UK classified document reveals oil motivation behind invasion of Iraq

CptStern

CptStern

suckmonkey
Joined
May 5, 2004
Messages
10,315
Reaction score
62
MI6 drew up proposals to support a coup against Saddam Hussein three months after the terrorist attacks on 11 September in the United States, previously classified documents indicate.

The papers outline a proposal for regime change in Iraq backed up by airstrikes.

They were declassified and released yesterday by the Chilcot inquiry. Among the revelations are the following:

* Oil was a key motivating factor behind the efforts to remove Saddam. "The removal of Saddam remains a prize because it could give new security to oil supplies," the officer writes.

* MI6 did not believe that Saddam or Iraq were supporting al-Qa'ida. "There is no convincing intelligence (or common-sense) case that Iraq supports Sunni extremism," it says. But in January 2004, Mr Blair told the Commons: "We do know of links between al-Qa'ida and Iraq. We cannot be sure of the exact extent of those links."
Click to expand...

so the exact opposite of everything they've been saying up to this point

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...antisaddam-coup-in-december-2001-2283432.html
 
I'm actually more comfortable with the idea it was a cyncial war for oil, than an idealistitc war for 'freedom and democracy'. The philosophy behind the latter, scares the shit out of me.
 
many/most of our members believed the invasion of iraq was justified because the motivation was freedom and democracy after that whole WMD justification vanished. even the most casual of opponents of the war have said the real motivation was oil which was met with ridicule. I guess they'll have to learn to like the taste of crow
 
Oil was a part of it but much of the real motivation, I think, is probably due to Iraq as a strategic location in the middle east. We are building the largest easy/military complex in Iraq. The oil was a bonus, the real prize is having a country that can act as a launch site for future operations in the area.
 
lord_raken said:
Oil was a part of it but much of the real motivation, I think, is probably due to Iraq as a strategic location in the middle east. We are building the largest easy/military complex in Iraq. The oil was a bonus, the real prize is having a country that can act as a launch site for future operations in the area.
Click to expand...

We already have Israel.
 
True, but I think our government isn't beyond cultivating more options. Israel can be difficult to deal with. As Iraq is right now, they really can't prevent us from doing anything. Israel is more capable of saying "no" to something we want.
 
Did anyone ever really believe that the previous or present administration gave a f**k about freedom or democracy?
 
Pfft, I don't believe it. Next you will be telling me we're in Afghanistan for the opium and not to fight the taliban!?
 
Personally I would rather fight a war to keep my superfluous entertainment fueled than to bring freedom to desert.
 
Orchestrated regime change makes so much more sense than a real invasion. Why didn't they go with this plan?
 
Full quote
The removal of Saddam remains a prize because it could give new security to oil supplies; engage a powerful and secular state in the fight against Sunni extremist terror, open political horizons in the GCC states, remove a threat to Jordan/Israel, undermine the regional logic on WMD. The major challenge would be managing the regional reintegration of Iraq, without damaging important local relationships. Working for regime change could be a dynamic process of alliance building which could effect climatic change in the Arab-Israeli conflict.
Click to expand...
http://www.iraqinquiry.org.uk/media...cretary-to-Manning-letter-and-attachments.pdf


Shakermaker said:
Orchestrated regime change makes so much more sense than a real invasion. Why didn't they go with this plan?
Click to expand...

I guess the people most likely to overthrow Saddam died/got arrested in 1991, plus they would probably end up supporting islamists.
 
Iraq was just the tip of the ice burg. we are starting revolutions in many countries to get more oil because the Saudi's hate our guts now and are looking to China and Russia as new business members. they'll probably pay a higher dollar than us
 
It's hard to imagine the first world existing with anything like the standards we enjoy today if we had no oil coming in.

We should not be apologetic about our desire for secure oil supply lines. We do have a responsibility to pay a fair price for oil but we also have a responsibility to ensure that money is going to the right people. Thanks to the liberation of Iraq, the profits from oil sales are now under the democratic control of the Iraqi people. It seems that some of you would be much happier had the oil remained the exclusive property of the Saddam crime family?
 
^ Due to the common American/Western delusion that democracy and laissez-faire capitalism are twins, the occupation forces in 2003 decided to privatize the Iraqi oil industry, in the name of democracy. In doing so, they cut off a potentially huge source of income for the Iraqi state, and by extension, the Iraqi people, and instead directed the profits from the oil industry to the wealthy few in the oil companies. Exactly how was that move in the interest of the Iraqi people, Solaris? It would've been much better if the oil supplies remained under government control, at least in the initial stages, to help finance the creation of a strong and transparent security force, and ultimately a stable and generous welfare state. Under the current regime the vast natural wealth of Iraq are not benefiting the majority of the people in the least.
 
The Monkey said:
^ Due to the common American/Western delusion that democracy and laissez-faire capitalism are twins, the occupation forces in 2003 decided to privatize the Iraqi oil industry, in the name of democracy. In doing so, they cut off a potentially huge source of income for the Iraqi state, and by extension, the Iraqi people, and instead directed the profits from the oil industry to the wealthy few in the oil companies. Exactly how was that move in the interest of the Iraqi people, Solaris? It would've been much better if the oil supplies remained under government control, at least in the initial stages, to help finance the creation of a strong and transparent security force, and ultimately a stable and generous welfare state. Under the current regime the vast natural wealth of Iraq are not benefiting the majority of the people in the least.
Click to expand...

The state still profited from this sale of oil and it's hard to imagine the Iraqi government would have been in a position to create and run a nationalised Oil Company. However, in 2009 the government called off all existing deals and re-awarded rights on their own terms: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Iraq#2009_Oil_services_contracts

Oil production is now under the control of the Iraqi people and is helping to rebuild the country after it survived year after year of Islamofascist attacks.
 
Solaris said:
We should not be apologetic about our desire for secure oil supply lines.
Click to expand...

tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of people died for our desire to secure oil supply lines justified by some BS about threats to america and people ate it up hook line and sinker. and now that it's all out in the open people still excuse the atrocities committed in our name. it boggles the mind how you and other people can just sweep this under the rug
 
Solaris said:
It seems that some of you would be much happier had the oil remained the exclusive property of the Saddam crime family?
Click to expand...

This isn't the case at all.

It's not the fact that the US and the UK want the oil that people are getting up in arms about. Of course they want the oil, and fair enough for the reasons you've stated. The problem is that they've been deceptive about getting it. If it's going to benefit the global economy in the long run, why deny over and over that they're not there for oil?

We'd much rather the oil was in the right hands, but we want it in honest hands!
 
how would they go about getting it honestly? they cant that's the point behind the subterfuge
 
My meaning being the subterfuge is what people are most upset about.
 
well really they have no one but themselves to blame. it was obvious that Saddam wasnt a threat to anyone except his own people. the only ones who bought that wmd line were too busy supporting their side's agenda to take notice that the wool was being pulled over their eyes. but it didnt take a genius to see we were beign lied to
 
Now we're in the thick of it and there's no getting out. We're in three wars and more to come. Syria is next I imagine.
 
CptStern said:
tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of people died for our desire to secure oil supply lines justified by some BS about threats to america and people ate it up hook line and sinker. and now that it's all out in the open people still excuse the atrocities committed in our name. it boggles the mind how you and other people can just sweep this under the rug
Click to expand...
These people all died in the reconstruction of Iraq. Yes, the coalition could have done things a lot better but it wasn't them who were planting truck bombs next to schools in the hope of killing children who belong to a different style of Islam.

Islamic fascists fought desperately to stop the creation of a free and democratic Iraq and tens of thousands died due to their efforts. Thankfully they lost.
 
morgs said:
This isn't the case at all.

It's not the fact that the US and the UK want the oil that people are getting up in arms about. Of course they want the oil, and fair enough for the reasons you've stated. The problem is that they've been deceptive about getting it. If it's going to benefit the global economy in the long run, why deny over and over that they're not there for oil?

We'd much rather the oil was in the right hands, but we want it in honest hands!
Click to expand...
I certainly don't think it's right to invade countries purely to secure a cheap oil supply. From what you're saying, I get the opinion you do, if the invader is honest about it?
 
Solaris said:
These people all died in the reconstruction of Iraq.
Click to expand...

some died during the invasion period and I dont see what difference that makes unless you're trying to imply they were all killed by "islamofascists"

Solaris said:
Yes, the coalition could have done things a lot better
Click to expand...

ya like not invade a nation under false pretenses, open pandoras box to the shitstorm and then cry innocent when it all comes back to bite them in the ass. ya not being a dick would have been nice

Solaris said:
but it wasn't them who were planting truck bombs next to schools in the hope of killing children who belong to a different style of Islam.
Click to expand...

dropping bombs on civilians kills them just as dead solaris

31% of those were attributed to the Coalition, 24% to others, 46% unknown. The causes of violent deaths were gunshot (56%), car bomb (13%), other explosion/ordnance (14%), airstrike (13%), accident (2%), unknown (2%).
Click to expand...

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

Solaris said:
Islamic fascists fought desperately to stop the creation of a free and democratic Iraq and tens of thousands died due to their efforts. Thankfully they lost.
Click to expand...

lol they certainly did a thorough job brainwashing you. it's all so black and white complete with buzz words, talking points and feigned relief that the mission was a success
 
Solaris said:
These people all died in the reconstruction of Iraq. Yes, the coalition could have done things a lot better but it wasn't them who were planting truck bombs next to schools in the hope of killing children who belong to a different style of Islam.
Click to expand...
On the other hand, it wasn't the Iraqi insurgency who

- destroyed through inaction and neglect the majority of the country's infrastructure
- purged the utility companies/government offices of all Ba'athists, even though Party membership was a prerequisite for advancement and therefore no indicator of true alliegance
- stuffed important CPA positions full of White House Republican staffers with 2 years experience chosen for ideological loyalty rather than competence or experience
- likewise passed over well-qualified applicants to overseeing positions in favour of party faithful and evangelicals
- disbanded the regular army, releasing thousands of angry, jobless, trained soldiers into civilian life with a grudge to bear
- sealed themselves in a bubble within Saddam's palace with an imported workforce and made no attempt to understand the context or effects of their decisions
- were opaque about their finances and cannot account for large bundles of cash
- consistently prioritised privatisation and capture of commercial assets over pressing issues like water and power supplies or rampant looting
- outsourced security to vicious private military companies who were allowed to get away with murder
- ensured these contractors legal immunity from Iraqi prosecution
- pushed over the heads of the Iraqi people to establish US-friendly exiles (rather than locally popular citizens) on the initial governing council

But hey, just go on thinking the Coalition was in no way responsible for the total mismanagement of a country it frivolously and dishonestly invaded.

This is of course not to mention some quite prominent military abuses, like a certain disgrace to the principles of liberty located on American soil in Cuba.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top