France & Russia warned support US war on Iraq or no Iraqi oil:
(1/27/2003 – OGI: Cairo) France and Russia have been warned they must support the US military invasion and occupation of Iraq if they want acess to Iraqi oilfields in a post-Saddam Hussein Iraq. According to a report in today’s Tehran Times, US Senator Richard Lugar, a leading member of the Bush administration and Republican Party chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said Russia and France “must be ready to stand shoulder-to-shoulder in any US-led military intervention” if they want a share of Iraqi oil.
The paper quoted Lugar as saying that Paris and Moscow oil companies will be deprived of Iraqi oil and have no share in the country’s resources if they refuse to join in the US war to oust Hussein. It noted that both the Russian Duma and the French parliament have both expressed opposition to a US military attack on Iraq.
I was talking with a friend of mine whose father is a prominent Pakistani businessman. She said he told her that the US goal is to secure Iraqi oil control because British and French oil companies have secured most of the best oil deals in the region effectively shutting out American business. Control of Iraqi resources is clearly the objective. There has been acknowledgement by the US government to this effect. I read something where we will most likely attempt to seize control of Kirkuk first to prevent sabotage to oil wells and other infrastructure. Clearly oil is key to this whole charade. I also watched the Powell case at the UN today and did not see anything at all that would justify a takeover of Iraq.
A “takeover of Iraq”? I find it impossibly ridiculous that you could call this action a “takeover”. No one wants to take over anything. All the talk about trying to seize early control of oil producing regions in Iraq is an effort to PROTECT the RESOURCE that Saddam’s regime has proven themselves more than willing to destroy (remember the oil well fires of the gulf war?) in the name of simple destruction. There is no intention to seize and hold these regions for US control, nor any other part of Iraq. The whole reason we are facing Hussein’s regime again is because we did not advance into and “take over” Iraq during the gulf war. We had no intention to occupy Iraq, just as we do not now. We are here because we, as well as International allies, are enforcing a UN resolution, which those opposed to action are more than willing to let Iraq walk all over. I ask you; what do you propose that the world do in response to refusal to follow the rules? Do you wait, allowing the offender to build his military power in such a way that the UN, NOT the US, has forbidden him to? Or do you support a limited military action, by all of the countries who choose to protect everyone else from the (specifically banned, I remind you)arsenal of illegal weapons that grows ever larger. If you choose not to believe Powell simply because you dont share political views, that is simply not sensible. If you think it’s stupid to believe everything the government tells you, is it any more intelligent to believe everything the anti-government propoganda tells you?
And it will probably take me quite a while to respond to your response to MY rant. Please do not take it as me being afraid of your intellect. I have limited access to a computer, as I am currently deployed in the desert. But I still found the time to post on your site, aren’t you flattered?
There are well-documented plans to install an American military occupational government in Iraq. We are not liberating anyone.
I did not say we were a liberation force. Our intrest here is not one of liberation, but one of international “law enforcement”. And as for the “well documented plans” you speak of, I am more than willing to entertain discussion. I am unaware of any such plans. If you could steer me to the place that such plans could be found, I would like to review them for myself. After all, what do I know, Im only HERE.;p
It’s right there:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=564&ncid=564&e=3&u=/nm/20030211/ts_nm/iraq_usa_planning_dc_2
Now, I hope that’s not what you would call “well documented”! I’m not sure who Jonathan Wright is, and I’m not sure how accurate all of his information is. I’m a person who doesn’t 100% believe anyone, whether it suits my needs or not. But if there were any further elaboration than some vague quotes in an article on the internet, I would be very interested. Reading that article and recalling what you said about it made me wonder how carefully YOU read it. But that’s what I love about talking to you, Chris. We see the same things from totally different sides, and we’ve managed not to break down into childish name-calling. (except for that whole “wayward military”, “candy-ass liberal” thing) Anyway, I’m not trying to have you do all the research for me, I just have barely enough time to post on your site as it is. Talk to you soon!
Does the curtness of your recent replies mean we’re not friends anymore? Oh, yeah, does Scott know I’m over here?