Blix says war motivated by oil

[cal04]

Former UN chief weapons inspector Hans Blix has said that oil was one of the reasons for the US-led invasion of Iraq, a Swedish news agency reports. "I did not think so at first. But the US is incredibly dependent on oil," news agency TT quoted Blix as saying at a security seminar in Stockholm. "They wanted to secure oil in case competition on the world market becomes too hard."

Blix, who helped oversee the dismantling of Iraq's weapons programs before the war, said another reason for the invasion was a need to move US troops from Saudi Arabia, TT reported. Competition over oil is creating tension between the United States and China, Blix said, suggesting nuclear power as a more environmentally friendly source of energy.

"I believe the greatest threat in the long term is the greenhouse effect," said Blix, who's become a vocal critic of US leaders since he retired from the UN last year. He defended the United Nations, despite recent scandals including allegations of corruption in the oil-for-food program for Iraq. "The criticism is, in my view, a revenge from American political circles for the defeat over Iraq," Blix was quoted as saying.

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=4124

[greatauntoftriplets]

1. Duh.....

:banghead:

[MeinaShaw]

51. I'm glad someone said it...and in the first reply

The guy is harldy a rocket scientist if this is news to him. I'll say it again. Duh!

[anarchy1999]

68. "Duh" is right where you apparently are supposed to be. Please do me

a huge favor and go back and read the PNAC agenda.

It is not, and let me repeat NOT, all about oil. It is about empire and global superiority. Dominion over all the globe.

Please let is not be distracted by anything our very dear Hans has to say about this matter, please. At the same time Hans was obliviating before the war, Scott Ritter and our very own DU'er, Will P. were refuting his lies, before we dropped the first damned BOMB!

This is meant to distract us. Go away Hans. Shoo away, FLY!

Oh, to all the rest, heads up!

[xultar]

2. Blix is looking to get disappeared.

:hide:

[Mr Rabble]

3. wonder if we'll hear any of this

in the MSM?













NOT!!

[Gregorian]

4. Oh Hans, you're so adorable!

It's "funny" how those "crazy" things we said about stolen elections, and wars for oil, and Plame outings, and all kinds of hilarious stuff, seem to be true. And even funnier how they were suppressed. It's been so much fun. Hey, where's Scott Ritter been? Maybe he got tired of the suppression as well.

[SillyGoose]

5. Gee, ya think?

:shrug:

[Hardrada]

6. Whoda thunk it??

[donheld]

7. for more than 2 years

he's been trying to get this message out

[orleans]

8. uh....yeaaahhhh........

[Geo55]

9. So Hans reaches into his pockets, see....

an' sez, GRAPES?, WHEN DID I BY GRAPES?

Keep your head low , Hans baby.

[kodi]

10. "hey, there's an elephant in the room!" thanks, hans. 2 years too late

.

[inflection]

11. this is news to me /sarcasm off nt

[megatherium]

12. Interesting comment about nuclear power,

that we should consider using nuclear to help solve the energy problem. There are serious problems with nuclear but I have read detailed discussions from nuclear engineers and physicists that I find persuasive that nuclear energy is reliable, relatively safe and abundant. Folks might wish to challenge this (there are of course persuasive arguments to the contrary), but the interesting question here is if nuclear power would be less risk to the environment than fossil fuels -- which carry the risk of world war.

We must develop alternative energy, especially alternatives to petroleum, and we must do this as fast as possible, on all fronts. Wind, solar, probably nuclear, and as a last resort, oil shale and coal. (Last resort for the latter two because global warming appears to be real and deeply alarming.) We also must be aggressive on conservation, the first and most important thing we must do. But we have to do this now. Fuckbrain, I mean President Bush, is too damn stupid to realize this; he thinks military force will solve this problem. If we don't get going on this with the utmost urgency, we are in grave danger of an uncontrolled global conflagration.

