Quote:
Originally posted by T4 Primera
It's probably going to be one of those things that is unprovable. How can anyone prove what a person is thinking. All we can prove is that they have the motive and the opportunity. Failing the uncovering of documents signed by the people in question that this was their intention, all we are left with is to see what happens if the coalition forces succeed. Even then it canot be proven beyond reasonable doubt that this was their intention. All we can say is that there existed a very strong motivation and opportunity.
I trust you have read the links explaining the oil situation that I've posted in other threads? If not then here they are again.
.American Petroleum Institute (industry lobby group apparently)
Oil in Iraq: The Heart of the Crisis (article)
Iraq: The Struggle for Oil (article)
To add to Taranaki's stuff on infrastructure/rebuilding contracts etc is the most lucrative of all - the oil. The oil contract usually work as a shared profit arrangement between the owner of the resources and the petroleum company who develops oilfields and sells the oil.
example:
Lets say the Iraqi's decide they want say $5/barrel for oil taken from their country. The petroleum company explores, develops and sells the oil for maybe $20/barrel. It will likely cost the contractor $1.50/barrel to produce oil in Iraq, so after paying for that and the "rent" of $5/barrel they sell it and make a profit of $14.50/barrel on the world market. Iraqi oil is estimated to be worth around $3trillion in clear profit to the petroleum companies who eventually get access to the resources.
Those of us who do not believe that Saddam supplies weapons to terrorists and is a threat to US, UK and world security are left with only oil as the primary motivation for invading Iraq. To say that it is for human rights and freedom etc. opens up questions of why intervention has not taken place in many other dictatorships around the world.
|
You are right, it is unprovable. Just like the majority of everything else in this war. Yes, even most of the things that you call the liberation supporters wrong on.
I have read many of the links, and could also call that propoganda, but calling everything propoganda, taranaki, is the real cop-out. You can call whatever you want propoganda even if it is true. Propoganda can be the truth, just some of it can be withheld. This, again, works both ways.
Those of us who believe that Saddam supplies weapons to terrorists and is a threat to US, UK and world security are left to think that this war is to put an end to that. Why haven't we intervened with other dictatorships around the world? What's to say we aren't going to? Why would you fight a war on three fronts? We have a history with Iraq. We have fought a war over there before and know what it's like. We have a knowledge of the environment and the structure of towns. By attacking Iraq, we are setting an example for all other countries with dictators and those that harbor terrorists. Will it take another war in a country that has no oil to make you think that it isn't about that? Or will you just blame it on whatever natural resource they have an abundance of? I don't like war, just like the majority of everyone, and I also don't think it's our job to police the world, but I guess that's the name they call us when we actually stand up for something.
What are you going to say it's about if we go to war with N. Korea for pulling the same blackmail bullshit every decade to get foreign aid?