PDA

View Full Version : Australia Admits That Iraq Is About The Oil


skunk
Jul 6, 2007, 05:02 PM
Australia 'has Iraq oil interest'

Australian Defence Minister Brendan Nelson has admitted that securing oil supplies is a key factor behind the presence of Australian troops in Iraq.
He said maintaining "resource security" in the Middle East was a priority.

But PM John Howard has played down the comments, saying it was "stretching it a bit" to conclude that Australia's Iraq involvement was motivated by oil.

The remarks are causing heated debate as the US-led Iraq coalition has avoided linking the war and oil.

Oil concerns

Australia was involved in the invasion of Iraq in 2003, and has about 1,500 military personnel still deployed in the region.

There are no immediate plans to bring them home.

In comments to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, Mr Nelson admitted that the supply of oil had influenced Australia's strategic planning in the region.http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6272168.stm
So, the cat is out of the bag at last.

adroit
Jul 6, 2007, 05:20 PM
The greatest crime in modern history

SMM
Jul 6, 2007, 06:15 PM
From a US foreign policy perspective, there are really two things of importance in the ME; Oil and the US Israeli lobby. They often merge.

Airforce
Jul 6, 2007, 07:05 PM
I sure the hell wish we could get some cheap gas out of the Iraq ordeal. :mad:

zap2
Jul 6, 2007, 07:08 PM
Well at least, they're finally saying it...now if we could get the government to stop focusing on Ooil, and focusing on switching to new types of energy, we'd be set.


Its a step... a small one...but its still a step

zimv20
Jul 6, 2007, 07:22 PM
now if we could get the government to stop focusing on Ooil, and focusing on switching to new types of energy, we'd be set.
shhhhh.... don't tell bush about solar power, because he'll start bombing the sun.

pdham
Jul 6, 2007, 08:29 PM
I sure the hell wish we could get some cheap gas out of the Iraq ordeal. :mad:

We do have cheap gas

dswoodley
Jul 6, 2007, 08:29 PM
shhhhh.... don't tell bush about solar power, because he'll start bombing the sun.

Of course! Them nukelar bombs would make it shine more!!

FFTT
Jul 6, 2007, 08:34 PM
OMG Really? :eek:

So you mean it wasn't all about WMD's and a secret deal between
Saddam and Bin Laden?

So all that stuff about freedom and democracy was just used to sell an armed
corporate takeover of natural resources?

And all those Blackwater employees are just there for what reason again?

I think I need to sit down.

Swarmlord
Jul 6, 2007, 09:48 PM
Then entire country of Australia reached this conclusion, eh?

You might want to look up the word secure. It's mean something different than obtain.

mrkramer
Jul 6, 2007, 09:54 PM
You might want to look up the word secure. It's mean something different than obtain.

Perhaps you should look it up as one of the possible definitions and the most likely one in this context is to capture it. also when you are trying to convince someone of the meaning of a word please don't say something like "It is mean something..."

.Andy
Jul 6, 2007, 09:57 PM
Then entire country of Australia reached this conclusion, eh?
Most of us did as soon as the war drums began beating.

You might want to look up the word secure. It's mean something different than obtain.
But you can't obtain it unless it's secured.

dogbone
Jul 6, 2007, 10:25 PM
The Aussies honestly admitted that 'resource security' was part of the reason. There's nothing wrong with that. The world's oil resource does not 'belong' to the countries who administer it. It belongs to the whole world. After all the Iranian's can't drink or eat their oil, hell they can't even make their own petrol out of it.

zimv20
Jul 6, 2007, 10:45 PM
The world's oil resource does not 'belong' to the countries who administer it. It belongs to the whole world.
what other commodities follow this rule?

dswoodley
Jul 6, 2007, 10:45 PM
The Aussies honestly admitted that 'resource security' was part of the reason. There's nothing wrong with that. The world's oil resource does not 'belong' to the countries who administer it. It belongs to the whole world. After all the Iranian's can't drink or eat their oil, hell they can't even make their own petrol out of it.

Man, you just opened yourself up for some major hard knocks. Are you seriously suggesting that a country does not own the resources within its geography? Does that mean Cuba can raid Nebraska corn fields if it doesn't agree with how the US uses them?

TheAnswer
Jul 6, 2007, 10:57 PM
The world's oil resource does not 'belong' to the countries who administer it. It belongs to the whole world.

I actually like this line of thinking...as long as we apply it to all resources and can agree on the following method of distribution: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."

dogbone
Jul 6, 2007, 11:13 PM
what other commodities follow this rule?

What doesn't?

Man, you just opened yourself up for some major hard knocks.

