1
   

British lawmaker: Iraq war was for oil

 
 
Reply Wed 25 May, 2005 07:01 am
Labour politician and former UK environment minister Michael Meacher has slammed Prime Minister Tony Blair and US President George Bush for starting a war, he says, to secure oil interests.

Speaking on Friday on the sidelines of the fourth International Workshop on Oil and Gas Depletion in Lisbon, Portugal, Meacher, a member of the British parliament, said: "The reason they attacked Iraq is nothing to do with weapons of mass destruction, it was nothing to do with democracy in Iraq, it was nothing to do with the human rights abuses of Saddam Hussein."

When asked by Aljazeera.net whether the war in Iraq was about oil he said: "The connection is 100%. It is absolutely overwhelming."

Meacher connected the wars in Iraq with a desire by US and UK interests to dominate oil supplies in times of increasing market volatility. He also thought the war was designed to pressure Saudi Arabia, the world's biggest oil supplier.

Middle East control?

"It was principally, totally and comprehensively to do with oil," Meacher continued. "This was about assuming control over the Middle East and over Iraq, the second largest producer and also over Saudi Arabia next door.

Meacher criticised Bush and Blair
for going to war for oil interests

"It was about securing as much as possible of the remaining supplies of oil and also over the Caspian basin, which of course is Afghanistan."

Meacher also said the US had poor environmental standards.

"American power plants waste more energy than is needed to run the whole Japanese economy," he said. "They have set their face against the Kyoto protocol."

He then went on to talk of "apocalyptic" energy problems facing the world, including the possibilities of serious shortages in the world oil supply due to ongoing field depletion.

Meacher painted a picture of spiralling oil costs as high as "$100 or $150 a barrel" creating massive social dislocation. These difficulties could cause "war, revolutions and migration on a scale we have never before seen", he said.

May 21, 2005


source
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 808 • Replies: 3
No top replies

 
Brand X
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 May, 2005 07:11 am
That was one reason no doubt.
0 Replies
 
squinney
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 May, 2005 07:13 am
I think this goes nicely with the war for oil claim:

Quote:
IRAQ IN TRANSITION
Audit says $69 million in fuel oil missing

By Erik Eckholm
New York Times News Service
Published May 24, 2005


Iraqi officials cannot explain what happened to $69 million worth of fuel oil produced in the second half of 2004, raising fears that it was smuggled out of the country for private gain, according to a report by UN-appointed auditors.

The report, by the auditing firm KPMG, was released Monday. The auditors said Iraq's recorded exports of fuel oil mysteriously declined by a comparable amount during that same period of 2004, the initial months of sovereignty for the newly installed Iraqi government.

Studying records from the Oil Ministry, the auditors found that Iraq's production in that six-month period exceeded the recorded domestic uses and exports by 618,203 tons, worth about $69 million.

"We were not provided with a satisfactory explanation for either the unreconciled quantities or sales decrease of fuel oil," the report states. In subsequent paragraphs, it takes note of the suspicions of widespread oil smuggling that were previously voiced by U.S. officials and describes Iraq's weak controls on sales of oil and oil products.

The group that hired KPMG, the International Advisory and Monitoring Board, was created by the United Nations to watch the handling of Iraqi assets, mainly oil revenues, after the U.S.-led invasion.

The board has repeatedly criticized the U.S. government for its loose spending controls during the period it controlled Iraqi assets, from the invasion in early 2003 to the transfer of sovereignty last June.

In particular, it has questioned a $2.2 billion contract the Pentagon gave, secretly and without competitive bidding, to a subsidiary of Halliburton Corp. to start repairs of Iraqi oil fields and to import consumer fuels. The international monitoring bureau says the Pentagon has rebuffed requests for a full accounting of that contract, which used Iraqi money.


Chicago Tribune
0 Replies
 
rafick2
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 May, 2005 10:12 am
i have said it all along Smile

http://www.informationwar.org/wars%20gallery/oil_reasons.jpg
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » British lawmaker: Iraq war was for oil
Copyright © 2026 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/14/2026 at 06:24:43