babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » current events   » national news   » Iraq Next ?

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Iraq Next ?
Boinker
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 664

posted 06 January 2002 11:05 AM      Profile for Boinker   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Here is an interesting article from the New York Times:Hussein Next ?

Here as well is source posted by Rifraf on another thread that talks abouit the real reasons for the war - a oil pipeline through Afghanistan:

quote:
One obvious potential route south would be across Iran. However, this option is foreclosed for American companies because of U.S. sanctions legislation. The only other possible route option is across Afghanistan, which has its own unique challenges.
The country has been involved in bitter warfare for almost two decades. The territory across which the pipeline would extend is controlled by the Taliban, an Islamic movement that is not recognized as a government by most other nations. From the outset, we have made it clear that construction of our proposed pipeline cannot begin until a recognized government is in placethat has the confidence of governments, lenders and our company.


source:
TESTIMONY BY JOHN J. MARESCA VICE PRESIDENT, INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS UNOCAL CORPORATION TO HOUSE COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE ON ASIA AND THE PACIFIC
[FEB/98]
see The Real Reaons for War ?

Guess who is on the board of directors of Unocal?

George Bush senior.

Now I don't know about you, gentle readers, but if seems to me that if the Iraqui oil dries up as a result of another terrorist war then the Afghani pipeline looks awfully attractive and profitable.

Here's a quote from the NYT 's article:

quote:
January 6, 2002

NEWS ANALYSIS
If Hussein Is Next, Experts Say, Do It Fast
by SERGE SCHMEMANN

Beyond the Middle East, Washington's longing to unseat Mr. Hussein is generally resisted in Russia and Europe. Iraq owes a huge debt to Russia and is one of the few nations where Russia can exert its influence in the Middle East. France has large potential contracts in Iraq, and all European economies would be affected by the loss of 2.5 million barrels of oil a day,even for a limited period.


This seems a macabre "win-win" situation from one point of view. Take out Hussein quickly and end the death dealing sanctions against the Iraqui people and build the Afghani pipeline to replace the lost oil and rebuild the country.

But all this will do is make another "middle far east" with the locus of the oil mammon creating a new centre of wealth and power.

I am conflcted to say the least

I think it would be infinitely better to detach the war machine from the economics by eliminating the need for oil. I think it is politically possible with the right kind of leadership in the places of power. It is abviously technically possible and probably less costly.


From: The Junction | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Boinker
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 664

posted 07 January 2002 07:38 PM      Profile for Boinker   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
So priming the pump then for those who like colossal paranoid theories of the global political universe that cannot be solved by consumer adviocacy, the point is a chicken and egg question.

Is Bush Sr involved with Unocal because of a possible War against Iraq or is the Iraq war looming becauuse of the oil industry's interest in the pipeline?

[ January 08, 2002: Message edited by: Boinker ]


From: The Junction | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca