Do you consider invading other sovereign nations for their resources legitimate? Try to consider the various costs and consequences.

On Wmds:
- Fabricated evidence and sensationalist propositions.

On "The Bad Guy":
- in the 1990s, when the regime's crimes were being carried out, Western countries did not wage war in response to those crimes.
- Sanctions imposed on Iraq led to the deaths of approximately 500,000 children. M.Albright's response: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lK_QshS2EW8
- The United States sold chemical weapons to the regime in the 1980s
- Australian AWB Oil-For-Food scandal with the regime

The Puppet Master: Project for a New American Century.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century#US_World_Dominance_.28.22Power_Americana.22.29

A lot of our money is being spent by Howard on the Iraq War and on the ADF. It's a little ironic for Nelson to be so pro-war at the taxpayers expense. Perpetual War is desirable for at least two powerful entities in the the USA: The Military Industrial complex and the Neoconservatives (PNAC). This is what Eisenhower said about the MIC and after you put the pieces together, you may find the implications for Australia are clear considering our uncritical support of the US and it's disregard for the rights of foreigners.

"In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals so that security and liberty may prosper together."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military-industrial_complex#Origin_of_the_term

Dear Steel...
Eisenhower was quite right. There are always dangers from those of 'us' who will seek to gain advantage for their own little segment of the community. Now.. correct as this is, I'm rather reminded of every political party I know of.... they all do that.

But when it is the MUC... there are bigger dangers. I agree.

The main thing I wish to point out about the title, is that 'ensuring security of resources' does not neccessarily mean 'Invading a country for its resources'.

Why? If the invasion is to root out a despot AND install a democratic government which will be friendly to us, I don't see any major moral issue there.

BUT ..IF we were to invade a country in order to RUTHLESSLY EXPLOIT its resources for our benefit at no cost, then I see a moral issue there. For example, when the Japanese colonized Korea, they denuded the hills of Timber for the sake of Japan. 'moral issue'.

Please try to distinguish between the 'aggression/greed' based military action, and the 'noble' kind :)

Not that there is much nobility at the end of the day in such things, most of the dignity and nobility is lost in the horror and hell of what war usually ends up being.

I have no specific 'Christian' solution here except the usual one "Do for others as you would have them do for you"

If my country was ruled by Sadaam Hussein, and my sister had been taken as a sex toy by his son on a whim one day.. and the Americans came to install democracy, yep..I'd quite welcome that.

The Americans biggest weakness is that they don't totally dominate the country and stamp out ALL sectarian aggression. They won't because of the stupid notion of 'human rights' which is oblivious to tribal religious realities.

When a country is divided along sectarian lines there are only 3 viable possibilities for peace.
1/ Side A rules side B
2/ Side B rules side A
3/ Side OUTSIDER rules both of them.

Where are all our spin-doctors when we need them? Iraq and most of the Islamic world are perfect targets for denigration. Why don’t we broadcast footage to the Islamic world of the ridiculous half cooked doctor from Glasgow with his suicide note. How about the stupid Taliban mufti from the red mosque in Islamabad; running around under his burqha and hiding among the women.
We need to urgently source greenhouse friendly energy and move quickly away from dependence on Middle East oil. I feel if we commit enough resources alternatives will soon emerge.
We also must stop accepting so called refugees from Lebanon, Iraq, and Pakistan etc., as it has been an unpleasant and expensive experience.

Boaz,

"..and the Americans came to install democracy, yep..I'd quite welcome that. The Americans biggest weakness is that they don't totally dominate the country and stamp out ALL sectarian aggression. They won't because of the stupid notion of 'human rights' which is oblivious to tribal religious realities"

You made sound so romantic :-)

The US and intl community 's main motivation is control of energy sources Boaz and very few people can think differently. The same reason why Darfur is now in focus because of its natural gas reserves.

Many countries who advocated regime change in Iraq argued it could ben done internally through a peaceful and/ or military coup. The US forced its view of a full scale military action (including destruction of Iraqi infrastructure). The increasing number of US army personnel charged with rape, civilian murders and man slaughter flies in the face of your 'human rights efforts'.

Probably you meant Australian humanitarian efforts. Please don't confuse American and Australian efforts in Iraq.

We have been lucky so far we had no Aussie casualty, shouldn't we quit when we are ahead? or do you think the Italian way of pulling out after casualties was better?