I'm not a fool, in spite of the fact I post on the political forums. I'm happy to defend the statement.

Are you seriously suggesting that a country does not own the resources within its geography?

What I'm suggesting is that governments cannot act as childish as we often act on the forums. If Iran is so jacked off with America then why don't they say "if you don't stop helping Israel then we will cut off all your oil". The answer is that they will be the ones to suffer more.

I'm sure that if Western Europe, the US and Australia kept everything for themselves and assisted or traded with no one else, likewise the African countries, then most of the Arab world would still be living in the 13th century, not that there's anything wrong with that. The West would have developed nuclear power to solve their energy needs or other forms of sustainable energy.

But the world is more than the current people who inhabit it. We are just guardians. No I'm not suggesting that everything become a resource that must be sold, for example the rainforests of the Amazon and Indonesia should be sacrosanct, and tribal people should be respected for the life they choose to live.

adroit
Jul 6, 2007, 11:16 PM
The Aussies honestly admitted that 'resource security' was part of the reason. There's nothing wrong with that. The world's oil resource does not 'belong' to the countries who administer it. It belongs to the whole world. After all the Iranian's can't drink or eat their oil, hell they can't even make their own petrol out of it.

:eek: Are you kidding me?!?! Can any reasonable person honestly believe that tripe?

Un-freaking-believable. You just broke the record for the most obtuse thing I've ever read, and I've read a lot of what swarmlord types.

Wow

zimv20
Jul 6, 2007, 11:19 PM
What doesn't?
pretty much everything. ore, crops, water, forests, natural gas, oil, you name it. when china comes for lake tahoe, i think the US gov't might have something to say about it.

mrkramer
Jul 6, 2007, 11:26 PM
The Aussies honestly admitted that 'resource security' was part of the reason. There's nothing wrong with that. The world's oil resource does not 'belong' to the countries who administer it. It belongs to the whole world.
So you would have no problem if instead of Iraq the Australians had decided that they wanted the US to dig for oil in Alaska and invaded Alaska to secure the oil there, since that oil belongs to the entire world and not just the US.

dogbone
Jul 6, 2007, 11:32 PM
@ZimV20, @mrkramer,


But the world is more than the current people who inhabit it. We are just guardians. No I'm not suggesting that everything become a resource that must be sold, for example the rainforests of the Amazon and Indonesia should be sacrosanct, and tribal people should be respected for the life they choose to live.


It's about common sense. Although it's not really that common.

mrkramer
Jul 6, 2007, 11:37 PM
@ZimV20, @mrkramer,



It's about common sense. Although it's not really that common.

And I was just going with the assumption that your opinion was true and following common sense from there. isn't it common sense that if the Middle East's oil belongs to the entire world the United States oil belongs to the world?

dogbone
Jul 6, 2007, 11:44 PM
And I was just going with the assumption that your opinion was true and following common sense from there. isn't it common sense that if the Middle East's oil belongs to the entire world the United States oil belongs to the world?

Sure, it should all be shared around. If Iran wants to buy oil from the US then the US can sell it. But the price might be a bit expensive for them. Oil countries can put whatever price they want on their oil, similarly the US can put whatever price they want on their intellectual property and technology. It works both ways.

miloblithe
Jul 6, 2007, 11:44 PM
I'm sure that if Western Europe, the US and Australia kept everything for themselves and assisted or traded with no one else, likewise the African countries, then most of the Arab world would still be living in the 13th century...The West would have developed nuclear power to solve their energy needs or other forms of sustainable energy.

You seem not to understand the overall direction in which resources flow. The US consumes more than it produces. If we were to stop trading with anyone else, we would not be able to reproduce the current level of economic activity in the US with US resources alone.

mrkramer
Jul 6, 2007, 11:47 PM
Sure, it should all be shared around. If Iran wants to buy oil from the US then the US can sell it. But the price might be a bit expensive for them. Oil countries can put whatever price they want on their oil, similarly the US can put whatever price they want on their intellectual property and technology. It works both ways. In the end countries *have* to act responsibly.

But earlier you were saying that it is fine for the Austrailians to invade Iraq to secure the oil, so the US doesn't currently sell any of the oil in Alaska just answer me yes or no if it is ok to invade Iraq for oil as you have said, would it also be ok for Austrailia to invade the US for their oil?

dogbone
Jul 7, 2007, 12:04 AM
You seem not to understand the overall direction in which resources flow. The US consumes more than it produces. If we were to stop trading with anyone else, we would not be able to reproduce the current level of economic activity in the US with US resources alone.


