|
|
Blog Feeds
Anti-Empire
The SakerA bird's eye view of the vineyard
Public InquiryInterested in maladministration. Estd. 2005
Human Rights in IrelandPromoting Human Rights in Ireland |
From the Horses mouth national |
miscellaneous |
news report
 Thursday October 31, 2002 22:59 by Irony is dead
 BP chief fears US will carve up Iraqi oil riches Terry Macalister Wednesday October 30, 2002 The Guardian (yep I couldn't be bothered with summary and link jobbie) Lord Browne, chief executive of BP and one of New Labour's favourite industrialists, has warned Washington not to carve up Iraq for its own oil companies in the aftermath of any future war. They will also serve to underline concern that the US is primarily concerned with seizing control of Saddam Hussein's oil and handing it over to companies such as ExxonMobil rather than destroying his weapons of mass destruction. Britain's biggest company is reviewing what impact a regime change in Baghdad would have on its own business and global crude supplies. Both London and Washington have been lobbied by the UK oil giant, which is concerned that European companies could be left out in the cold. "We have let it be known that the thing we would like to make sure, if Iraq changes regime, is that there should be a level playing field for the selection of oil companies to go in there if they're needed to do the work there," said Lord Browne yesterday at a briefing on the company's results. Lord Browne said that most exploration for new supplies had halted there when the Iraqis nationalised their industry. But he believed there was a plenty of oil and gas waiting to be discovered in Iraq and that BP should be in prime position to capitalise because it had found most of the country's oil before being thrown out in the 1970s. BP said it had had no contact with Baghdad since 1989. Iraq's reserves amount to 115bn barrels of oil, making it the biggest source of oil in the world behind Saudi Arabia. Lord Browne's views will be listened to carefully in Downing Street because the BP executive team has such close links with the UK government that it was once dubbed Blair Petroleum. A number of former BP executives, such as Lord Simon, have been seconded into Whitehall while one of Mr Blair's personal assistants, Anji Hunter, joined Lord Browne's team. Impending war with Iraq has given a financial boost to BP and other western oil firms by driving up the price of oil to $27 per barrel.
|
printable version
Digg this
del.icio.us
Furl
Reddit
Technorati
Facebook
Gab
Twitter
|
View Comments Titles Only
save preference
Comments (10 of 10)
Jump To Comment: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10seen on a wall in Barcelona.
WW4 is currently featuring the Oil and Arms multi-national-corps.
they are very traditional.
Just wait for the others to begin.
for they will in at least 12 years.
Bush is just a warm-up.
i agree that bush's main motive it to get his hands on iraqi oil... but at the same time saddam is crazy and a danger to everyone... this is one of the situations where doing the right thing and doing what's in your interests (getting more oil in bush's case) are the same... how else can we deal with saddam???
Mr D,
You seem to have a very simplistic world view. Can you not differentiate between Saddam Hussein, a tyrant by anyone's definition, and 22 million Iraqi civilians, who have been suffering untold hardship because of 12 years of sanctions?
And before you start blaming Saddam for that hardship, you should remember that Iraq was the wealthiest and most developed Middle Eastern country before 1991. Its population had the best health and education services in the Middle East before 1991. It had the lowest child mortality rates in the Middle East before 1991. And all of this while Saddam was in power.
I would love to see Saddam ousted and replaced by an elected president, but that's not going to happen if Bush has his way. George W will kill Saddam and install a puppet who will give US and British firms access to Iraqi oil.
The Iraqi people will get a token increase in their standards of living by virtue of the fact that the US and Britain will not be bombing them every day from 10,000 feet up in the air, but they will still not be free. Their riches and resources will be plundered by the West.
This is called imperialism. It was wrong when the British did it, it was wrong when the Germans did it, it was wrong when the Japanese did it and it is wrong when the US does it. This excuse of bringing freedom/civilisation to the world is the same propaganda that was fed to the masses by British imperialists. It has since been discredited, because massacring civilians, stealing their resources and imposing authoritarianism is nobody's definition of freedom or civilisation.
It actually sickens me to see that people like "d" are still naive enough to believe what their "masters" tell them.
MG, I totally agree with all you say.
I don't think that oil is 100% behind any US/Elite actions though. I think another factor is the Madness of President George. I really think he has some kind of psychological disorder. Like many of the 'folks' that surround him, he has been so rich and so powerful for so long that he has gone mad. Ego and power play a big role in these imperialist actions.
Obviously there are many many people like D out there - the mass media is doing it's job well - creating a non-thinking, unquestioning public.
