RubySoho
Winston
Yes, We Did Mention 'Blood For Oil' And We Are Not The Only Ones!!!
March 16th 2008 03:40
Apparently there are still some people out there who think the Iraq war was not about securing oil reserves. No, I am not kidding (in the interests of backing up my claims I will give you this Really Long Link though I can't promise you anything worthwhile when you get there).
Those of us who adhered to the catch cry of 'no blood for oil' were and, unbelievably, in some circles still are being denounced as liars, libtards and of course loony lefties, (just a quick reminder here that it wasn't only the left who didn't approve of the war).
Well, if you who call us such names won't listen to us, maybe you will listen to your own? Here are a few quotes from US, Australian and British politicians who were the three biggest proponents of the "Coalition of the Willing".
Paul Wolfowitz (former US Deputy of Defense), addressing delegates at an Asian security summit in June 2003:
"Let's look at it simply. The most important difference between North Korea and Iraq is that economically, we just had no choice in Iraq. The country swims on a sea of oil."
Brendan Nelson (former Australian Defence Minister), in an interview on ABC Radio, July 2007:
"The defence update we're releasing today sets out many priorities for Australia's defence and security, and resource security is one of them...The entire (Middle East) region is an important supplier of energy, oil in particular, to the rest of the world".
Jack Straw (former British Foreign Secretary), speaking to a meeting of British Ambassadors in January 2003, Straw said that a top strategic priority for the UK was to:
“bolster the security of British and global energy supplies”
Any other questions???
Those of us who adhered to the catch cry of 'no blood for oil' were and, unbelievably, in some circles still are being denounced as liars, libtards and of course loony lefties, (just a quick reminder here that it wasn't only the left who didn't approve of the war).
Well, if you who call us such names won't listen to us, maybe you will listen to your own? Here are a few quotes from US, Australian and British politicians who were the three biggest proponents of the "Coalition of the Willing".
Paul Wolfowitz (former US Deputy of Defense), addressing delegates at an Asian security summit in June 2003:
"Let's look at it simply. The most important difference between North Korea and Iraq is that economically, we just had no choice in Iraq. The country swims on a sea of oil."
Brendan Nelson (former Australian Defence Minister), in an interview on ABC Radio, July 2007:
"The defence update we're releasing today sets out many priorities for Australia's defence and security, and resource security is one of them...The entire (Middle East) region is an important supplier of energy, oil in particular, to the rest of the world".
Jack Straw (former British Foreign Secretary), speaking to a meeting of British Ambassadors in January 2003, Straw said that a top strategic priority for the UK was to:
“bolster the security of British and global energy supplies”
Any other questions???
| 90 |
| Vote |
Add To: 
Subscribe to this blog
Comment by Ahmed
Video Gamer Kids
Little Green Foosballs
PolyKicks
Cinema Three
No matter how much evidence and proof you will present she will stubbornly refuse to acknowledge them, call you names, then try to claim her opinions have any merti as fact behind them.
Don't even get me started on how difficult it is to get her to show any proof to back her opinions.
Comment by RubySoho
Music Zone
Thought Zone
Some things are fairly easy to ignore but when someone can actually, and in all seriousness, claim that any link between the war and oil is "idiotic", when even the parties involved have come clean, well then that really is too much.
But then, there are some pundits out there who still believe that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction and that's why the US went in.
Bloody amazing.
Comment by Damo
For the Sake of Argument
My Apologetics
In Communist Russia she would be a good Communist.
In Nazi Germany she would be a a good Nazi.
In a corporation she would the best company gal on earth.
But in America she just happens to be a good Republican party hack.
It works this way:
The party is right even if it is wrong.
Everything is PR.
Enemies are dogs that must be destroyed at all costs.
Enemies are anyone why does not follow party line.
I love
Big Brotherthe party.You can't argue with sophism because it has no grip on reality.
Comment by RubySoho
Music Zone
Thought Zone
Yeah, I have you to thank for unleashing the beast onto me actually. I've been reading some of your old posts which lead me to her door. Now her blog is like the proverbial car wreck on the highway- I know I shouldn't look but I just can't help myself...
I scratch my head, I wring my hands, I pull my own hair.
But mostly I just feel grateful that most people round these parts see through her.
I love your blog, by the way.
Comment by Damo
For the Sake of Argument
My Apologetics
The bigoted ones stand out because they get lost of comments.
Better if you can't help yourself. Post as Anon and sign you name at the bottom. That means she does not get Karma point for bigotry.
Comment by Geoff Egan
Noise Fanatic
I see the invasion of Iraq more as a powerplay into an area of increasing international importance (yes oil is a major reason for that) to influence the region with states such as Saudi Arabia and Iran as two of the major players there. One thing the war has done positively is massively hinder the 'rogue' states of Syria and Libya. I don't nessecarilly think that they were a mojar threat to international society, but soon after the invasion of Iraq those two 'axis of evil' states (again that was a dumb, ignorant statment; I'm not sure who passed that for Bush to say) backed right down. Iraq was by far the weakest of the axis states. North Korea would have been a bloodbath.....
Anyway, enough to say that I don't disagree, but I think there was much more to it than simply oil
Comment by RubySoho
Music Zone
Thought Zone
The fact is oil was the decisive factor. Had there not been copious amounts of oil in the Middle East, then I am sure the US would be focusing more of its attention on Venezuela and they wouldn't have given up after their first attempt to depose Chavez.
Not entirely related but I don't think Israel would exist either.
Damo- thanks for tip. I am loathe to give her my karma points. Now, It'll be like eating diet ice cream- guilt free!