think that Oil was a major consideration during the war because of two things?1.) GLOBAL oil prices, not just local oil prices. Oil prices shoot through the roof and economies all over the world will suffer. Hello? Reality check?2.) The ability of the Iraqis to HAVE oil to sell in the first place. HEllo? Iraqi national debt? Gross domestic product? Trade? You know, the things that WOULDN"T happen if Saddam had torched all the wells? Apparently this is something you all conviniently forget about when you go looking for a reason to park your self righteous ass in front of the white house with a bullhorn and a cheaply drawn sign. Good points.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
normalnoises Posted May 2 Report Share Posted May 2 Why does this not surprise me??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr mahs Posted May 2 Report Share Posted May 2 Originally posted by frenchbread whatever do you mean by that?...that it was a good idea for the u.s. to invade afghanistan and take over by putting a former UNOCAL consultant in charge of the country (hamid karzai) since it allowed for the construction of the pipeline that UNOCAL was depending on...pipeline that UNOCAL try to negociate the construction of with the taliban but failed when the taliban said "no!"... Lets imagine for a minute you didn't beleive that Bush dropped the twin towers causing trillions of dollars in lost economic activity so he can invade afghanistan for a pipeline and look at the country before and after.. The hornets nest of Alqeada has been disrupted sending the fiends to neighboring countries where we and other memebers of the coalition have been rounding up daily... over 1/2 of Alqeada leadership have been apprehended..If there is a pipe line under that shithole coutry whats wrong with developing the resources so that Afghanistan can pay for itself to be rebuilt...I just don't understand the beef with letting american companies exploit the buisness oppurtunities that these countries present to the world isn't that capitalism?? realising a need from the public and developing a service or product that satifies that need. Would you rather prefer a french company go in and do it.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr mahs Posted May 2 Report Share Posted May 2 Originally posted by normalnoises Why does this not surprise me??? What's that Mrs Librarian? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr mahs Posted May 2 Report Share Posted May 2 OOOPS:D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frenchbread Posted May 2 Report Share Posted May 2 Originally posted by cintron apparently higher than taking a politician's words at face value.god, as a liberal i'd expect the first thing you would do would be to QUESTION the word of politicians. apparently you guys don't question anything so long as it serves your cause Reporter: "The US war plan has failed and they have to write another plan."Liberal: "SEE?! We are sending our sons and daughters to be murdered by an incompetent military fighting a war about oil and imperialistic aggression!"Politician: "Oil was a major consideration during this war..."Liberal: "SEE?! The GREED of western capitalist dominated governments has finally been unmasked!!"Ever stop to think that Oil was a major consideration during the war because of two things?1.) GLOBAL oil prices, not just local oil prices. Oil prices shoot through the roof and economies all over the world will suffer. Hello? Reality check?2.) The ability of the Iraqis to HAVE oil to sell in the first place. HEllo? Iraqi national debt? Gross domestic product? Trade? You know, the things that WOULDN"T happen if Saddam had torched all the wells? Apparently this is something you all conviniently forget about when you go looking for a reason to park your self righteous ass in front of the white house with a bullhorn and a cheaply drawn sign. ok don't have much time so i'll be quick...funny how it's ok to take politicians' word for face value when they say what you want to hear...i agree with you...but i rather take the word of one that is detached from the issue at hand, than that of one that will gain from it, and has lied about it in the past (i.e. bush, powell, etc...)...funny how it seems that a lot of the pro-war people are now shifting their stance from "has nothing to do with oil", to "of course it has to do with oil, because..."...you have to see how i think that's funny...especially when i have been arguing with some of you on that for a bit now...now that you guys are doing a full 180 on your stance of the importance of oil in this war, you have new arguments...for the sake of global economy i tutti quanti...i'm sorry i don't have more time to debate that right now, but again, i find it very funny that you guys who were so adamant about the fact that the war had nothing to do with oil are now talking about the benefits for the global economy...so now the war was waged for the economical benefit of the world...(yet a different reason for the war)...a more accurate description would be for the benefit of the u.s. economy...(but we're almost there)... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cintron Posted May 2 Report Share Posted May 2 see, I haven't done a 180 on my stance about oil.Yes, oil is involved in this war but i still stand on my original opinon that it is NOT a war ABOUT oil. Is preserving Iraqi oil fields and helping to stabiilize world oil markets a part of it? Of course it is. It would be foolish not to do such a thing. However, the point I believe a lot of protestors were trying to stress, was that the war was about oil - for US. For OUR gain.We would move into Iraq, occupy it, prop up a puppet government and ship their oil to our shores. However, I don't think that's the case here. This is a democratically elected government that will have nothing to do with us. The Iraqis have made it clear they want no US intervention in government when they get it up and running, and we're respecting their wishes.Additionally, the small fraction of oil we do actually get from Iraq isn't really enough to justify our moving in and taking more of it. Prices at the pump and on home heating bills would only drop a few cents. Not