Milo, look I don't mind adding you to my block list and the best way to get on it is to tell me what I do and what I don't understand. If you have a counter argument then just post it without the personal comments :)

Now back to your post... who says that 'reproducing the current level of economic activity' is important? The US can certainly feed itself, and if push came to shove they could just build a bunch of frigging nuclear reactors to solve their energy needs. Other friendly countries like Australia and Western Europe could all easily maintain a pretty comfortable level of economic growth just (dealing with each other and Israel) and comfort all by their lonesome, India being a thriving democracy would also probably come aboard. China's electronic goods are not going to be much use if they can't sell them to anyone else. I don't think Iran or the the Middle Eastern countries would do so well. What's the use of their oil if they can't sell it. Build giant oil swimming pools?

...But earlier you were saying that it is fine for the Austrailians to invade Iraq to secure the oil...

It would be better for you to quote me. I'm not answering a manufactured editorialised post.

.Andy
Jul 7, 2007, 12:20 AM
What's the use of their oil if they can't sell it. Build giant oil swimming pools?
Do you think Australia should sell it's uranium to Iran?

dogbone
Jul 7, 2007, 12:24 AM
Do you think Australia should sell it's uranium to Iran?

No, not right now perhaps in the future. But having said that what use would uranium be to Iran without the nuclear centrifuge technology, apart from decorating their oil swimming pools with nice yellow rocks. Let them eat yellow cake.

.Andy
Jul 7, 2007, 12:28 AM
No, not right now perhaps in the future.
But we've got plenty and we're not using it right now. Why shouldn't we sell it to them if they want to use it?

dogbone
Jul 7, 2007, 12:33 AM
But we've got plenty and we're not using it right now. Why shouldn't we sell it to them if they want to use it?

Because that would be irresponsible as they are a threat to all their neighboring countries. They've got more oil than they know what to do with therefore their only purpose is to use their nuclear ability for evil instead of good.

You can't just start from some arbitrary point. Like what I said earlier only starts right now. In other words if the world was selfish then, sure sell em all the uranium they want, they woldn't have the technology to use it anyway.

miloblithe
Jul 7, 2007, 12:44 AM
Milo, look I don't mind adding you to my block list and the best way to get on it is to tell me what I do and what I don't understand. If you have a counter argument then just post it without the personal comments :)

Now back to your post... who says that 'reproducing the current level of economic activity' is important? The US can certainly feed itself, and if push came to shove they could just build a bunch of frigging nuclear reactors to solve their energy needs. Other friendly countries like Australia and Western Europe could all easily maintain a pretty comfortable level of economic growth just (dealing with each other and Israel) and comfort all by their lonesome, India being a thriving democracy would also probably come aboard. China's electronic goods are not going to be much use if they can't sell them to anyone else. I don't think Iran or the the Middle Eastern countries would do so well. What's the use of their oil if they can't sell it. Build giant oil swimming pools?

It's not at all limited to energy. I'm talking about resources.

A little old, but I'm tired:

http://www.allcountries.org/uscensus/1172_net_u_s_imports_of_selected.html

The U.S. imports 100% of the Bauxite, Columbium, Manganese, Sheet Mica, and Strontium that it consumes, as well as the majority of the tin, barite, cobalt, potash, tantalum, tungsten, chromium, nickel, platinum, and vanadium that it uses. It also imports a lot of copper, iron ore, silver, cadmium, aluminum, zinc. Not on the chart given, but it imports most of its gold and diamonds.
This list obviously goes on.

Are you arguing that this doesn't matter? The US also imports a lot of fertilizer. I suppose the US could still feed itself (is that your minimum standard?), but not without diverting a much greater percentage of its resources to agriculture.

.Andy
Jul 7, 2007, 12:45 AM
Because that would be irresponsible as they are a threat to all their neighboring countries. They've got more oil than they know what to do with therefore their only purpose is to use their nuclear for evil instead of good.
So if it's Ok for us to withhold our resources from a country to which we find ourselves politically and ideologically opposed why shouldn't they be allowed to do the same? Why is it OK for us to invade to capture those resources and not for them to do so with ours?

You can't just start from some arbitrary point. Like what I said earlier only starts right now. In other words if the world was selfish then, sure sell em all the uranium they want, they woldn't have the technology to use it anyway.
I don't quite follow this. Can you explain what you mean here?

dogbone
Jul 7, 2007, 12:52 AM
It's not at all limited to energy. I'm talking about resources.