Eventually, everyone will remember Jimmy Carter wearing his sweater, declaring that the energy crisis is the "moral equivalent of war". (Energy industry people refer to this speech as the "meow" speech, by the way.) People thought he was a fool. But everyone will understand how far-sighted he was, and everyone will deeply regret not heeding his warning three decades ago. I hope this destroys the Republican party, author of the pro-energy-consumption pro-war policies that now imperil the nation.

[rayofreason]

16. Nuclear...

is the way to go, using electricity to make hydrogen as fuel. The problem is purely political, not technical.

There are no other good options.

[DulceDecorum]

20. Seen anyone suffering from radiation poisoning?

Because if you have and you said that
then you are something that I cannot describe
for fear of getting this post deleted.

[rayofreason]

28. Ever been to India?....

And seen poverty on a staggering scale? What do you think will be needed in terms of energy resouces to create an economy that lifts those people out of poverty? Got any practical ideas where that energy is going to come from?

[DulceDecorum]

35. Ever been to Beverly Hills

and seen wealth on a massive scale?
Who makes all those toys that the rich people play with?
Where are the sweatshops?

[rayofreason]

38. Poor India, rich Beverley Hills

People are not poor in India because people are rich in California. Wealth is not a zero-sum game, otherwise total wealth would never increase.

Poverty existed for millenia before there were rich people. Just think about hunter-gathers in primitive clan-based societies, the basic mode of human exisitence from before we were fully human until the neolithic revolution. Who was rich then?

It is immoral to say that people in India have no right to a higher standard of living, or that we should limit their consumption of energy. Better to find the means by which they may reach a better life without creating a large-scale climactic instability, because they will try to reach that better life regardless of what anyone says.

Again I ask you, given that people are people, with aspirations and dreams, what do you propose as the solution to their energy needs?

In the same way that the onset of food production, known as the neolithic revolution, spread over the world, with non-food producing socieites destined for marginalization and extinction, so it is with the industrial revolution. In time, all human societies will become industrialized, with the low birth an death rates characteristic of industrial societies. But the energy use per person will always increase. Better find a way to meet those needs or all hell will break loose.

[DulceDecorum]

40. Define poverty

rayofreason claims:
Poverty existed for millenia before there were rich people. Just think about hunter-gathers in primitive clan-based societies, the basic mode of human exisitence from before we were FULLY HUMAN until the neolithic revolution. Who was rich then?

Define "fully human."

rayofreason claims:
In time, all human societies will become industrialized, with the low birth an death rates characteristic of industrial societies.

The further I see the birth rates in industrialized countries drop,
the happier I become. As do you, rayofreason, as do you.

[rayofreason]

43. fully human

You asked me to define "fully human"

Fully human is a member of our species. Since there was a time before humans, but when human behavior was emergent, there must have been ancestors who were not fully human (which is accepted by all except creationists). Homo Erectus was a hunter-gatherer, but was not fully human, with a brain capacity significantly below ours.

I am glad that you and I are in agreement that low birth rates in industrial societies is a good thing. I do not agree, however, that below replacement birthrates forever are a good thing. I do not consider the extinction of the human species to be a good thing. For those that do, I suggest that they begin with themselves.

[DulceDecorum]

50. Nice sidestep

Previously, eugenicists used to come straight out and say anyone who was not of European descent was not fully human.
Nice to see that you do not now dare even approach such notions without covering yourself with the mantle of Darwin.

Charles Darwin wrote a book entitled
"On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection,
or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life"
Naturally Darwin believed that he himself had been naturally selected as one of the favoured races in the struggle for life.
In the same way, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes felt that he was doing the planet a favor when he declared that 'three generations of imbeciles is enough." His writ was used as Nazis as a justification for the extermination of those "less favoured races."
the slaughters in Abu Ghraib are often said to be of little consequence since those being mistreated are 'not fully human."
The bonds between we humans are daily being severed by the unspeakable evil that is itself in its death-throes.
http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/51/239.html
http://www.life.com/Life/essay/gulfwar/gulf01.html

I, too, am heartened to see that we finally found something upon which we can agree. Low birthrates. And most especially that those who support
National Security Study Memorandum 200,
and National Security Decision Memorandum 314,
should start the depopulation countdown -- of themselves.

