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.