A little old, but I'm tired:

http://www.allcountries.org/uscensus/1172_net_u_s_imports_of_selected.html

The U.S. imports 100% of the Bauxite, Columbium, Manganese, Sheet Mica, and Strontium that it consumes, as well as the majority of the tin, barite, cobalt, potash, tantalum, tungsten, chromium, nickel, platinum, and vanadium that it uses. It also imports a lot of copper, iron ore, silver, cadmium, aluminum, zinc. Not on the chart given, but it imports most of its gold and diamonds.
This list obviously goes on.

Are you arguing that this doesn't matter? The US also imports a lot of fertilizer. I suppose the US could still feed itself (is that your minimum standard?), but not without diverting a much greater percentage of its resources to agriculture.

Sure it doesn't matter, Australia can sell it the minerals it needs we've got heaps of bauxite. The bottom line is that the oil producing countries need the less oil producing countries more than vice versa, would you not agree?

So if it's Ok for us to withhold our resources from a country to which we find ourselves politically and ideologically opposed why shouldn't they be allowed to do the same? Why is it OK for us to invade to capture those resources and not for them to do so with ours?


I don't quite follow this. Can you explain what you mean here?

I've already answered it twice. I'm saying that you can't make up the rules as you go along. A basic rule the world has been operating on since people were able to travel around the globe is mutual trade. We all buy and sell commodities. You can't artificially start saying OK lets begin from right now then. Because Iran like the rest of the world has been a party to this mutual trading for centuries. Had they not been then they'd not be in their current position where uranium has any value to them at all. They'd have no technology to exploit it. In fact if they had not been trading their oil and using that money over the past 100 years, they'd be no threat at all to anyone, except perhaps their own citizens.

zimv20
Jul 7, 2007, 01:10 AM
i have no idea what's going on in this thread.

DoFoT9
Jul 7, 2007, 01:16 AM
i really dont ever remember admitting to tthis! nor unadmitting to admitting that i did admitt....which means that i did..doesnt it?

.Andy
Jul 7, 2007, 01:23 AM
I'm saying that you can't make up the rules as you go along. A basic rule the world has been operating on since people were able to travel around the globe is mutual trade. We all buy and sell commodities. You can't artificially start saying OK lets begin from right now then.
I'm still not sure what you mean by that last sentence :confused:. All countries do make up their rules as they go along about trade. It's continuously changing. Countries withdraw the sale of their resources to others for political gain, make trade agreements, place tariffs on imports, subsidise export industries it wants to encourage, and withhold exports of commodities that are required for domestic development. There's nothing new to this. There's also nothing that makes it acceptable for a country to invade another because it want's or needs it's resources. If a country has something you want you negotiate price or trade conditions, not bomb them into submission.

I'm sure it's not your intention but your posting is giving off the impression that anything goes when it comes to middle-eastern muslim countries. That's not the case is it?

i have no idea what's going on in this thread.
See if you can spot where it took a turn for the worse ;).

dogbone
Jul 7, 2007, 01:25 AM
i have no idea what's going on in this thread.

From my pov, I made a supposed 'contentious' statement, and I'm arguing that it wasn't contentious at all.

Australia did not make any damning admissions they just stated the truth. There's nothing wrong with promoting regional oil stability as well as all the other issues.

I'm still not sure what you mean by that last sentence :confused:. All countries do make up their rules as they go along about trade. It's continuously changing.

Sure but it's only changing *within* normal parameters. I mean when Japan and the US have a little trade tiff, and place import restrictions on each other, it's only a small argument and doesn't change the overall picture. Neither ever says, 'if you won't let us export rice then that's it, you can ******* right off with everything.

Like a marriage. There's a basic agreement that two people are going along on the journey of life together, there will be arguments along the way that don't alter the basic premise of the marriage.

dswoodley
Jul 7, 2007, 01:30 AM
From my pov, I made a supposed 'contentious' statement, and I'm arguing that it wasn't contentious at all.

Australia did not make any damning admissions they just stated the truth. There's nothing wrong with promoting regional oil stability as well as all the other issues.

Sounds like you may be arguing with yourself. now worries, happens to the best of us.

DoFoT9
Jul 7, 2007, 01:35 AM
Sounds like you may be arguing with yourself. now worries, happens to the best of us.

oh and the worst of us. e.g. me

jonny should pull his large fat hand out of bushes arse. its disgusting how we will do practically anything for him, yet what do we get in return........will they fight for us if we go to war? are they selling us cheapo oil? or what about our drought?? will they help us with that....

NO

jonny u suck man, you suck!

darkcurse
Jul 7, 2007, 01:36 AM
Well, at least for now the price of oil has stabilised so it doesn't really make much difference if Australia admits it or not.

