another 'conspiracy' of facts: Quick lets pretend it means nothing . . .
Well, here is another set of facts that point to to shady alternative motivations besides WMD behind the administration.
sure we can just immediately say " . . . well . . . oil? naw.
These guys don't get motivated y their own wealth, the're beyind all that"
maybe that's true . . . but then why did Perle quit?
And why are there so many connections lie this emerging?
just Anti-Bush rhetoric?
could be
\
HERE IT IS THe FULL LENGTHY TEXT
sure we can just immediately say " . . . well . . . oil? naw.
These guys don't get motivated y their own wealth, the're beyind all that"
maybe that's true . . . but then why did Perle quit?
And why are there so many connections lie this emerging?
just Anti-Bush rhetoric?
could be
\ Quote:
RUMSFELD TRIED TO EMBED BECHTEL AND HIMSELF
WITH SADDAM AS IRAQ GASSED IRANIANS
[A stunning new report shines new light on the involvement of Donald
Rumsfeld and Bechtel with the Saddam Hussein regime in the 1980s, giving
lie to the Bush administration's insistence that the war on Iraq has
nothing to do with oil. In fact, the war can be seen in part as an
attempt to complete a business deal that Rumsfeld started back then. The
report was issued by the Sustainable Energy and Economy Network and the
Institute for Policy Studies]
REPORT - Our examination shines a new spotlight on the revolving door
between Bechtel and the Reagan Administration that drove U.S.-Iraq
interactions between 1983 and 1985. The men who courted Saddam while he
gassed Iranians are now waging war against him, ostensibly because he
holds weapons of mass destruction. To a man, they now deny that oil has
anything to do with the conflict. Yet during the Reagan Administration,
and in the years leading up to the present conflict, these men shaped
and implemented a strategy that has everything to do with securing Iraqi
oil exports. All of this documentation suggests that Reagan
Administration officials bent many rules to convince Saddam Hussein to
open up a pipeline of central interest to the US, from Iraq to Jordan.
This project, the Aqaba pipeline, was critical not only because it would
mean more oil flowing to Western markets; crude would also avoid the
thorny Persian Gulf and Straits of Hormuz altogether by passing,
instead, through the Red Sea. . .
[This paper] notes that the break in US-Iraq relations occurred not
after Iraq used chemical weapons on the Iranians, nor after Iraq gassed
its own Kurdish people, nor even after Iraq invaded Kuwait, but rather,
followed Saddam's rejection of the Aqaba pipeline deal. Finally, this
paper shows that the main actors in the 1980s drama are now back on
center stage, this time justifying military action against Iraq in terms
of national security. These men's conduct during the Reagan
administration - when they negotiated a major oil pipeline deal on
behalf of Bechtel with Iraq - belies their present insistence that
Saddam Hussein must be toppled because he holds weapons of mass
destruction and is tied to terrorists. Among our key findings, confirmed
by never-before published government and corporate documents:
1. Secretary of State George Shultz orchestrated the initial discussions
with Iraq. Out of public view, he pushed the pipeline project on behalf
of his former company, Bechtel. Behind the scenes, Shultz composed
Donald Rumsfeld's pipeline pitch to Saddam. (At the time, Rumsfeld,
officially, was a special envoy on a peace mission to the Middle East.)
2. From 1983 to 1988, Iraqi warplanes dropped over 13,000 chemical
bombs. Iran first reported Iraq's use of chemical warfare well before
Rumsfeld met with Saddam in a great victory. Reagan's envoy recorded no
discussion of this horror. Instead, Rumsfeld impressed upon Saddam the
U.S.'desire to help Iraq increase its oil exports.' He reiterated this
desire in a March 26, 1984, meeting with Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister
Tariq Aziz, the same day that a UN panel unanimously concluded that Iraq
dropped chemical munitions on Iranian troops.
3. Four days after officially condemning Iraq for using chemical weapons
on the Iranians, the State Department desk officer for Iraq pressured
U.S. Export-Import Bank to initiate short-term loans for Iraq "for
foreign relations purposes" - to build a pipeline from Iraq to Jordan.
4. Following Hussein's use of chemical weapons on the Iranians, the only
response was instructions, recorded by Shultz, to the Iraqis that they
not put Americans in the "embarrassing situation" of buying future
chemicals that could be the "source of supply for anything that could
contribute to production of CW [chemical weapons]." Reagan officials
spent much more time decrying the role of "Iranian revolutionaries" in
fostering bloodshed. In private, they forged ahead with the pipeline
plan and assured the Iraqis that "we do not want this issue to dominate
our bilateral relationship."