Put the ego aside and think Boaz,

So what's new?
The USA only got involved in WW1 (and WW2) when it knew that they would miss out on the carve-up of the Middle East after it was over.

Every war is about resources or opening new markets.

Even Colin Powell said (in Australia) that he expected to have troops in Afghanistan by the end of the year - months before 911 - and that skirmish was more about Caspian Sea Oil pipelines than anything else.

"We just want to disarm him, we're not after regime change.." That's how the original argument went.

F-H, we know that Boaz has his own special form of rationality, as is frequently evidenced in this forum.

Oil was always the reason for invading Iraq; Saddam/WMDs were the pretext.

We always knew that, but it's interesting to see Nelson finally admitting it.

C J Morgan,

Dr Nelson has not admitted that oil was a reason for invading Iraq. He has only admitted that it's a reason for staying. There's a big difference.

Iraq's people should be the one's to decide what they want.They were obviously happy to have Hussein and party gone but why so many deaths of troops and european civilians that work for the army?If we invade Iraq just for the oil then Yes it is morally wrong,Should we be out of Iraq now Thats a question? If we pull out to soon, the situation for the everyday Iraq's will worsen.So even if it was "just for the oil" then shame on J.Howard who put greed before human life.But if it was for the chance to give the little people in Iraq a fair go.Thats okay to put our troops in danger.Have you even thought? There are so many American troops and contractors getting injured and killed.How come our Australian troops and contractors have not sustained any injuries or deaths? when the coalition forces work side by side?Could you say we are just lucky,or we are just be kept in the dark?

Quite so, Sylvia Else. My mistake - I should've known that he and his bosses are incapable of being truthful.

Steel,
You are a true genius!

Steel,
Thanks for the work .

We should not be surprised .

Also from memory, George Bush announced some months ago that the US intended to double it's oil reserves .

I wondered then if this oil would come from Iraq ?

I am now thinking with 20% of Australia's oil coming from the "Middle East" according to the Defence Minister, how much of ours comes from Iraq and what is the price the blighted Iraqis are getting at the wellhead ?

America,having used much of their own resource, could be pouring precious oil back down into their own US wells -saving it up for a rainy day, when the rest of the oil thirsty world has sucked Iraq dry .

Congratulations to Brendan Nelson for some rare Truth from this Government in this Nightmare that is Iraq.

"So what's new? The USA only got involved in WW1 (and WW2) when it knew that they would miss out on the carve-up of the Middle East after it was over." Pres. Wilson continued the policy of USA isolationism until the Germans sank the Lusitania (1916). The English were the ones who double-crossed T.E. Lawrence and the Arab allies in the M.E. The Arab tribal chiefs knew that they had to get to Damascus before General Allenby, or the English wouldn't honour their deal. During WW1, the USA still had plenty of oil in Texas, California, etc., and didn't need M.E. oil. As for WW2, American isolationism was again official policy until Pearl Harbor. Churchill was prepared to surrender the top half of Oz, and if it wasn't for Aussies and the "Fuzzy-Wuzzy Angels" on the Kokoda Track and the Yanks at the Battle of the Coral Sea, we would have been spending the Japanese Pound. After the War the Yanks rebuilt Europe and Japan. Europe didn't have any resources the Yanks didn't already have and Japan had none. A lot of evidence supports the notion that this is "a War for oil", as much, if not more, than "a War against Terrorism". As far as Oz is concerned, it is not about "Little Johnny Howard" kissing George Dubya's arse, it is about the Oz way of doing things: we are considered to be one of the most charitable and friendliest nations on Earth, we finish what we start, we stick by our mates even if they don't always deserve it, we are egalitarian with "a fair go for everybody", we pull together in hard times even if we don't like each other too much in the good times. George W. Bush is a boofhead and one of the USA's worst Presidents, but the 3,000 plus Yanks and the thousands more Iraqis who have died require that in true Aussie spirit we do not abandon these people without a peaceful solution.

Well, Well, its's oil been changed in about 12 hours .
The Brendan Nelson's "rare Honesty" on oil as a good reason for continuing the occupation in Iraq didn't last long - A quick friendly call from the PM and he's done a 360.

I thought he might just have had a bit of ticker .