.Andy
Jul 7, 2007, 01:41 AM
Well, at least for now the price of oil has stabilised so it doesn't really make much difference if Australia admits it or not.
I'm not sure the families of the 50 000+ dead civilians will see it that way.

dogbone
Jul 7, 2007, 01:48 AM
I'm not sure the families of the 50 000+ dead civilians will see it that way.

The families of the 200 000 gassed kurds probably have their take on it too.

mrkramer
Jul 7, 2007, 02:32 AM
The Aussies honestly admitted that 'resource security' was part of the reason. There's nothing wrong with that.
I bolded it to make it a bit clearer what part of the post I was reffering to.

It would be better for you to quote me. I'm not answering a manufactured editorialised post.

Ok i quoted you now answer the question in my previous post. which I will put here so you don't have to go back and read it.

"But earlier you were saying that it is fine for the Austrailians to invade Iraq to secure the oil, so the US doesn't currently sell any of the oil in Alaska just answer me yes or no if it is ok to invade Iraq for oil as you have said, would it also be ok for Austrailia to invade the US for their oil?"

.Andy
Jul 7, 2007, 02:33 AM
The families of the 200 000 gassed kurds probably have their take on it too.
Yeah I bet the Kurds are pissed. We sit and watch during their genocide but go in guns blazing when 'stabilisation' of our oil supply is at stake. What kind of priorities are those?

DoFoT9
Jul 7, 2007, 02:46 AM
Yeah I bet the Kurds are pissed. We sit and watch during their genocide but go in guns blazing when 'stabilisation' of our oil supply is at stake. What kind of priorities are those?

americas??

skunk
Jul 7, 2007, 03:02 AM
I'm sure it's not your intention but your posting is giving off the impression that anything goes when it comes to middle-eastern muslim countries. That's not the case is it?How could you even think such a thing? :eek:

dogbone
Jul 7, 2007, 03:16 AM
I bolded it to make it a bit clearer what part of the post I was reffering to.

The Aussies honestly admitted that 'resource security' was part of the reason. There's nothing wrong with that.

Ok i quoted you now answer the question in my previous post. which I will put here so you don't have to go back and read it.

"But earlier you were saying that it is fine for the Austrailians to invade Iraq to secure the oil, so the US doesn't currently sell any of the oil in Alaska just answer me yes or no if it is ok to invade Iraq for oil as you have said, would it also be ok for Austrailia to invade the US for their oil?"

Thanks now you know why I insist on proper quotes. Let me post your quote of mine and your interpretation of my quote for comparison, because you must understand that you are asking me to explain your interpretation, not my quote.

The Aussies honestly admitted that 'resource security' was part of the reason. There's nothing wrong with that.


But earlier you were saying that it is fine for the Austrailians to invade Iraq to secure the oil...would it also be ok for Austrailia to invade the US for their oil?

Understand that I cannot explain your interpretation, that is for you to explain to me. And it's plain to see you are asking me to explain your interpretation NOT my quote, which btw I'm happy to do if you want me to. In fact, I have already done so. I know it's only a small word but please take note of how I used the word 'part'. Also please note the various meanings and ways that 'secure' (you) and 'security' (me) are used.

.Andy
Jul 7, 2007, 03:27 AM
How could you even think such a thing? :eek:
I'm as dumbfounded as you skunk ;).

toontra
Jul 7, 2007, 10:41 AM
Thanks now you know why I insist on proper quotes. Let me post your quote of mine and your interpretation of my quote for comparison, because you must understand that you are asking me to explain your interpretation, not my quote.





Understand that I cannot explain your interpretation, that is for you to explain to me. And it's plain to see you are asking me to explain your interpretation NOT my quote, which btw I'm happy to do if you want me to. In fact, I have already done so. I know it's only a small word but please take note of how I used the word 'part'. Also please note the various meanings and ways that 'secure' (you) and 'security' (me) are used.

Are you trying to bore everyone to death with symantics?

Your posts haven't been misinterpreted - they are all too clear. You don't think there is a problem that Iraqi oil is exploited by an occupying force.

Ugg
Jul 7, 2007, 11:02 AM
db, the only reason the west has to "secure" oil is because of our own inherent insecurities. We've known for a long, long time that oil is becoming scarcer. One would think that any intelligent human being would address that issue rather than engaging in neo-imperialism.

Alas, that's not the case, bushco, the poodle, the terrible twins from poland and your inept pm have chosen war over peace.

Thomas Veil
Jul 7, 2007, 11:48 AM
i have no idea what's going on in this thread.Me either. Which is why I've stayed out of it. db doesn't need my help; he's self-destructing well enough on his own.