5. The U.S. Export-Import Bank and U.S. Overseas Private Investment
Corporation, two government-backed export guarantee and credit agencies,
were pressured by the Reagan Administration and private individuals
lobbying on behalf of Bechtel to provide over $500 million in financing
and insurance to the Aqaba pipeline.
6. Government officials and pipeline agents attempted several dubious
methods of assuaging Hussein's concerns about a possible Israeli attack
on the pipeline. These included secret plans to funnel pipeline income
into the Israeli Labor Party and to assign U.S. aid to Israel or U.S.
Defense Department funds as collateral in case of an attack on the
pipeline. Judge William Clark, while on the payroll of the Bechtel
pipeline promoters, flew to Baghdad as a representative of President
Reagan and the National Security Council.
7. Two years after Rumsfeld first pitched the plan, Saddam issued a
terse rejection. U.S.- Iraqi business relations have never been the
same.
8. Many of the same U.S. officials and quasi-officials involved in the
Aqaba pipeline project have orchestrated the current Bush/Cheney
initiative against Iraq. In recent months, these men have denied any
linkage between oil and war; but in previous years, these men repeatedly
invoked the Iraqi threat to global energy security as a just cause for
war. The hard lesson of the Aqaba pipeline project, it seems, is that an
"evil dictator" is a friend of the United States when he is willing to
make a deal, and a mortal enemy when he is not.
RUMSFELD TRIED TO EMBED BECHTEL AND HIMSELF
WITH SADDAM AS IRAQ GASSED IRANIANS
[A stunning new report shines new light on the involvement of Donald
Rumsfeld and Bechtel with the Saddam Hussein regime in the 1980s, giving
lie to the Bush administration's insistence that the war on Iraq has
nothing to do with oil. In fact, the war can be seen in part as an
attempt to complete a business deal that Rumsfeld started back then. The
report was issued by the Sustainable Energy and Economy Network and the
Institute for Policy Studies]
REPORT - Our examination shines a new spotlight on the revolving door
between Bechtel and the Reagan Administration that drove U.S.-Iraq
interactions between 1983 and 1985. The men who courted Saddam while he
gassed Iranians are now waging war against him, ostensibly because he
holds weapons of mass destruction. To a man, they now deny that oil has
anything to do with the conflict. Yet during the Reagan Administration,
and in the years leading up to the present conflict, these men shaped
and implemented a strategy that has everything to do with securing Iraqi
oil exports. All of this documentation suggests that Reagan
Administration officials bent many rules to convince Saddam Hussein to
open up a pipeline of central interest to the US, from Iraq to Jordan.
This project, the Aqaba pipeline, was critical not only because it would
mean more oil flowing to Western markets; crude would also avoid the
thorny Persian Gulf and Straits of Hormuz altogether by passing,
instead, through the Red Sea. . .
[This paper] notes that the break in US-Iraq relations occurred not
after Iraq used chemical weapons on the Iranians, nor after Iraq gassed
its own Kurdish people, nor even after Iraq invaded Kuwait, but rather,
followed Saddam's rejection of the Aqaba pipeline deal. Finally, this
paper shows that the main actors in the 1980s drama are now back on
center stage, this time justifying military action against Iraq in terms
of national security. These men's conduct during the Reagan
administration - when they negotiated a major oil pipeline deal on
behalf of Bechtel with Iraq - belies their present insistence that
Saddam Hussein must be toppled because he holds weapons of mass
destruction and is tied to terrorists. Among our key findings, confirmed
by never-before published government and corporate documents:
1. Secretary of State George Shultz orchestrated the initial discussions
with Iraq. Out of public view, he pushed the pipeline project on behalf
of his former company, Bechtel. Behind the scenes, Shultz composed
Donald Rumsfeld's pipeline pitch to Saddam. (At the time, Rumsfeld,
officially, was a special envoy on a peace mission to the Middle East.)
2. From 1983 to 1988, Iraqi warplanes dropped over 13,000 chemical
bombs. Iran first reported Iraq's use of chemical warfare well before
Rumsfeld met with Saddam in a great victory. Reagan's envoy recorded no
discussion of this horror. Instead, Rumsfeld impressed upon Saddam the
U.S.'desire to help Iraq increase its oil exports.' He reiterated this
desire in a March 26, 1984, meeting with Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister
Tariq Aziz, the same day that a UN panel unanimously concluded that Iraq
dropped chemical munitions on Iranian troops.
3. Four days after officially condemning Iraq for using chemical weapons
on the Iranians, the State Department desk officer for Iraq pressured
U.S. Export-Import Bank to initiate short-term loans for Iraq "for
foreign relations purposes" - to build a pipeline from Iraq to Jordan.