Apart from you Sylvia it doesn't seem as though any of us, in this debate has ever been fooled by that devious little toad. We all wondered when he was going to pull the next rebbit out of the hat just before the election. The United States have always felt helpless when the Islamic Countries Nationalised their oil wells. As soon as the war mongers occupied Iraq they privatised the oil. That and that alone tells us that it was not Saddam Hussein, Terrorism or weapons of mass destruction it was the oil nothing else. How many of us were fooled, not many but the electorate could not care less. How many young American lives lost. Those young Americans layed down their lives devestated their families for ever, just for the greed of that black gold. While they get greedier and wealthier they pollute our planet. Why do they go to such lengths to grab those mineral commodities because coal, oil and uranium creates wealth.
Solar, Tidal, Waves and Wind do not that is why they are not interested in promoting that which does not pollute. We all have a lot to combat against wealthy propaganda that is harmful to the people.

Hi all,

The underlying msgx from JH is that 'we' the voters are a mob of morons who could not care less so long as our hip-pocket nerve is not hurt.

Since 'No GST ever' to this recent debacle we have been treated with absolute contempt. We have sold our souls to the highest bidder regardless of the cost.

Bronco Lane

I have not here expressed any view at all about the reasons for the invasion of Iraq. All I have done is to point out that Dr Nelson did not, in fact, admit that Iraq had been invaded for oil.

You really need to keep distinct in your mind things that are true, things that you believe, and things that can be proved. They are not all one and the same. If you muddle them together, then you end up making yourself look either intellectually dishonest, or just plain stupid.

Sylvia.

Sylvia,

I cound't help smiling re your comment of admission :) Did you ever see a politician admitting to anything? ever? : -)

Anyway, regarding Dr Nelson's comment, I think the moral obligation of fixing damages caused by the war should superceed the oil interest.

As much as I believe we should not be there, I also believe 'if you break you must stay and fix it'. Unless I am mistaken, Dr Nelson comment implies that we will only fix the bits we like and not Iraq as a whole. If thats what he meant its worrying.

Peace,

Fellow_Human

Though I hold politicians in considerable disdain (despite my own brief foray in that direction), they do have a real problem in that anything they say will be quoted out of context, misquoted, misrepresented, misconstrued, and just plain distorted, by people who have their own agenda.

Those who have been convinced from the start that the war in Iraq was started as a way of getting access to Iraq's oil have seized upon Dr Nelson's comment as representing proof, even though it related only to the reason for staying in Iraq, not the reason for invading.

Even the words Dr Nelson used need not necessarily be construed as indicating the the reason for staying is that Australia wants the oil. They can equally well be construed as meaning that the reason for staying is to help Iraq benefit from its oil.

Where the truth really lies we will probably never know for sure. However, I've always been sceptical of the war for oil concept simply because it makes no economic sense. Wars are hugely expensive. Given that oil is available from many other places, it would be cheaper to buy that other oil at a higher price, than finance a war to get at Iraq's oil.

Sylvia, I borrowed this from CommonDreams.org
Will The End of Oil Mean The End of America?
by Robert Freeman.

In Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, Robert Pirsig tells the story of a South American Indian tribe that has devised an ingenious monkey trap. The Indians cut off the small end of a coconut and stuff it with sweetmeats and rice. They tether the other end to a stake and place it in a clearing.

Soon, a monkey smells the treats inside and comes to see what it is. It can just barely get its hand into the coconut but, stuffed with booty, it cannot pull the hand back out. The Indians easily walk up to the monkey and capture it. Even as the Indians approach, the monkey screams in horror, not only in fear of its captors, but equally as much, one imagines, in recognition of the tragedy of its own lethal but still unalterable greed.

Pirsig uses the story to illustrate the problem of value rigidity. The monkey cannot properly evaluate the relative worth of a handful of food compared to its life. It chooses wrongly, catastrophically so, dooming itself by its own short-term fixation on a relatively paltry pleasure.

America has its own hand in a coconut, one that may doom it just as surely as the monkey. That coconut is its dependence on cheap oil in a world where oil will soon come to an end. The choice we face (whether to let the food go or hold onto it) is whether to wean ourselves off of oil—to quickly evolve a new economy and a new basis for civilization—or to continue to secure stable supplies from the rest of the world by force.

Airme, well put. Is oil worth fighting for? Just ask the three wise monkeys. Howard saw no corruption by his government in oil for food. He doesn't talk about oil except to deny its relevance for us being there, and will not hear of Brendon Nelson talk about oil although that news story was put out on Al Jaziera News, the same day.