[barb162]

60. the way we are going through fossil fuels, I think we will be

going back to nuclear bigtime/on a far larger scale than we are now...not much choice any more.

[Nostradammit]

17. You forgot renewable biomass fuels.

Hemp is the answer there - locally grown, locally processed.

How many Yucca Mountains do you want to leave your great grandchildren?

[megatherium]

27. I'm a little skeptical that hemp is the answer.

But I'm sure you're right, biomass can make a real contribution to our energy picture, along with other renewables (I like wind and solar myself). Nuclear is worth a good hard look as well, if we can be assured it will be done properly. The waste issue is real but waste can be processed to mitigate that problem.

I'm not prepared to argue for nuclear however, even though I think it has real merits. I've read persuasive arguments that we can combine conservation with our remaining fossil fuels (primarily coal), and wind power (the renewable best positioned for rapid large scale expansion), to get through the coming hard times; so nuclear might not be necessary.

Perhaps my argument is not that one source of energy is good or the other is bad -- the real problem is not having enough energy. I'm not as afraid of nuclear energy as I am of a collapsing economy, fascism and war.

[rayofreason]

31. enough energy...

...is a moral issue as well.

Energy is need to fuel economies that are productive enough to lift people out of poverty and ignorance. Those two demons have been the fate of almost all people throughout history until societies began to use more and more sources of energy to increase productivity, create additional wealth, and move in a direction of knowledge-based wealth, which, nonetheless, is based on a material wealth made possible by the prodigious consumption of energy.

[megatherium]

49. Well said! nt

[DulceDecorum]

21. Nuclear power is the ultimate in evil

Even Homer Simpson knows that.
CORRECTIOn: knew that -- before his brains were fired into Bush-mush.

[megatherium]

29. Would you consider nuclear power

if the alternative were a collapsing economy, fascism (in the peculiar American version of fundamentalist religion and militarism) and world war?

[DulceDecorum]

34. No.

never.
Radioactive crap will not save you from any of these.
This world has endured more than the collapse of the American empire but it might not be able to endure the evil they have wrought.

Americans such as yourself
always seem to think that they are the only ones on this planet and the entire universe revolves around them and their petty little senate.
Get over it.

THOUSANDS of people LIVE HAPPILY without the crap you deem necessary and they are doing VERY VERY well.

[rayofreason]

39. Replies..

I find it interesting that your replies to others' posts on this subject do not refer in any substantive way to the comments to which you respond. Rather, I sense considerable confusion, such as in your reference to "their petty little senate." Where did that come from, and how is it germane to the discussion? Nor is it clear to me what "crap" the poster deems "necessary". As far as I can tell, megatherium did not specify anything that anyone deems necessary, except, perhaps, the absence of world war and fascism. And you failed to answer megatherium's question.

[DulceDecorum]

42. Yes dear.

I have failed the rayofreason tests.

Just as you have failed mine.

[rayofreason]

44. No dear

No tests, just an observation based in fact.

[DulceDecorum]

48. Now run along and play near Yucca Mountain

I hear it is very very safe.

[megatherium]

47. please no insults. nt

[DulceDecorum]

52. What insult?

Dulcedecorum says:

No, never.
Radioactive crap will not save you from any of these.
This world has endured more than the collapse of the American empire but it might not be able to endure the evil they have wrought.
Americans such as yourself
always seem to think that they are the only ones on this planet and the entire universe revolves around them and their petty little senate.
Get over it.
THOUSANDS of people LIVE HAPPILY without the crap you deem necessary and they are doing VERY VERY well.

Radioactive matter that destroys life and causes infants to be born with SUCH DEFORMITIES that posting them here would shut down this thread and cause many to require sedatives, is indeed CRAP.
And I am being very very restrained in using that ONE word.

As for the "petty little senate" take a good hard look at Delay
and Frist,
and Gannon's nekkid 21 gun salute,
and then get back to me.