4. Following Hussein's use of chemical weapons on the Iranians, the only
response was instructions, recorded by Shultz, to the Iraqis that they
not put Americans in the "embarrassing situation" of buying future
chemicals that could be the "source of supply for anything that could
contribute to production of CW [chemical weapons]." Reagan officials
spent much more time decrying the role of "Iranian revolutionaries" in
fostering bloodshed. In private, they forged ahead with the pipeline
plan and assured the Iraqis that "we do not want this issue to dominate
our bilateral relationship."
5. The U.S. Export-Import Bank and U.S. Overseas Private Investment
Corporation, two government-backed export guarantee and credit agencies,
were pressured by the Reagan Administration and private individuals
lobbying on behalf of Bechtel to provide over $500 million in financing
and insurance to the Aqaba pipeline.
6. Government officials and pipeline agents attempted several dubious
methods of assuaging Hussein's concerns about a possible Israeli attack
on the pipeline. These included secret plans to funnel pipeline income
into the Israeli Labor Party and to assign U.S. aid to Israel or U.S.
Defense Department funds as collateral in case of an attack on the
pipeline. Judge William Clark, while on the payroll of the Bechtel
pipeline promoters, flew to Baghdad as a representative of President
Reagan and the National Security Council.
7. Two years after Rumsfeld first pitched the plan, Saddam issued a
terse rejection. U.S.- Iraqi business relations have never been the
same.
8. Many of the same U.S. officials and quasi-officials involved in the
Aqaba pipeline project have orchestrated the current Bush/Cheney
initiative against Iraq. In recent months, these men have denied any
linkage between oil and war; but in previous years, these men repeatedly
invoked the Iraqi threat to global energy security as a just cause for
war. The hard lesson of the Aqaba pipeline project, it seems, is that an
"evil dictator" is a friend of the United States when he is willing to
make a deal, and a mortal enemy when he is not.
HERE IT IS THe FULL LENGTHY TEXT
Comments
Originally posted by Randycat99
When all other antiwar arguments have failed, go back to the original "Oil" rhetoric. Could we expect any less?
But its not an 'anti-war argument' - its an attempt to uncover the real motivations for the war.
If someone can draw the connection between the current administration and how they will benefit exactly I'd be glad to read it.
Oil is a big deal in the world yes. The government is full of oil men, yes, government is always full of big business folks and oil is a big business.
I see lots of sound and fury, but what does it signify? What's the argument?
Originally posted by giant
Do note that Bechtel is one of the companies slated to do work in postwar Iraq. http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/nation...ebuild28.shtml
Yeah, so was Halliburton, and that is not happening now. Your point is? Lots of comapanies are slated...
Originally posted by NoahJ
Yeah, so was Halliburton, and that is not happening now. Your point is? Lots of comapanies are slated...
Actually, Halliburton got the contract, then got cut off. As for those still in the running, I've only heard of those four major ones listed in that article, not 'lots.' Even if there are 'lots' that I don't know about, those are the big ones.
When all other antiwar arguments have failed, go back to the original "Oil" rhetoric. Could we expect any less?
You view "anti-war arguements" as a linear trial and error procedure.
Oil has been the leading anti-war arguement and still is.
Looks like a huge list of assumptions and unbacked conclusions to me.
Look harder.
Following Hussein's use of chemical weapons on the Iranians, the only
response was instructions, recorded by Shultz, to the Iraqis that they
not put Americans in the "embarrassing situation" of buying future
chemicals that could be the "source of supply for anything that could
contribute to production of CW [chemical weapons]."
It is clear that the US and Reagen knew about Iraq using chemical weapons which are by definition WOMD. That is a serious problem in itself. The interest in forging new oil contracts continued while Saddam used WOMD. This administration is now attacking on the grounds that WOMD need to be removed.
Leader to leader, administration to administration there is no link here, but there is a new perspective on government business practices in the region...
[This paper] notes that the break in US-Iraq relations occurred not
after Iraq used chemical weapons on the Iranians, nor after Iraq gassed
its own Kurdish people, nor even after Iraq invaded Kuwait, but rather,
followed Saddam's rejection of the Aqaba pipeline deal.
This implies that the rejection of the pipeline occurred after Iraq invaded Kuwait. Is there an accurate timeline somewhere? If that's the case, then the 'war for oil' argument gets a significant boost and anyone denying it is in denial.
I do have vague memories that the U.S.'s original reaction to the invasion of Kuwait was not all that concerned. That would support the idea that the U.S.-Iraqi relations were not strained until something else occurred. If the breakdown of the pipeline talks was somewhere in that timeframe then I say get the gallows ready on the D.C. Mall.