Though I just have to ask, what's with the "<click>", db? You're reporting people to the mods? Good luck with that!

skunk
Jul 7, 2007, 12:03 PM
Anyway, I think it's really refreshing that Australia is admitting to its brazenly misrepresented motivation. If only our administration could be as open.

.Andy
Jul 7, 2007, 12:07 PM
Anyway, I think it's really refreshing that Australia is admitting to its brazenly misrepresented motivation. If only our administration could be as open.
To be fair the minister that said it has since tried to explain it away as being misinterpreted. No doubt after being severely reprimanded.

dogbone
Jul 7, 2007, 09:52 PM
Update from costello (http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/troops-dont-fight-for-petrol-costello/2007/07/08/1183833319933.html)

The stated main goal in Iraq was to bring democracy as everything else flows from that. They say you can't force democracy on people who don't want it, but that's not true if it's only those in power who don't want it.

Ultimately Iraq is a democracy now. Sure those doing all the killing aren't happy about it but then again who really cares what those people think, I don't think that people who blow up their fellow citizens really have their own country's well being at heart. And like Palestine, the democratic way still has a fair way to go, but it's a start. I guess you don't go from a lunatic despot to a balanced, robust democracy in one go. There will be sacrifices to make and this has been the way of human history for thousands of years.

Terrorism against soft targets is cowardly easy and dramatic whether it be in Iraq or the UK, but it will never impose its will because that's not the way the world works.

Those who oppose democracy and who want to rule by violent oppression will always and have always been able to kill people but they've always been defeated.

darkcurse
Jul 8, 2007, 02:33 AM
Well said dogbone. What I don't understand really is the hypocritical attitude about some westerner's towards their government which is in all fairness trying to look out for the good of the whole country and their citizens. Thats what governments are supposed to do right?

When was the last time when a conflict of interest arose, you chose the higher path and allowed your rights to be trampled upon? I honestly can't think of any time when I unconsciously did that.

skunk
Jul 8, 2007, 02:49 AM
The stated main goal in Iraq was to bring democracy as everything else flows from that.The "stated main goal" (as if there was a menu) was enforcing UN resolutions (which a key ally is in breach of), getting rid of WMD (which did not exist), and imposing "regime change" (which is not a UN-approved or internationally legal aim anyway), in that order. Anyone who says otherwise seems to forget that we were all listening while they rehearsed their excuses.They say you can't force democracy on people who don't want it, but that's not true if it's only those in power who don't want it.You are obviously wrong: do you really imagine that it's only the "people in power" who are resisting the occupation of their land? A "few bad apples"?

Ultimately Iraq is a democracy now.Splendid contradiction in terms.
Sure those doing all the killing aren't happy about it but then again who really cares what those people think, I don't think that people who blow up their fellow citizens really have their own country's well being at heart. And like Palestine, the democratic way still has a fair way to go, but it's a start.You don't really understand democracy at all, do you?
I guess you don't go from a lunatic despot to a balanced, robust democracy in one go. There will be sacrifices to make and this has been the way of human history for thousands of years.

Terrorism against soft targets is cowardly easy and dramatic whether it be in Iraq or the UK, but it will never impose its will because that's not the way the world works.

Those who oppose democracy and who want to rule by violent oppression will always and have always been able to kill people but they've always been defeated.Your grasp of history is evidently as weak as your understanding of political systems and the ownership of resources.

When was the last time when a conflict of interest arose, you chose the higher path and allowed your rights to be trampled upon? I honestly can't think of any time when I unconsciously did that.I'm guessing you've never had children.

darkcurse
Jul 8, 2007, 03:41 AM
I'm guessing you've never had children.

No I haven't but since you've brought it up. Would you care for your neighbour's kids as much as you care for your own? You'd only care about them if in some way they affected your own children too right?

dogbone
Jul 8, 2007, 04:05 AM
Well said dogbone. What I don't understand really is the hypocritical attitude about some westerner's towards their government which is in all fairness trying to look out for the good of the whole country and their citizens. Thats what governments are supposed to do right?

When was the last time when a conflict of interest arose, you chose the higher path and allowed your rights to be trampled upon? I honestly can't think of any time when I unconsciously did that.

The hypocritical attitude is easy to understand. There they are sitting in the lap of luxury waiting impatiently for the new imac to arrive while drooling over the new iphone and basically being piggish consumers. They aren't thrown in jail by *their* government for having an opinion and it's dead easy to be an armchair critic when it's not oneself who has relatives who've been gassed to death or have suffered under horrific oppression.

