John Howard admits oil behind Iraq deployment

So much for bringing our troops home,

THE Prime Minister has admitted that the need to secure oil supplies and to help protect US interests in the Middle East are major factors in Australia's continuing military presence in Iraq.

John Howard has said Islamist terrorism remains a threat to Australia and it would be against "our national character" to let terrorists prevail.

So we are no longer there to assist in the police force, but to help secure another nations oil, to continue our industrial growth.

DISGUSTING... I thought we originally went there to remove WMDS... then it was to dispose Saddam, then it was to tide the civil war.. but now, its for security of OIL resources.

www.news.com.au...

Notice the image on the news site?

Its an America solider.

Opposition Leader Kevin Rudd has said Iraq is the worst military mistake since Vietnam and the Government is making up its policy as it goes.

Like or hate my Rudd, he will win.. because VAST majority know this illegial war is ruining our reputation as a 'fair go' country.

Howard, Bush and Blair would of probably had a little bit MORE respect had they admitted from the start

'' there's no WMD's, Saddam's not funding alqaeda... we just want the oil.. I mean its your future too ''

While i agree oil and its related issued was a major factor in the reason for America and its allies invading Iraq, you are incorrect in stating Howard is admitting this.

The Article states:

"THE Prime Minister has admitted that the need to secure oil supplies and to help protect US interests in the Middle East are major factors in Australia's continuing military presence in Iraq."

So oil is a major factor in the allies and Australia CONTINUING military presence. He is not admitting this was one of the reasons for originally invading (even though i am of the belief it was) because him and his advisors know this admission alone is controversial enough.

Yeah, I would read it more as "this is why we're here now", since the WMDs and Saddam are not an issue at all any more.

Needing to secure a vital resource isn't really a bad excuse for going to war, in fact it's probably the oldest. It's been going on for thousands of years, we just live in a time where the average person doesn't even know where his standard of living comes from.

Of course, our interests would be much better served if even a small amount of the money we spend on our military were diverted to alternative energy sources. That's really the only other option to war, as the American people have more or less made it clear they are not about to allow a reduction in luxury. I mean, I would be suprised if a tenth of the people who say "no blood for oil" have actually cut back on their energy usage to decrease the need for oil.

If this is a good reason as to why we are there now
then its going to remain a good reason to stay their indefinately.

I mean, oil's becoming more and more expensive, especailly here in Aus.
$1.35 I think the Perth Metro average is atm, comapred to the days when it was 50/60c per litre

But I agree, the 600 billion dollars given to governmental contractors in the US could of EASILY gone to scientific discovery of a unlimited, clean energy source.

But why hand the 'other' guy the profits, you could be reeping?

Originally posted by agit8dchop
So we are no longer there to assist in the police force, but to help secure another nations oil, to continue our industrial growth.

I fail to see how the West needs oil to continue "industrial growth". If anything the oil would be needed to fuel America's disgusting need for automobile fuel. Nations like India or China? Now they need oil for growth.

But the industrial aspect of an economy/society is always growing, updating or increasing output.

oil stops, american industrial might falters.

everything, and i mean everything depends on oil.
Food, goods, transport.....

By the way agent47, love the bottom quote in your sig
''He who opposes a dictatorship must accept civil war as a means....''

Maybe titor was right, civil war in the USA is required to remove the dictatorship that has taken hold.

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
By the way agent47, love the bottom quote in your sig
''He who opposes a dictatorship must accept civil war as a means....''

Maybe titor was right, civil war in the USA is required to remove the dictatorship that has taken hold.

I don't consider it a dictatorship if the guy is just doing what the people secretly want but won't admit to. I mean, if we really didn't want a war for oil, we'd stop buying plasma TV's and driving our cars everywhere. We'd push for public transportation and research into alternative energy with a tiny fraction of the energy we used to protest the war. But we don't do that, we just yell at the guy who's trying to keep us going.

We spent decades building an America that needed oil, and when suddenly it wasn't all sugar and gumdrops to get it, we blamed the guy in charge. Not to make him any less to blame, because he ultimately gave the order. But we're all guilty of creating a world where that choice needed to be made.

I dont agree, opinion polls show peoples real thoughts on Iraq.
And had people of been given the option back in 2002, maybe they would of said back then
'' instead of a decade long quagmire in which hundereds of thousands will die, lets invest 600billion sidelined for Iraq into scientific research ''

Why not spend 600billion on infrastructure, and medical/lifestyle supplies wiht Iran/Iraq (benig they had nothing to do with 911)
In an effort to modernize their societies, bringing them more in tune with western values, while also ensuring a constant flow of quality crude from their basins?

I mean, militarily occupying a nation isnt the only way to build Oil facilities.
Had we of sat down, and directly DISCUSSED things with both leaders ( like they ASKED ) maybe we could of come to an arrangement.

Just seems to me, we were more concerned with corporate abilitiy in this war, instead of sustaining moral decency in our actions.
I mean, we hire people to interrogate suspects now...

Has it been asked on national TV

'' are you willing to sacrifice luxury items, if it means your hardworking sons and daughters are brought home NOW ''?

Why dont we ask cororations like Halliburton, Exon, Mobile to start taking their multi-billion dollar coffers and assisting us in finding better ways to avoid wars for resources?

If you accept the slaughter of innocent people in their home land, so long as your oil continues to flow... im a lot more worried about the state of american society than i was yesterday.

It is, and always has been a war for oil.

so-called WMD's?

Saddam being a brutual dictator, who above all other equally brutal dictators, needed to be removed?

Accusations of Saddam having links with Al Qaeda?


Ha. It's called having the dust kicked in your eyes to distract and to hide the true intent, ladies and gentlemen.

If politicians are now admitting this, then perhaps they are trying to desensitise this fact to the people, that this is a war for material, a blood for oil exchange rate.

It's amazing that stating something so utterly obvious sparks a controversy.

It's a measure of how deeply self-deluded our societies have become that a public official with the poor tact to actually state a simple & obvious fact finds himself mired in a media storm.

That's a lesson to anyone watching: modern Western culture is so deep in denial that actually speaking the truth can end your career. We all have to regurgitate the lies we're fed, otherwise we become a threat to those around us, and pay the price.