Reply
Thu 5 Jul, 2007 02:28 am
Quote:Australians 'are in Iraq for oil' (BBC NEWS)
Thursday, 5 July 2007
Australia has about 1,500 military personnel in the Gulf
Australia has admitted that securing oil is a key factor behind its continued troop deployment in Iraq.
It is the first time such an admission has been made.
Defence Minister Brendan Nelson said that maintaining "resource security" in the Middle East was a priority for the government in Canberra.
But he added that the main reason troops were still in the Gulf was to ensure that the humanitarian crisis there did not worsen.
Australia was involved in the invasion of Iraq in 2003, and has about 1,500 military personnel still deployed in the region. There are no immediate plans to bring them home.
Howard accused
Releasing the government's review of its national security policy, Mr Nelson said that the supply of oil had influenced strategic planning.
"The defence update we're releasing today sets out many priorities for Australia's defence and security, and resource security is one of them," he said.
"Obviously the Middle East itself, not only Iraq but the entire region, is an important supplier of energy, oil in particular, to the rest of the world."
Critics have accused the Australian government of telling lies about Iraq.
Opposition politicians said that back in 2003, Prime Minister John Howard insisted the campaign to oust former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with oil.
They have chastised Mr Howard, accusing him of making up his policy in the Gulf as he goes along.
Anti-war protesters say the government's admission has proved that the US-led invasion was more of a grab for oil rather than a genuine attempt to uncover weapons of mass destruction.
But ministers in Canberra have brushed aside the criticism, saying they remain committed to helping the US stabilise Iraq and combat terrorism.
They have also stressed that there will be no "premature withdrawal" of Australian forces from the region.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6272168.stm
I have been saying this since day one.
Will Bush be brave enough to admit it next?
Furthermore, this bit of news will guarantee nuclearization of the Middle East.
ALL those who think we're there to fight 'al-qaeda terrorists' are fools!
And 911 was as inside job!
Australia is up for a change of government shortly zippo. I wouldn't put too much stock in what Howard is spouting at present.
I consider it likely that Shrub directed "deputy sherriff Howard" to admit we're in Iraq for oil to test the water.
dadpad wrote:Australia is up for a change of government shortly zippo. I wouldn't put too much stock in what Howard is spouting at present.
I consider it likely that Shrub directed "deputy sherriff Howard" to admit we're in Iraq for oil to test the water.
Really? That's interesting....
I doubt it.
I suspect Brendan Nelson just did his career in.
Howard was quick to leap in wit the usual "we did it because we love peace, freedom and democracy" stuff.
I'd say Brendan "mentioned the war."
From what i heard on the radio, it sounded as though Howard tripped over his own dick to rush to a microphone to contradict the (former) Defence Minister.
Setanta wrote:From what i heard on the radio, it sounded as though Howard tripped over his own dick to rush to a microphone to contradict the (former) Defence Minister.
Lol!
Quite...though I don't think he's gonna actually be fired.
Yes, i'm sure the Defence Ministry, as is the case with any governmental agency, badly needs someone to count the paper clips.
Who, ultimately, isn't?
Of course it's all about oil.
Does anyone think that the civilized nations of the West would care one whit about Arab lands if they did not contain oil?
Would the Family Saud ever have found themselves in a position where they felt compelled to subsidize the exportation of Wahabism if Saudia Arabia was not sitting on an ocean of oil?
Would Bin Laden have ever been more than the son of a Yemeni goat herder if it were not for oil?
Would Islam be anything but a dying religion if not for oil?
Oil is a pretty big thing here on earth.
It's what left of a race of creatures that ruled the planet for millions of years.
It is the distilled essence of biological life - energy extracted.
It underlies the geometrical progress of civilization within the last three centuries.
Why should it not be about oil?
There is, obviously, a silly-ass notion that the nations of the world should formulate their strategies and plans around what is good for the lowest of its citizens.
Not only does this not make sense, it will never happen.
Oil, for now, is energy. Energy is advancement and prosperity. Any nation that forsakes it's need for energy, forsakes it's people.
Thanks to the obtuse perception of oil by herding Liberals, the effort to obtain it has somehow become synonomous with avarice alone. Thus, whenever someone admits his nation's strategic planning is at all based on the procurement of oil, that person is seen has revealing the venality of his nation. This nonsense has gone so far as to require the leaders of these nations to deny this is case.
It is about better lives for humans, which is about progress, which is about energy, which is about oil!
Setanta wrote:From what i heard on the radio, it sounded as though Howard tripped over his own dick to rush to a microphone to contradict the (former) Defence Minister.
Yes, but it is not as though Brendan Nelson (Oz Defence Minister) dreamed up the idea of going public on the oil/Iraq connection, himself. The front page of yesterday's AGE newspaper carried this headline:
Howard links Iraq oil war to oil. (referring to details of a major speech on national defence policy to be given by Howard later in the day.
"Energy demand" was quoted as one of the reasons that Australian troops should remain in Iraq.) Nelson ran with that line in an ABC interview early in the morning after that. At 9:30 Howard gave his speech .... & after that all hell broke loose!:
......THE Howard Government has descended into disarray over the Iraq war, with the Prime Minister and two of his most senior ministers providing conflicting statements on whether oil played a part in the decision to invade the country or to stay there.
...... By (yesterday) afternoon ... Mr Howard denied that oil was a reason to be in Iraq. "We are not there because of oil and we didn't go there because of oil, and we don't remain there because of oil," he told Sydney radio 2GB.
"The reason we remain there is that we want to give the people of Iraq a possibility of embracing democracy."... <cont>
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/coalition-divided-over-the-iraq-war/2007/07/05/1183351376083.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1
It wasn't even about terror. Everyone seems to have forgotten about the weapons of mass distraction. It was only when they didn't materialize that it became the war on terror.
No everyone hasn't, Wilso. It's just the US, UK & Oz governments & other coalition of the willing partners who got us into the mess who've conveniently forgotten. It's all still about bringing democracy to the people of Iraq! That's what the Australian PM, the Defence Minister & the Treasurer are shrilly declaring today! And "energy demand" does not mean oil! Ya got it? :wink:
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace