Ok, so what do we do now?

Originally posted by fledgling666
ummm, if you read the whole article, by the end, it basically says that people in a position within these companies disagree with what the reason for these supposed "secret" meetings were for. in other words, the article says "is this the case?" and then proceeds to say "no, as we found out..."

Ummm, it's amazing how differently people interpret things! To me the main point of the article was that pre-9/11 plans (of which we now know were of varying natures) were being made for the future ownership and distribution of Iraqi oil after the fall of Saddam.

and then if you read further down, it basically says that's not true.

here, i'll point it out for you:

Ms Jaffe says US oil companies are not warm to any plan that would undermine Opec and the current high oil price: "I'm not sure that if I'm the chair of an American company, and you put me on a lie detector test, I would say high oil prices are bad for me or my company."

The former Shell oil boss agrees. In Houston, he told Newsnight: "Many neo conservatives are people who have certain ideological beliefs about markets, about democracy, about this, that and the other. International oil companies, without exception, are very pragmatic commercial organizations. They don't have a theology."

[edit on 21-3-2005 by fledgling666]

An insane paranoid man in a position of great power is a threat to everyone, there is now one less in the world. Israeli, Kuwaitis, all others in the region no longer have to worry about getting hit by a SCUD missile on their way to school. Saddam gased the Kurds years back so it's plainly obvious that he had chemical weapons. He used chemical and maybe biological weapons against the Iranians in their war. The United Kingdom is a net exporter of oil. They would necessarily be harmed by a stabilization of oil prices. I'm not saying oil wasn't a motivation, I'm saying it was not the sole motivation... if that were the case why not simply invade the countries that don't have any kind of significant military to resist us that have oil?

Originally posted by AlphaHumana
An insane paranoid man in a position of great power is a threat to everyone, there is now one less in the world. Israeli, Kuwaitis, all others in the region no longer have to worry about getting hit by a SCUD missile on their way to school.

Yeah all they need to worry about is another 10 takeing his place....
BTW you do relise that sadamm was destroying his missiles?

Saddam gased the Kurds years back so it's plainly obvious that he had chemical weapons. He used chemical and maybe biological weapons against the Iranians in their war.

You know both your events happened at the same time...right?
And you know it wasnt iraqi chemical weapons at all that killed the civilians but iranian chemicals....right?

Unless Stephen C. Pelletiere is lying...

The United Kingdom is a net exporter of oil. They would necessarily be harmed by a stabilization of oil prices. I'm not saying oil wasn't a motivation, I'm saying it was not the sole motivation... if that were the case why not simply invade the countries that don't have any kind of significant military to resist us that have oil?

So what?
You want us to steal the oil or force it out of them or make it much more easier to get the oil by using military force?
The fact is iraq is a prime stageing point and has a large ammount of oil there...