Yes the government is supposed to look after their citizens but also to be responsible world citizens too. It's a question of Rights and Duties. Many people wail for their “rights” but couldn't give a toss about their “duties”

skunk
Jul 8, 2007, 04:13 AM
it's dead easy to be an armchair critic when it's not oneself who has relatives who've been gassed to death or have suffered under horrific oppression.Safe in the knowledge that I'm being ignored, I'd venture that this armchair general thinks that it matters a damn who has caused the death and/or oppression of your relatives, whether it be Saddam Hussein or the US Air Force dropping the gas/napalm/white phosphorus, whether it was Saddam Hussein who trampled on your rights or the "Coalition" who destroyed your entire country.

No I haven't but since you've brought it up. Would you care for your neighbour's kids as much as you care for your own? Well, yes, I would, if they actually needed looking after.

MACDRIVE
Jul 8, 2007, 06:27 AM
shhhhh.... don't tell bush about solar power, because he'll start bombing the sun.

LOL! . . . http://i115.photobucket.com/albums/n284/MACDRIVE/GIFS/laugh.gif

inlimbo
Jul 8, 2007, 06:49 AM
To be fair the minister that said it has since tried to explain it away as being misinterpreted. No doubt after being severely reprimanded.

Nelson's statement is confusing for 2 reasons:
1) while oil is part of the reason, if you are a Minister you are not meant to publicly acknowledge it! Big no no Mr Nelson.
2) If a purpose of the war was to secure the oil supply then that purpose has failed. The Iraqi oil supply is less secure.

I don't know what he was thinking.

Apparently, before he was in the Liberal party he was in the ALP! Goes to show that people enter politics, not to stand up for what the believe, but simply for power. Wow - can't believe I said that – I'm so naive ;)

MACDRIVE
Jul 8, 2007, 07:15 AM
I just can't understand why Bush company just didn't build a green zone around all the oil wells and start pumping the oil out of there while the natives were busy killing each other off.

If the real purpose of the U.S invading Iraq was to secure the oil fields, why not just go ahead and concentrate on doing that rather than get in between the rifts that are going on between the natives?

Bush is spending too many American lives trying to make this war look legitimate. If I was going to be a crooked world leader, I'd want to be the most efficient crook as I could be in order to achieve my objectives without putting my military into harms way.

dogbone
Jul 8, 2007, 07:21 AM
@MACDRIVE

The best way to 'secure' the oil, if that is what is intended it to promote democracy, it's obviously what the bulk of the population wants. No wait, we are told by despot extremists, theocrats and "clerics" that democracy is against Islam, but I don't buy that.

skunk
Jul 8, 2007, 07:29 AM
If I was going to be a crooked world leader, I'd want to be the most efficient crook as I could be in order to achieve my objectives without putting my military into harms way.You mean like Saddam Hussein? Bush is completely outclassed.

MACDRIVE
Jul 8, 2007, 07:50 AM
You mean like Saddam Hussein? Bush is completely outclassed.

Well, I guess what I mean is that I would rather Bush be a smart crook as opposed to being one that's not very bright. Wishful thinking I suppose. :(

FFTT
Jul 8, 2007, 08:21 AM
Horse feathers!

What we are doing there is no different than what the colonials
did trying to subdue the native populations so they could exploit their land and resourses.

Saddam was threatening the stability of OPEC price controls which is set up
pretty much the same way DeBeers controls the flow of diamonds to keep
their prices from falling.

This is all about BIG MONEY and BIG BUSINESS.

We are not there to bring freedom or democracy to the Middle East.

My oh my! Look what happened in Palestine when people were FREE to vote
for themselves. OOPS!

This was all about making sure someone U.S. friendly was sitting on top of
"our" oil.

What's our oil doing under their sand?

People are brainwashed with the sound bite ideology of the most corrupt
leadership our country has ever known.

This administration depends on group thinkers to further their
twisted agenda.

If they were truely Die Hard Americans, they would be far more concerned
with upholding the protections of our U.S. Constitution.

They have fallen for the illusion that Bush and Cheney actually give a rats a$$
about laws and the value of human life.

They have turned over control of this country to the whims of private corporations. They control who becomes a political candidate, not us.

It would be great if everyone on this planet thought just like us and believed in OUR God and followed OUR social values and allowed us to take anything WE want because we are properly civilized and they are not.

They support war for profit by declaring loyalty to the acts of this administration.

Perhaps their livelihood depends on one of those government contracts
to keep a roof over their heads.

IF.... so, they indirectly benefit from the misery and exploitation of others.

You can spin what we're doing to make it sound less offensive, but the speed of communication prevents these entities from completely controlling the story to their advantage.

All this death, carnage and misery because they simply wanted it.

