cont'

Bushbred said “ which includes the now over-armed Israelis out as well, shifting their Biblical Promised Land to America, to leave the Arabs to fight in peace, as was said about the Irish.”

The Israelis are about 7 or 8 million people surrounded by 200 million Muslims hell bent on wiping them off the face of the planet. I’m not so sure it would be possible for them to be over armed. At least three times in 50 years Arab coalitions tried to wipe out Israel by conventional armed invasion. Even worse, Iran, who is working on the ‘Arab Bomb’, teaches its schoolchildren that Israel must be removed from the face of the earth in any manner possible. No wonder Israel feels the need to be well armed. The Arabs aren’t going to get Israel ‘out’ and the sooner they come to terms with this, the sooner their lives will improve.

Bushbred said “It proves the weakness of US military forethought when they simply let the original Iraqi forces loose to begin the mobilisation of the Sunni suicide bombers” The size of the deployment to Iraq and the decision to disband the Iraqi army were political decisions, not taken by service people. It shows the naiveté of the Bush white house rather than the military.

Hi Bushbred and a BIG THANKYOU Paul l.

Paul L has clearly been reading the right blogs.

Where Paul said "Plantagenet said “most of the killing of Iraqi civilians is done by Iraqi Shiite death squads who frequently moonlight in the Iraqi Army, Police and Iraqi Interior Ministry”" he was quoting a post on Pete’s Blog concerning the art of Covert Action not the oil issue. See http://spyingbadthings.blogspot.com/2007/07/saudis-unsung-suicide-bombers-in-iraq.html

If Paul had done more homework he could have found a more relevant post on Pete's Blog which is Oil The Unspeakable Foreign Policy Factor http://spyingbadthings.blogspot.com/2006/06/oil-unspeakable-foreign-policy-factor.html June 24, 2006.

This learned post ;) (Paul mate) includes this view:

“Oil is crucial to the West. Securing major supplies and seeking new ones are major issues. Iraq has very large reserves of oil but its oil production has been low for many years. Therefore it is curious, even astonishing, that the Bush Administration has never been willing to admit that oil was a major reason for invading Iraq. This astonishment also applies to the remaining members of the “Coalition of the (slightly less) Willing” (which includes Australia).”

That was over a year ago. Now Defence Minister Nelson is starting to admit that oil was (and is) an important reason for being in Iraq.

Paul should now, at least, be heeding the advice of a senior Minister.

If Paul wants to draw further from Pete’s Blog I take that as a complement - onya Pauly ;)

Pete
http://spyingbadthings.blogspot.com/

Plantagenet, MATEY, If I have incorrectly quoted you it’s because you are less than clear with your own referencing. I took the quote from your post above because it seemed to be your point of view. So what are you trying to say in your first post?

I have NEVER denied oil was an important factor in Iraq. I have merely tried to get across that there is much more to it than this single issue. It would suit the Marxist/loony left to believe that the US goes to war for monetary gain but the wars the US has been involved in over the past 20 years are clear evidence that this is not the case.

Funnily enough I don’t research blogs for evidence of anything. There are actually authoritative sites out there and I don’t waste my time reading other peoples VANITY PIECES, ok MATE. I certainly don’t second guess whether a quote someone gives on their post is actually their opinion. By the way, you only responded to a small part of my post. Does that mean you agree with the rest?

Someone said ‘This situation … is a recipe for continuing Sunni ... insurrection. This has already degenerated into suicide bombing. This provides an excuse for endless US occupation.” That is a misreading of the facts. Sunni resentment and insurrection began with the original invasion and was originally about destabilization and support for the old regime. When they realized that the US weren’t leaving anytime soon they switched focus to gaining influence in a Shiite controlled Iraqi gov’t. Suicide bombers were active the whole time.

Recently the American House of Representatives voted overwhelmingly to ensure that no US bases remained in Iraq after withdrawal.

Paul L.