Meanwhile, Iraqi motorists must queue for hours petrol, just like the Iranians.

Oil continues to be stolen and smuggled.

Oil facilities keep being attacked, since denial of oil to the US, is seen by insurgents as a way of cheating the Texan oilman come president, the spoils of his invasion.

It's no wonder, oil has been called the Devil's curse.

Instead of spending hundreds of millions on the Iraq war effort, trying to secure an elusive share of Iraq's dwindling highly sought after future oil production, wouldn't a better investment be to promote conversion to hydrogen and electric car production?

Part 1
"Instead of spending hundreds of millions on the Iraq war effort, trying to secure an elusive share of Iraq's dwindling highly sought after future oil production, wouldn't a better investment be to promote conversion to hydrogen and electric car production?"

Fair Go, I agree with your question in principle, but only to the degree of shifting monies for the war effort into other sources of energy. Forget hydrogen. It will never be practical. The reason it will never be a useful form of energy is explained on dozens of peak oil sites. Simply put, it's an energy carrier, not an energy source.

As for electric cars, one of the first things people must realise (no matter how painful the thought may be), is that humans cannot continue to own self transportation units (cars) to the degree that is currently possible. For one thing, the amount of platinum, copper, lead, etc required to convert our current fleet of cars, not to mention trucks, motorcycles, speedboats, etc, over to an electrically driven power source far exceeds the availability of the precious resources required. This also applies to the huge amounts of coal or gas used to manufacture EV's. Few truly understand the enormity of such an undertaking. Also, we most likely no longer have time to make the transition from an oil based economy to an alternative.

Part 2
Cars have become an expected birth right for young people in advanced societies and yet they've only been with us for just over 100 years. They've been largely responsible for much of the depletion of natural resources. Oh yes! They've been instrumental in propping up our expanding economy, but at the same time, our expectation of the right to drive ourselves around verses the privilege of getting from point A to B will certainly be mankind's undoing if the rush for car ownership is not curtailed.

Somehow, we must cause the general world wide population to realise that these fossil burning monstrosities are more about convenience than practicality. What we badly need are Government heads who are willing to speak openly about the impending oil crises and actively do something about it. More rail services to outlying suburbs would be a great start.
Maybe Michael of Adelaide can help me out here.

Teddles,

The sinking of the Lusitania (like Pearl Harbour) has always been a suspected "false-flag" operation designed to gain entry into the war, despite contrary public opinion.
The start of that war owes as much to the construction of the Berlin-to-Baghdad Railway as the assassination of an Archduke.
It was Rockefeller and Standard Oil who wanted to get the USA into WW1 because it was known as the world moved increasingly from coal to oil power that Texas would not be able to provide enough oil of the USA for the rest of the century.

According to Winston Churchill, this late entry of the USA into WW1 extended that war for a year longer than it would have lasted and ultimately led to the Russian Revolution, the rise of Fascism and ultimately to Naziism, so the world really owes them a lot.

As for the Japanese, they went to war primarily to sieze the oil and gas reserves in South-East Asia because the USA had blockaded their supplies to provoke the Pearl Harbour attack.

According to the chief historian of the Canberra War Memorial, the allies knew in 1942 that Australia was never a target for invasion.
This information was deliberately supressed from the public for obvious reasons at the time but was never corrected after the war, so the myth lives on. What were we actually saved from?

Later, it was the Americans who helped put Saddam into power in Iraq to safeguard primarily British Oil interests and to fight the Iranians on their behalf.
Likewise, their support for the Shah led to the rise of a sectarian Islamic state in Iran. (Persia earlier hoped to attract the help of the Nazis to kick out the Allies by changing it's name to Iran ("Aryan"))

(Continued)

The so-called "War on Terror" is a farce and can never be won. The Central Bank of America is a private company and profits directly from war. The longer it lasts, the more money they will make. This is not an opinion - it is a fact.

This is one of the reasons the Vietnam War was lost. Their army was hamstrung by policies that prevented them from winning.

Every President for the last 40 years has been an "oil man" or has come from an oil State (except Carter who effectively halted the growth of the nuclear industry on their behalf) so you can see where a lot of political influence comes from.

GWB is a only stooge for these interested parties. What other explanation could there be for his rise to power? The last US President who stood up to these other interests was JFK and we know what happened to him.

Are Australians always destined to be cannon-fodder for the military and financial interests of other countries?