worth the international outcry and aggravation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr mahs Posted May 2 Report Share Posted May 2 Originally posted by cintron see, I haven't done a 180 on my stance about oil.Yes, oil is involved in this war but i still stand on my original opinon that it is NOT a war ABOUT oil. Is preserving Iraqi oil fields and helping to stabiilize world oil markets a part of it? Of course it is. It would be foolish not to do such a thing. However, the point I believe a lot of protestors were trying to stress, was that the war was about oil - for US. For OUR gain.We would move into Iraq, occupy it, prop up a puppet government and ship their oil to our shores. However, I don't think that's the case here. This is a democratically elected government that will have nothing to do with us. The Iraqis have made it clear they want no US intervention in government when they get it up and running, and we're respecting their wishes.Additionally, the small fraction of oil we do actually get from Iraq isn't really enough to justify our moving in and taking more of it. Prices at the pump and on home heating bills would only drop a few cents. Not worth the international outcry and aggravation. World prices are set by OPEC. Iraq output would not have a large impact on the price.. I really think people think we are going to smuggle the millions of barrells from IRAQ on some cruise ship under everyone noses.. uh oh did I start another conspiracy theory??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frenchbread Posted May 2 Report Share Posted May 2 Originally posted by mr mahs World prices are set by OPEC. Iraq output would not have a large impact on the price.. I really think people think we are going to smuggle the millions of barrells from IRAQ on some cruise ship under everyone noses.. uh oh did I start another conspiracy theory??? you couldn't be more wrong...OPEC doesn't set the world price of oil...more oil is produced outside OPEC than within OPEC...and about smuggling oil out of iraq...you better believe it...uday (hussein's son) was selling 25% of iraq's daily oil production illegally up to the eve of the war...right under everybody's nose... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
normalnoises Posted May 3 Report Share Posted May 3 Originally posted by mr mahs What's that Mrs Librarian? Cintron (pussy): "Yes, oil is involved in this war but i still stand on my original opinon that it is NOT a war ABOUT oil. Is preserving Iraqi oil fields and helping to stabiilize world oil markets a part of it? Of course it is."Me: How can you say this is not for oil when you already said oil is involved? The Advisors for Blair already admitted this war is for oil so it's already proven and like someone elses said, you would still deny it even if Bush and Blair admitted it. You are a walking contridiction and with that I remain reluctant to upgrade you from pussy to human. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frenchbread Posted May 3 Report Share Posted May 3 Originally posted by frenchbread you couldn't be more wrong...OPEC doesn't set the world price of oil...more oil is produced outside OPEC than within OPEC...and about smuggling oil out of iraq...you better believe it...uday (hussein's son) was selling 25% of iraq's daily oil production illegally up to the eve of the war...right under everybody's nose... <bump> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cintron Posted May 3 Report Share Posted May 3 no bites. I think we all pretty much beat this issue to death over the past few months Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr mahs Posted May 5 Report Share Posted May 5 Originally posted by frenchbread <bump> Ok They don't set oil prices but they do control close to 60% of the oil traded internationally which can weigh heavely on the oil market.. The prices are set by the market in direct negative correlation to decisions by OPEC to increase or decrese oil output... They cut production the price goes up.. they increase production prices fall.. close enough to setting prices.. Are you saying that smuggling oil to America would be as easy as smuggling to Syria? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frenchbread Posted May 5 Report Share Posted May 5 Originally posted by mr mahs Ok They don't set oil prices but they do control close to 60% of the oil traded internationally which can weigh heavely on the oil market.. The prices are set by the market in direct negative correlation to decisions by OPEC to increase or decrese oil output... They cut production the price goes up.. they increase production prices fall.. close enough to setting prices.. Are you saying that smuggling oil to America would be as easy as smuggling to Syria? 60% controlled by opec?...you need to go check again...2000:opec countries oil prod: 31.4 Mil barrels/day (40%)non-opec countries oil prod: 46.0 Mil barrels/day (60%)OPEC VS. NON-OPEC: THE BASICSNon-OPEC countries produced 62% of the world's oil in 2001. Since 1970, non-OPEC production as a share of world production reached a high of 71% in 1985 and a low of 48% in 1973, with a 61% average.numbers from: Energy Information Administration (EIA) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr mahs Posted May 5 Report Share Posted May 5 Originally posted by frenchbread 60% controlled by opec?...you need to go check again...2000:opec countries oil prod: 31.4 Mil barrels/day (40%)non-opec countries oil prod: 46.0 Mil barrels/day (60%)OPEC VS. NON-OPEC: THE BASICSNon-OPEC countries produced 62% of the world's oil in 2001. Since 1970, non-OPEC production as a share of world production reached a high of 71% in 1985 and a low of 48% in 1973, with a 61% average.numbers from: Energy Information Administration (EIA) Either way their voice and actions are heard when the price of oil is decided by the market.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sassa Posted May 5 Report Share Posted May 5 Originally posted by mr mahs Either way their voice and actions are heard when the price of oil is decided by the market.. and it also looks, either way that you cannot argue with frenchbread's facts.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.