You're right that oil is not the only reason the US is in Iraq. I think what I said on OLO in September 2005 still stands:

see http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=182#15059

"The US appears to be in Iraq to:
- control Iraq’s oil production and reserves (a significant proportion of the Middle East’s (world’s major producers) oil supplies)
- protect Saudi Arabia from outside threats particularly from the Shiite threat (including Iran). Bush has a long record of personal and public ties with the Saudi’s.
- act as a buffer between Israel (with a well documented record of owning [nuclear] weapons) and Iran and Pakistan (emerging Muslim nuclear weapon states). Its in the US’s interests to prevent a regional nuclear war in the Middle East.
- Give a large (post Cold War) US defence establishment something to do. Defence spend is traditionally good for the US economy and hence the Republican’s chance of reelection.
- Focus American public interest on “manageable” and until recently popular government activities, that is, making war on Muslims in Iraq (while providing far smaller resources for the more useful activity of fighting terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan)

If there is sufficient US public pressure on Bush regarding US casualties then most US forces may need to withdraw to friendlier real estate (such as Kuwait) leaving a civil war in Iraq...

Posted by plantagenet, Thursday, 15 September 2005 1:35:56"

For more opinion on the complexity of the Mid East situation I suggest you read "The tangled web of Middle Eastern alliances" http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=5234 .

Congress and even Democrats Administration will listen (for votes and money) to US pressure groups (including the intelligence, military, oil and Texas lobbies) that engineered the Iraqi "necesssity". They'll be persuaded that a force of (say) 50,000 US troops will be required to protect (world (US) interests and I think USAF imposed no fly zones will remain.

So you're right that the situation is more complex than just oil but what your've been saying isn't new.

Pete

“For more opinion on the complexity of the Mid East situation I suggest you read "The tangled web of Middle Eastern alliances” http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=5234

Are you quoting yourself as an authority. Because usual academic procedure is to find first hand sources to make an argument. Failing that, it is common to reference other authors work on a subject. By the way, there is an awful lot of speculation in your piece and it is filled with words like ’may’ and ‘could’ and ‘might’. No references are provided for your arguments.

You said “it is up to the west, including the US and Australia, to recognise that Iranian initiatives are not necessarily a threat.” I wonder whether you still stand by this comment as it seems to me totally unfounded. The Iranian role in destabilizing Iraq is well documented now and is clearly about maximizing their strategic influence. A weak or partitioned Iraq, at war with itself, is clearly in their interests. You said it yourself although in a rather noncommittal way. “Ultimately the US, Israel and Saudi Arabia may fear a Shiite alliance could strengthen Iran by allowing it to divert more resources away from conventional military security towards its nuclear program.” Damn right it could.

I note from a previous post you said “I don’t know if Iran going nuclear would be beneficial but realizing that it has the right (like Israel and Pakistan) to do it is realistic.” Now I know you are nuts. Israel is a democracy rightly concerned about its continuing existence. The Iranian theocracy holds it as an item of faith that the destruction of Israel is Gods work. If any Arab state gets nuclear technology you can bet it will only be a matter of time before a h-bomb turns up in downtown Tel Aviv

I should think it has more to do with idealism rather than an oil conspiracy. The U.S. has spent more in Iraq trying to establish a system of free market economy and democratic rule than it could ever get back through the purchase of oil under the most favourable conditions. Never mind the life lost.
Unfortunately with the differing countries where the U.S. has tried to bring forth a free market economy and democratic values in governance they bump into an Iraqi situation where there are cultural majorities and minorities historically at odds. Democratic rule in Iraq will automatically give rule to the Shia majority. Who were under the Baathist party and the Sunni minority quite abused.

As a General of the Republican Guard said. With Saddam turning more and more of the responsibility for governing over to Qusay and Ouday, and their rapine and murderous behavior, it was only a matter of time before Iraq broke out into sectarian violence as the tribal agreements collapsed and that the 'Coalition of the Willing' actually stifled a full blown civil war that would have spread with out doubt to include Iran, as a dominate Shia Theocracy, and Syria, as Baathist in support of the Sunni minority.

Even as it is intelligence gathering shows these nations champing at the bit to get involved in some trigger pulling in Iraq.

There is a white paper published[leaked]on the internet from U.S. government by high ranking Iraqi Generals begging for American intervention. The same people have their own city of some 100,000 in the American midwest. People act as if one day Iraq just imploded because the Americans decided to invade. Very simplistic but fuels the conspiracy freaks and the Yankee haters.