People like D though are I think uninterested (in life) and/ or lazy minded, and/or self-centered. The good thing is that if a real democracy ever took hold the D's would just continue with their unquestioning lack of interest. They would sit back and let decent people run a decent system, just as they are sitting back letting indecent people run an indecent system now.
both MG and depp have failed to suggest an alternative way of dealing with saddam... any suggestions guys???.. i think that an agressive un sanction backed up by the threat of force is unfortunately the only way forward...
also, i think it's unfair to accuse me of being "lazy" or uninterested in life.... i'm neither of these... i just have a different view of the world than you... rather than slagging me off why don't you try to convince me of your argument??? point out the faults in my logic????... many people would suggest that MG / depp are naive 3rd level students... i would never say this instead i would try to argue with them....
because it was.
Iraq was one of the "socialist" alternative states within the Islamic world.
It has always struck me as worthy of comment that all those "alternative socialist variation states" descended into tyranny. It reminds me of Chomsky´s "isolation of happy people story".
Libya and Iraq both worked for a short period, their peoples enjoying healthcare and education funded by the extraordinary oil reserves of their countries. Yet they both turned to tyranny.
I rather believe they were preffered as tyrannies by the West, and that the West pursued policies to tyrannise those states.
500 million barrels of Oil.
is all the planet now has.
we have choices,
to go on with "oil wars"
or
to develop "non-oil" civilisation.
and you´re right Mr Bush is quite psychologically dodgey. And Saddam is a monster.
D, you said ‘Saddam is a danger to everyone’. He’s not.
Bush is more dangerous to everyone than S. Hussein.
I wouldn’t have any suggestions for dealing with the internal affairs of Iraq. Why should I want to kill innocent Iraqis?
Why is USA/UK allowed nuclear weapons and not Iraq? Why is the UN structured to favour US/ western states?
If you are interested in what’s going on in the world, try a website like cyberjournal.org and read the essay there - ‘How does the world work today, and where is it headed?’
Read emperors-clothes.com . There are hundreds of websites that offer alternative viewpoints to the mass media - viewpoints which are essential to an understanding of the world.
Take one look at the world around you – look at all the problems poverty/war/famine/corruption etc. etc. etc. Did you ever stop and think SOMETHING IS WRONG?
FACTS: When there is more than enough food in the world why should people starve? Why do 6,000 children die in the world every day because they have no clean drinking water? Only 3,000 people were killed in US on September 11 and the world goes to war.
Do you value these 3,000 lives more than 3,000 non- Americans? I believe that all humans are equal.
People in high places have a tendency to scheme and tell us what’s good for us, and this attack on Iraq is part of a grand scheme. The system that allows all these innocents to die worldwide is inhuman. The same system gives Bush & co. their power.
FACTS: The system is clearly all wrong. I can’t see how anyone interested in a just world could argue with that statement. Too much power is held by too few people. (Just like in Iraq).
FACT: The ‘many people’ who would suggest that I am a ‘naieve 3rd level student’ would be 100% wrong. But I forgive them.
First of all,Saddam does not have any weapons of massdestruction,and america dont have any proof that he has.So when we have that out of the way,whats the reason to attack him again?What should we do about Saddam?Who is this "we" you speak of?America?The UN?If it is America,think of this..what should Norway do about Saddam?When you put it that way,it sounds silly,doesnt it?So why does america have the right to do anything about Saddam?More than Norway?Have Bush boithered to ask the Iraqi ppl what THEY want?You know,all those ppl he wants to liberate....
The thing we should do is to support the democratic forces inside of Iraq,not US-friendly puppets...so they can overthrow Saddam themself and create a real democracy independent from all outside intressts.But,this should be done by peoples movements in america and european countries-not by states.
The main point is though that Anerica donbt have any fucking right to decide wich regime who is legit and who is not-regardless of how it is in actuality. Or to put it even more frank;they dont have the the fucking right to overthrow any regime they dont like. End of story.
By the way,North Korea DOES have weapons of massdestruction...so why are you not worried about them?Why are you not calling on them to be attacked,huh?Perhaps because they are too strong for yah,no?Could that maybe be the reason?Chicken shits....
Mr "d",
Firstly, I'm not a third-level student...
Secondly, threats to world peace should be quantified and prioritised. George W Bush has declared World War Three several times in recent months. The so-called Bush Doctrine sets out a US vision for perpetual war (Did you ever read Orwell's 1984, Mr "d", or are you even able to read?) and states clearly that the US will pre-emptively attack any country that could potentially become an economic or military rival.
It basically shows that Bush's US is interested only in dominance of the whole world.
Saddam Hussein, on the other hand, "could" obtain nuclear weapons if he were to acquire the necessary materials from abroad. This is the basis for Bush's impending pre-emptive war on Iraq (I might remind you that it is illegal to attack another country without provocation and it is illegal to use the threat of force to try to change the political set-up of a sovereign state). However, any country in the world "could" obtain any weapon in the world if it could acquire the necessary material from abroad.
Mr "d", the fact that you swallow the bullshit spouted by the Bush cabal shows that you do not really understand international affairs. My guess is that you probably work for the Fianna Fail press office, or maybe the South Eastern Health Board???