Originally posted by bunge
I do have vague memories that the U.S.'s original reaction to the invasion of Kuwait was not all that concerned.
Slip in the revisionist memories ever so deftly... [***revisionist history alert***]
Originally posted by Randycat99
Slip in the revisionist memories ever so deftly... [***revisionist history alert***]
Yup. That's why I offset it on the first line of a new paragraph. Great way to 'slip in' the revisionist memories.
You are paranoid. A line like this is added to a discussion so it can be...discussed. Others can now refute or support it. Of course, you can't for some reason. Most likely because you're a delusional paranoid.
So, doesn't anyone else remember Big Bush being coerced into action by the international community? That's how Maggie got him to commit to Somalia too.
I hope you don't really believe it. How can you?
And besides, God for-f'ing-bid that we might see benefits after we win this war. The Iraqi people will benefit because of the land's richness in oil, from which they will profit and be given more attention, and we will benefit because, in all likelihood, they will be selling it to us. It's a win-win situation. Would we be fighting this war if Iraq were rich in, say, sandstone? Possibly...I think that the main reasons we are fighting this war are a.) The people of this country are oppressed by a ruthless regime with values so dissimilar to our own, b.) Iraq is a threat, maybe not to us yet but to our ally Israel and even itself (Saddam fears not dropping the chem-bomb on his fellow countrymen.) and c.) Because, in all likelihood, the threat hasn't developed yet but most likely will, and therefore now is the time to take action, not later when they can actually bomb us on our own turf (witness N. Korea.) We can't let this happen, especially with someone like Saddam with his finger on the trigger. If he thinks he can get away with it, he'll do it. Morality is not something that comes naturally to this man, right and wrong do not apply.
But no, just to be cynical and rally against the party that doesn't agree with you, you spout meaningless drivel derived from pure conjecture. Obviously, ethnocentrism is running strong, as you all seem to believe that a few American heroes aren't worth tens of thousands of Iraqi lives. Who's to say one life is worth more than countless others...who are you to determine the value of a person you do not and cannot know? In the end, more people will survive, to see a day where they can enjoy the same "self-evident" liberties as do you. Sometimes, to stop the killing, you must kill and be killed. This is a sad and gut-twisting, yet true, fact of life. Deal with it. A certain man may be committing political suicide for the betterment of others. Clinton didn't have the stomach for it, and he was re-elected (Rwanda...800,000 killed in genocide while the U.S. turned a blind eye under the stewardship of your former leader...all because there was no possible political gain, and everything to lose politically.) And you come at us and try to tell us that this is a war for oil. You insinuate that a religious man such as Bush would be willing to sacrifice perhaps hundreds of lives just to make a little dough and secure some assets. What kind of sick bastard do you think he is? Does the political filter you see the world through really make you feel this way?
Our society is spiraling head-first down the drain and guess who's gathered at the head?
</PO'ed rant>
Originally posted by Spart
</PO'ed rant>
Spart, I'm not sure if your post was in part directed at me, but my post is questioning the validity of the pipeline argument. I'm looking at the weaknesses in the 'war for oil' argument.
I'll ask again: can anyone verify a timeline for the pipeline talks in relation to the first Gulf war?
Remember that coincidence is an everyday thing. The rejection of the pipeline plan coinciding with the breakdown between the U.S. and Iraq may be coincidental, it may be a valid criticism. There is no way of knowing for sure.
Originally posted by Spart
Remember that coincidence is an everyday thing.
Yes, the universe is just a lattice of coincidence, I understand that very well. But pushing for absolute proof is not realistic. Even a court of law will convict based on circumstantial evidence if there's enough of it.
Besides, it's hypocritical of the pro-war crowd to ask for irrefutable evidence of something that's only provable if we can read someone's mind. If we're to hold Bush to the same standard you're requiring to prove the oil connection, Bush certainly hasn't surpassed the burden of proof required to support an attack on a sovereign nation.
Originally posted by bunge
You are paranoid. A line like this is added to a discussion so it can be...discussed. Others can now refute or support it. Of course, you can't for some reason. Most likely because you're a delusional paranoid.
Oh that's just preeesssioussss! You are trying to build a "Bush evil plan/sinister oil line theory", but I'm the delusional paranoid?!
[tips hat to Spart]
Originally posted by Randycat99
... but I'm the delusional paranoid?!
I'll try not to disturb the fragile walls of your belief system, but I can't promise you anything. A house built of a deck of cards can easily tumble.