[megatherium]

56. Over and out nt

[rayofreason]

30. Physical processes are not evil.

The ends to which they are put might be evil, but not the processes themselves. Are you aware of the naturally occurring nuclear reactor at Oklo in Africa? Take a look -

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap021016.html

I doubt that this naturally occurring formation is the ultimate in evil, just as I doubt that the heat produced by fission in the Earth's core is the ultimate in evil. Evil must have at its core intent, and thus is a product of conscious intervention in contradiction to established moral norms or some concept of the "good."

So to be reasonable one might rephrase your post to be "The use of nuclear power is the ultimate in evil", which is to say that there is no greater evil. Really? I can think of several greater evils. How about a plan to control the emission of greenhouse gases by wiping out the populations of China and India? That would seem to be far more evil to me.

I do not put stupidity into the category of evil. Take the Chernobyl accident. That was the result of compounded stupidity, not direct evil. The government of the USSR may have been evil in its deliberate destruction of people and the environment on a scale that staggers the imagination and far exceeds anything before or since (except Kampuchea), but its use of nuclear power, coal, and oil was not evil, even if at times it was stupid and wasteful.

Nor do I put ignorance in the same category as evil. Agricultural and pastoral societies were ignorant of many things. For example, over time the build-up from salts deposited by irrigation turned fertile land into desert, as did overgrazing. The process is still going on at the southern edge of the Sahara. Would you call the fact that many societies have destroyed their habitat "evil" when there was no intent to do so? Would you call the PaleoIndians who came to North America at the end of the ice age "evil" because through hunting (including driving entire herds over cliffs) they were a factor, if not the major factor, in the extinction of most of the large mammals in North America?

How about willful ignorance - does that begin to cross into "evil"? The world has a serious energy issue in the coming decades. China and India will need vast amounts of energy to expand their economies and improve the welfare of their people. We cannot afford to resolve this energy shortfall by just using fossil fuels. Renewable sources will help some, but cannot do the job. We must turn to power sources that can produce high power densities, but without the release of greenhouse gases. To ignore nuclear power out of ideological reasons, all the while risking a large-scale feedback effect that some have linked with the Permian extinction (Google it), nay, in my mind, cross the bounds into evil.

[DulceDecorum]

36. Say what you like,

evil is the destruction of the bonds that bind us and all mattter together.

[rayofreason]

37. Bonds

Of what bonds do you speak?

Atomic bonds that are broken at a furious rate to maintain our mammalian physiology?

Nuclear bonds that are continously broken in the Sun in the carbon cycle to produce the fusion that powers all of our ecosystem (chemosynthesis at deep sea vents excluded)?

Human bonds of respect and caring that become strained to the breaking point when the material basis for a decent life becomes impossible?

Or do you not know whereof you speak?

[DulceDecorum]

41. Evil consists of the breaking of bonds.

Bonds are what hold the universe and all life together.
The deliberate and wanton breaking of bonds is evil.

If you need clarification, look at the photos of Hiroshima
and Nagasaki
and the Amiriya Shelter in Iraq
and Abu Ghraib
and Walter Reed.

[rayofreason]

46. Walter Reed???

What about Michael Jackson?

Sorry about the non sequiter. It seemed appropriate.

[DulceDecorum]

53. The soldiers languishing in misery at Fort Stewart

appreciate your sense of humor.

[funnymanpants]

54. Are you sure about these facts?

>>I doubt that this naturally occurring formation is the ultimate in evil, just as I doubt that the heat produced by fission in the Earth's core is the ultimate in evil.

Are you saying that fission is taking place right now in the earth's core? That can't be right. Only stars create fission.

>>Would you call the fact that many societies have destroyed their habitat "evil" when there was no intent to do so? Would you call the PaleoIndians who came to North America at the end of the ice age "evil" because through hunting (including driving entire herds over cliffs) they were a factor, if not the major factor, in the extinction of most of the large mammals in North America?

What is your source for this? I find it really incredible that ancient man was the cause of extinction of "most" of the large mammals in North America.

>>Renewable sources will help some, but cannot do the job.

Why not? On what study are you basing this? The earth receives enough energy from the sun to satisfy man's needs, so far as I know.

[rayofreason]

61. to answer your questions...