The oil

skunk
Jul 8, 2007, 08:43 AM
Saddest of all is that he's been brainwashed by Little Johnnie Howard. He's not even American.

dogbone
Jul 8, 2007, 08:45 AM
My oh my! Look what happened in Palestine when people were FREE to vote for themselves. OOPS!

That is so unbelievably naive.

You reckon it's possible to go from an utterly corrupt Fatah with Arafat siphoning off billions and then give the people a choice between that and a bunch of looney terrorists and the result is the measure of democracy?

Do you support Hamas then?

MACDRIVE
Jul 8, 2007, 08:53 AM
Saddam was threatening the stability of OPEC price controls which is set up
pretty much the same way DeBeers controls the flow of diamonds to keep
their prices from falling.

That's interesting; I didn't know that.

This is all about BIG MONEY and BIG BUSINESS.

We are not there to bring freedom or democracy to the Middle East.

That sums it up quite nicely. If only the Bush administration could've told us that from the very beginning instead of telling us a bunch of lies about WMD, I would've had more respect for them. :cool:

This was all about making sure someone U.S. friendly was sitting on top of
"our" oil.

What's our oil doing under their sand?

Again, I wish they would've just levelled with us from the very beginning.

He has fallen for the illusion that Bush and Cheney actually give a rats a$$
about laws and the value of human life.

It definitely seems that way since Bush is so careless with American soldiers.

They have turned over control of this country to the whims of private corporations. They control who becomes a political candidate, not us.

That must be why whoever the candidate is that accumulates the biggest campaign fund wins the presidency.

FFTT
Jul 8, 2007, 11:47 AM
My oh my! Look what happened in Palestine when people were FREE to vote for themselves. OOPS!

That is so unbelievably naive.

You reckon it's possible to go from an utterly corrupt Fatah with Arafat siphoning off billions and then give the people a choice between that and a bunch of looney terrorists and the result is the measure of democracy?

Do you support Hamas then?

If only the media had dug for the truth instead of regurgitating the official slanted and sanitized AP News version of the truth.

Those MF's used a media blitz to SELL us this war!

That whole yellowcake story came from Italian intelligence and it was proven a hoax.

We had more power over Iraq's political outcome sitting there on the border shutting off his supply lines.

Saddam couldn't afford to make one false move.

Eventually he would be forced to yield to our pressure or
his government would have failed.

What's more they are STILL lying to us.

They want bases in Iraq and they want direct control over that oil as well as direct control over the money generated and spent.

If anything were to happen to the Saudi Monarchy, our supply of oil
would be in serious jeopardy.

So strategiclally, yes we NEED to make sure nothing interrupts the flow of oil from that region.

The oil is the prize, but many profit from the conquest to obtain that prize.

They are using every excuse but the truth to mask their shame for all
the lives that have been lost.

miloblithe
Jul 8, 2007, 12:43 PM
Sure it doesn't matter, Australia can sell it the minerals it needs we've got heaps of bauxite. The bottom line is that the oil producing countries need the less oil producing countries more than vice versa, would you not agree?

As you might have noticed, bauxite is just one of the minerals on that list. There are many more. More to the point, the total flow of mineral and non-mineral resources is to wealthy countries, not from wealthy countries. Australia and Canada are to some degree exceptions to this, purely because of their very low population densities and huge land-masses. They can afford to be both high-level resource consumers and high-level resource exporters. The US and Western Europe cannot, because they do not have enough resources to support their current populations at current levels without importing supplemental resources. Also, Australia is having a lot of trouble with this strategy because the Australian environment is pretty fragile, comparatively.

My point is that the idea that the oil consuming countries need oil producing countries less than oil producing countries is firstly a difficult to prove point in and of itself, but moreso it ignores the fact that oil is hardly the only resource traded around the world. To me, your argument that the oil consuming countries need oil producing countries less than oil producing countries need them is an ideological point, not a scientific or economic one. That's fine. This is the politics forum, so ideology should be at home here. Just don't expect to convince anyone who doesn't share your ideology if you can't back up your points with a rational argument.

MACDRIVE
Jul 8, 2007, 06:56 PM
If anything were to happen to the Saudi Monarchy, our supply of oil would be in serious jeopardy.


So very true! But so far Bush's plan for a backup pool of oil in Iraq is not going very well. ;)

So strategiclally, yes we NEED to make sure nothing interrupts the flow of oil from that region.

Yeah! I wish the administration would've just said that in the first place! The politicians are always assuming the public thinks it's immoral to commit troops for oil, so they then dream up some kind of far fetched excuse like WMD's. They should've just come right out and said that our country would come to a grinding halt without a constant supply of oil; I'd have some respect for them if they could be honest in that way.