Should we be sending our young people to die for the sake of a signing a Free-Trade Agreement or to clean up the messes created by other people?

I find it amazing how so many drooling retards :) (grin) have LEAPT on Nelsons comment and then twisted it (hence the term 'retard') to suit a pre-existing agenda "Destroy Howard at any cost, including truth"

Nelson mentioned 'oil security' if I'm not mistaken. Like Sylvia said.. 'Staying' for that reason is different from 'going' for that reason.
FURTHER... 'oil security' is not exactly 'lets get our hands on their oil' as much as "Lets ensure that with due respect for supply and demand, and the associated pricing, that we have supplies of oil"

It DOES NOT mean. "lets invade Iraq and steal their oil" which appears to be the message being trotted out by Steel.

Note.

1/ Steel is not a Genius.
2/ Steel is not God. :)

No offense oh metalic one.

FH..I think you misunderstood me. Re read pls.
have a read of what I posted in the 'Religious Education' thread, from a Youtube Muslim..I'd love to know of YOUR idea of 'paradise' is as exhotic as his :)

CJ... r u in need of some discipline there ? :) I think so.

Sylvia,

I actually appreciate Dr Nelson comments for being straight and open on this issue. The exploitation rights of Iraqi oil are currently being negotiated and we surely like to see Australian interests looked after.

“However, I've always been skeptical of the war for oil concept simply because it makes no economic sense. Wars are hugely expensive”

War for oil makes perfect economical sense when you consider all strategic benefits:

-The oil energy market runs like a franchise where the local partner (arab country or land owner keep) keeps a 10%-15% share while all other financial benefits goes to the oil tycoon.

-Control over energy sources means control of your economy and that of your competitors and also a political pressure card used on large scale energy importers (ie Russia, China, Japan etc..)

-Control of energy sources means you can easily finance war/ wars regardless of period. The US consumer have been paying close to an extra $USD 2 at the pump per gallon for the last 2 years.

-Last, control of oil resources means more jobs, control over the share market, consumer confidence index, etc..

Skepticism can only arise if you look at short term accounting (ie war cost in a given period – Iraqi oil exports in the same period).
Intl Politics usually look for long term strategic benefits. They don't employ accountants : -)

Boaz,

May I ask you as a fellow Australian to leave me and my faith in peace and talk about something else like history, intl politics or cooking recipes? :-)

Peace,

Sylvia,

"wars are hugely expensive".
Too true - this one has cost billions of dollars. However as I understand it this "shock and awe war " was supposed to over in a matter of months . It all sounded pretty good .

Democracy we were told, was set to gallop into town ....or was it ??

One would imagine the Government in Israel are hoping that the West will hang around for ever .

Seeing all the cars and developement in Israel makes me wonder who is supplying them with oil . No doubt they will double their reserves like the US at least if they can .

Clive Hamilton the terrorism expert has said we are less safe in Australia because of the Iraq war . Howard disagrees ,naturally .

If we ARE there for Oil I am changing my life to run on renewable energy.

I do not like the idea of getting one litre of oil from Iraq .

Bronco, welcome to OLO....

Mind sharing with us your alternative to using all means at our disposal for ensuring the supply of oil does not fall into the hands of those who might use it as a weapon against us ?

Guranteeing a 'friendly' and stable, peaceful government is not exactly the worst thing in the world is it ?

We are not 'stealing' their oil... r we ? Last time I checked we are still 'buying' it..and at a damn high price at that.

The action taken against Sadaam, may have pre-emptively prevented all manner of nightmarish scenario which most of us are not really in the position to know much about.

ALTERNATIVE? Bronco, given that history is in reality the history of alliances, balances of power.. invasions to ensure future threats are minimized... would you mind providing your informed and 'guaranteed' workable solution to the dilemna of human and international relations ? Point form will be fine. When you do this, please provide also evidence from history of its workablity.

FH...you can answer in the other thread.. 'do you' share that view of paradise ? We have covered many aspects of faith, why not this one ?

Apologies - the Terrorism expert is the respected CLIVE WILLIAMS of the ANU .

It seems the Governement, in particular Dr. Brendan Nelson, is becoming increasingly 'sloppy and careless', as strategist Hugh White put it. Compounding his oil slip up, he and the government have now been forced to retract suggestions that China's military expansion is a threat ... The economy aside, this government seems to be fairly deficient and incompetent on foreign policy matters.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=21NY8wMemCg