1. Fission in the Earth's core

Stars create fusion - the building up of heavier nuclei from lighter ones, releasing energy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fusion

Fission occurs when heavy nuclei split into lighter products releasing energy. This happens in the Earth's core and also happened at the Oklo site. It is the process we use in nuclear reactors.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fission

Concerning process in the Earth's core, here are a couple of links -

http://www.physlink.com/News/121103PotassiumCore.cfm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A13080-2003Mar23

2. Neolithic extinction in North America

Wherever modern humans arrived after they left Africa, there were mass extinctions of large animals. Face it, we are very dangerous and always have been. Here are a couple of links.

http://www.cpluhna.nau.edu/Biota/megafauna_extinctions.htm
http://www.usatoday.com/news/science/aaas/2001-06-07-humanandextinction.htm


3. Renewable energy

This is the most debatable of my statements. While the Sun does produce enough energy, it is diffuse. Industrial societies require high energy densities, not just large amounts of energy. Renewable resources are also limited by geography and meteorology, as in the case of wind and solar. If they were economically viable as a total replacement strategy you would find experts advocating such a replacement. I do not know of such authorities claiming that solar, wind, geothermal, etc. can completely satisfy our needs.


Thanks for keeping an open mind.

[funnymanpants]

65. But to be fair

>>If they were economically viable as a total replacement strategy you would find experts advocating such a replacement. I do not know of such authorities claiming that solar, wind, geothermal, etc. can completely satisfy our needs.

But to be fair, I don't know that many scientist are coming out and saying that we must use nuclear power, either. There are "experts" who claim we can produce all our energy through solar. That doesn't mean they are right, but I'm not sure if a lot of our energy couldn't be solar. For example, we could produce most of our heating through solar energy/better insulation (underground or partially bermed structures). Whether we could use solar for industry and transportation is another matter, of course. At the same time, we could certainly help ourselves by passing laws against SUVs (except when needed) and making the US more bike friendly, as is Europe.

When you say that a solution is not economically viable, that is another way of saying you don't like it. Oil is an economically viable solution only because we don't really pay what it's worth--if we factored in the polution it is causing, and the damage it is doing to the earth, then it might cost something more like 1,000 dollars a barell. In which case solar energy would be much more economcially viable.

By the way, what to you propose to do with all the nuclear waste? I have yet to see a good solution to this problem. In addition, nuclear energy is not all that cheap, and it is also limited. There is only so much uranium, unless we perfect fusion reactors, which doesn't seem likely in the future.

I was surpised to learn that the earth has fission going on inside of it. Good thing I wasn't on one of those shows where you could win a million dollars and that was the question. I would have sworn that was not the case.

[funnymanpants]

55. your facts...

>>Would you call the PaleoIndians who came to North America at the end of the ice age "evil" because through hunting (including driving entire herds over cliffs) they were a factor, if not the major factor, in the extinction of most of the large mammals in North America?

I am doing a quick search on the internet, and here is what I am finding:


http://academic.emporia.edu/aberjame/ice/lec18/lec18.htm

Based on the association of kill sites and bones of extinct animals, some archeologists have concluded that the extinctions were brought about by overhunting. This overkill hypothesis certainly applies to geographically isolated regions, such as New Zealand, and there is no question that some of the now-extinct animals were killed occasionally by prehistoric man. However, much debate and controversy continue for this hypothesis as a global explanation for late Pleistocene extinctions.

Overkill inconsistencies
In North America, Paleo-Indians did not become efficient hunters, able to kill large numbers of large animals, until after most of the extinctions were finished. The historical Indian buffalo hunts of the 19th century are probably not realistic for earlier times. Paleo-Indians hunted on foot armed only with hand-held spears tipped with well-made stone points. The spear thrower (atlatl) and bow and arrow were developed much later.

Only one extinct animal, the mammoth, was a major resource for Clovis hunters; however a dwarf mammoth was able to survive on Wrangel Island in the Arctic Ocean until only 4000 years ago. Furthermore, the one animal hunted in greatest numbers, the buffalo, survived to modern time, albeit as a smaller form. In Europe, the horse and aurochs were favored prey. Both were domesticated in prehistoric times; both also survived as wild animals until historical times.

[rayofreason]

63. megafauna extinctions

What you claim is on solid ground. There are several competing theories for the cause of megafauna extinctions - hunting, disease, and climate change. All probably played a role, which is why my original post said that PaleoIndians ".. were a factor, if not the major factor, in the extinction..."

It is difficult to relate later hunting patterns to earlier extinctions. Could it be that those species vulnerable to the hunting techniques of early Americans were the ones that went extinct and that those that did not (like bison) survived because they more readily adapted or for some reason were not as vulnerable?

http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/prehistory/hunters/index.shtml

Along those line, horses in Eurasia had a longer time to adapt to humans that in North America and there may have been other differences (were they they same species?) Whatever the specific cause in the case of megafauna extinction, it is true that the extinctions happened in close temporal proximity to the arrival of fully modern humans. They must have played a role, perhaps even a decisive one.

[funnymanpants]

57. more on overkill theory

I've done more research, and it seems the "overkill-theory," or the theory that Indians killed many mammals, is widespread. However, there are serious doubts about this theory.

Many critics point out that the Indians would have to have done nothing but kill all day in order for them to cause the extinction.

http://www.bagheera.com/inthewild/ext_woollym.htm

However, there are some serious problems with the evidence on which the Pleistocene overkill hypothesis is based. The idea that the extinctions occurred just when the first humans arrived has not held up very well over the years since the hypothesis was proposed. There is mounting evidence for much earlier colonization by humans. The animal extinction dates range over a period from 18,500 years ago to 6,500 years ago, and they do not follow the expected pattern of human movement from the point of first entry, Siberia.

Furthermore, only two of the many types of animals that became extinct have ever been associated with human hunting activities. There is clear archaeological evidence for human hunting to be the only cause of the disappearance of mammoths and mastodons, both elephant-like creatures. Other species that became extinct have not been found in contexts that indicate they were hunted by humans. Other species that clearly were targeted by human hunters, such as bison, lived through the Pleistocene extinction episode and survive today. Even presuming that these hunters ate nothing but big-game meat, they would have killed at least 10 times more than their dietary needs demanded. This is unlikely, given how dangerous the hunts would have been.

Finally, two often overlooked, but critical pieces of evidence against the overkill hypothesis, are that numerous unhunted bird species also became extinct during this time period. Many smaller mammals underwent drastic reductions in range size as well. Climate change is an alternative explanation of Pleistocene megafauna extinctions that is consistent with this latter evidence.

[rayofreason]

64. killing all day

Large mammals breed slowly and have relatively few offspring. Thus a slight increase in predation can put a significant strain on the population. So a small number of efficient big-game hunters can have a huge impact. And if they are very successful it is reasonable to expect that they would be wasteful, eating only the best parts.

Yes there was climate change in the Pleistocene, which would make the impact of efficient predation even more severe.

I personally think that it was many factors working together that caused the megafauna extinctions, but that humans played a large, if not dominant, role.

[barb162]

58. good points

[barb162]

59. good points

[Jack Rabbit]

13. This is LBN?

We knew it was about oil before the first missile hit Baghdad.

[Seabiscuit]

24. I was carrying "no blood for oil" signs in demonstrations way back in

August, 2002.

[Kerrytravelers]

14. "Welcome to Earth, Mr. Bllix"

Join the party here at DU, where we've know THAT for YEARS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Stockholm]

67. When Hans make a public statement like this

as the old laywer he is, he usually have proof to back it up and is itching for someone to call him on his claim.

Can be interesting...

[shadowknows69]

15. we're not in good shape

the rest of the world knows we're on our financial knees here. They make enough side deals for the rest of the oil and leave us out and our only choices will be to give up big bully on the block status and play ball or go down fighting for every drop. Either way sux. Thanks for having no forward thinking energy policies politicians of the last 30 years. Can't even blame it all just on the bush clan.

[Zorra]

18. "Obviously Oil", by Rep. Dennis Kucinich, March 11, 2003:

You know, this Dennis Kuchesnik guy is one pretty smart dude. He should try running for president sometime.

Obviously Oil
By Rep. Dennis Kucinich, AlterNet. Posted March 11, 2003.

Is President Bush's war in Iraq about oil? Of course it is. Sometimes, the obvious answer is the right one: Oil is a major factor in the President's march to war, just as oil is a major factor in every aspect of U.S. policy in the Persian Gulf.

Ask yourself:

What commodity accounts for 83 percent of total exports from the Persian Gulf? What is the U.S. protecting with our permanent deployment of about 25,000 military personnel, 6 fighter squadrons, 6 bomber squadrons, 13 air control and reconnaissance squadrons, one aircraft carrier battle group, and one amphibious ready group based at 11 military installations in the countries of the Persian Gulf? (Note, the disproportionate troop deployments in the Middle East aren't there to protect the people, who constitute only 2 percent of the world population.)
snip----
Contrary to the Administration's portrayal of an Iraqi threat, Iraq is hardly uniquely threatening. Sixteen other countries in the world have or might have nuclear weapons, 25 countries have or might have chemical weapons, 19 other countries have or might have biological weapons, and 16 other countries have or might have missile systems. Yet the Bush Administration is not on the verge of invading them.

Contrary to their denials that this war has anything to do with oil, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle wanted to go to war in Iraq long before they became Secretary of Defense, Deputy Secretary of Defense and Chairman of the Defense Policy Board. In a 1998 letter they sent to then-President Clinton, they stated "it hardly needs to be added that if Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction ... a significant portion of the world's supply of oil will all be put at hazard... The only acceptable strategy is ... to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy."

Does President Bush's war in Iraq concern Iraq's oil? Obviously.

http://www.alternet.org/story/15359

[hangloose]

19. Does anyone feel that the recent increase in oil prices

has more to do with the lack of success the occupation has had in exporting oil from Iraq then the increase in demand. Since the cost of the war keeps going up and the ability to export has been hampered by the resistance the best thing to do is up the value of a barrel.

[MADem]

25. Seeing as Iraq is IMPORTING oil now

...demand has surely something to do with it. You can't pump when they keep blowing up the pipelines. So, yes, it has a lot to do with the failures in the country that was supposed to finance it's own invasion, to paraphrase that comblicker!

From the Iraqi perspective, you can pay the vig to Saddam and his pals or to the US. And the US wants a bigger cut than Saddam did.

[hedgetrimmer]

22. George Bush said," Sadam is a threat and has WMDs!"

Blix said," Sadam had oil and no WMDs." Bush said, "Lets go get that oi...ehem that that um-a-... murderer, he tried to kill my daddy."

Some $800 billion later and I could say," George Bush is a threat and has WMDs." Blix could say," George Bush has no oil and WMDs." George Bush could say,"Did I hear someone say they had $800 billion?"

[The_Casual_Observer]

23. What happens when the GI's finally catch on to this?

And stop believing that Saddam did 9/11.

[The Backlash Cometh]

26. Blix hasn't been wrong yet.

[ckramer]

32. Blix should come to DU more often. Duh!

[GOPBasher]

33. No it wasn't! It was because of the connection between Saddam

and Al Quada ... errr I mean, the weapons of mass destru.... ummm, I mean, to "liberate the Iraqi people." That's what it was about.

[Deja Q]

45. Didn't Russia make a similar claim a few weeks back, in the form of a

warning?

Oh, and guess who helped China become so dependent on the stuff? US corporations. Didn't seem so cost-effective in the end, now did it? (well, I can't ask that until the energy crisis leads to nuke war...)

[BadGimp]

62. "war motivated by oil" ?

say it ain't so!

[AuntiBush]

66. Over Oil? Can't be! No Way... and Kidding, BIG TIME!

Blix... watch thy back, pal. If you see a stupid looking Freeper behind you chomping on big wads of gum, duck fast!

Seriously, so what did Chimp & CO do w/all the $$$$ then?