BF2S Forums Shame on Australia

but they say the main reason is to prevent the humanitarian crisis from getting worse.......
which one is it, oil or humanity?



i suppose admitting to something like that takes balls.....or he wants to commit political suicide..

"What makes it worse is that it confirms to Australians that their government lied to them."

Yeah!  Children over board, Honest John and bailing his brothers business out, never be a G.S.T...

It's funny how he takes his nickname "honest john" as a compliment, it was from the 70's I think and the media gave it to him sarcasitcally because of his lying.

dont expect john howard to be around much longer, get used to kevin rud

"pursuit of democracy". LOLOLOLOLOL

They aren't to conserned about half of Africa and the Pursuit of Democracy.

S/O421 wrote:

"pursuit of democracy". LOLOLOLOLOL

They aren't to conserned about half of Africa and the Pursuit of Democracy.

Tried that. But what have they got to offer. Every single foreign aid sent has to be of the countries own interest.

B.Schuss wrote:

Kommander_Kale wrote:

Sorry Cameron Poe but if you're attacking John Howard directly that's a no go. Just listened into it on ABC radio, and while Brendan Nelson said this, John Howard and Peter Costello (Treasurer) have both repudiated this statement, saying it's the pursuit of democracy that has kept us there, and got us into it.

and you actually believe them ? I am not saying democracy and freedom were not part of the reasons, but those who are saying that oil ( or, strategic ressources ) had nothing to do with it, are obviously wrong.

Not a chance. I think 'bringing democracy to the east' is at most a reason and at least an excuse, but I was just pointing at that in C. Poe's view, where he seemed to be taking everything on face value (if you didn't already believe they were going there for oil, then I don't think you ever will) that John Howard, can't really be dragged into it when he staunchly rejected the notion.

Arseface wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

makes it worse is that it confirms to Australians that their government lied to them.

All governments lie, and that is never going to change. No matter who's in power.

B.Schuss wrote:

What's so difficult about admitting that the ME holds considerable strategic value for the west because of its oil ressources, and that that is the main reason why we interfere with those nations' internal affairs on a regular basis ? Why can't we be more honest about that ?

Do you think the war would have had more support if we had?

The only reason Australia went because America went.

America: Hey Australia I'm going to Iraq. Wanna Come?

Australia: Nah, but can you bring me back some oil?

America: Nah, just come and you can have whatever you want.

Australia: Fine...

well, it depends. What I would have prefered ( and, looking at the death toll, I think the US public would agree with me ) is that the US president would have stepped before congress and told them the truth, so they would have been able to make the best decision they could.

Something like this:

"Members of congress, I request authorization to attack Iraq. No, they were not behind the attacks on 09/11 and no, they don't have the means to attack US soil, or WMD's, and the country poses no threat to our security. But Saddam is a ruthless dictator who kills his own people and who we helped get into power. Thus, we have some responsibility to remove him, something my father couldn't do. Moreover, in the coming War on Terror, it is vital to US interests to gain a foothold in the middle east, and to have some control over oil, a very important strategic ressource.
It will also be part of our attempts to promote freedom and democracy worldwide, even in areas where the locals don't give a damn, or hate us.

It will be brutal, it will be bloody. THere will be an armed insurgency. It will probably last for a decade. Many US soldiers will die. We will most likely ruin our reputation internationally. But on the long run, it is in our best interest."

Now, if he had done that, he would really have shown balls. Would the war still have been authorized ? Well, maybe not. But it would have spared the lifes of over 3,000 US soldiers and countless wounded. The money could have been spent on domestic issues such as border security, the environment , and education. And I bet my ass you'd be much better off today, and just as safe.

That's what could have happened. But honesty obviously doesn't play a huge role in politics these days.

S/O421 wrote:

"pursuit of democracy". LOLOLOLOLOL

They aren't to conserned about half of Africa and the Pursuit of Democracy.

This is OH so true... I've lived in Africa all my life and there hasn't been a shred of interest from Foreign powers regarding Africa. However with the latest developments in Ghana we are sure to see more American involvement in Africa.

Link: http://africa.reuters.com/business/news … 24175.html

Its clearly evident that we live in an extremely selfish and self serving World where super powers are only interested in their continued development.
European nations and America have been promising to assist in financial aid to african counties however nothing has happened since the promises.

With the break down of the Doha talks with the WTO its clearly evident that the more powerful and richer countries are not willing to compromise on certain aspects. Now I'm not saying that its not only European or Western countries faults many African states are to blame as well.

But it is clear that the richer States are more interested in keeping Africa impoverished so to take advantage of labor and our vast natural resources. There is no better way to control the masses by keeping them on the brink of starvation and poverty.

Africa has the potential to grow exponentially if only we had the funding to do so...

However on a more positvie note the African Union has initiated Pan-African Infrastructure Development Fund. This will enable african countries to contribute to a development fund build africa's infrastructure. No longer can africa afford to wait for empty promises...

Link: http://allafrica.com/stories/200707030351.html

So all in all it would be great if developed countries helped africa but it is blatantly evident that this will not happen.

Watch out World Africa is rising !

Kmarion wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

I never understood this. Was Saddam cutting the oil off? Doesn't sound like the best economic move to me. Four years later and oil production is still nowhere near what it was pre war. War has left us with less oil, and the Iraqis cant pass the most basic of legislation to determine who in their country will manage the oil rights.

It also sounds like an explanation for staying, not an explanation for going in.

You'll see, they didn't go there to get cheaper oil for you or the regular citizen, they went there to secure the profits of the major oil companies.  Anyone thinking otherwise is just naive.

Please elaborate. Who is deciding how to manage their oil?

Iraq Oil Companies.

Univ. of Virginia wrote:

State companies:
The Oil Ministry oversees the nationalized oil industry through the Iraq National Oil Company (INOC). Autonomous companies under INOC include: State Company for Oil Projects (SCOP) - design and engineering of upstream and downstream projects; Oil Exploration Company (OEC) - exploration; Northern Oil Company (NOC) and Southern Oil Company (SOC) - upstream activities in northern/central and southern Iraq, respectively; State Organization for Oil Marketing (SOMO) - crude oil sales and OPEC relations; Iraqi Oil Tankers Company (IOTC)

Original Concession Holders:

Iraq Petroleum Company (Mosul Oil Company and Basrah Oil Company), Royal Dutch/Shell, Anglo-Persian, CFP, Exxon, Mobil, Atlantic Richfield, Gulf Oil Corporation, Standard Oil of Indiana [Amoco], and Participations and Explorations Corp., under auspices of the Near East Development Company.

Recent Developments:

U.S. previously operating in Iraq include Haliburton, Howe-Baker Engineering Inc., Mobil Oil, and Pullman-Kellogg.

Iraq's State Oil Marketing Organization (SOMO), -- pending U.N. approval --is in discussions with: U.S. companies Coastal Corp., Phoenix, Chevron Corp. and Mobil Corp.

Iraq has current contracts with Coastal, Russian Sidanco and France's Total S.A.

The Oil Daily reports that Shell, BP, Chevron, and Coastal are among the companies interested in buying Iraqi crude

Kmarion wrote:

Are you going to answer?
Again, Who is deciding how to manage their oil?

I answered you, but if you are buying that...

As an Australian, the only thing that has come out of this so far is that the government has become very, very confused. Nelson's saying one thing, Costello says another and Howard is saying another again.

John Howard, George Bush, and Tony Blair are all douchebags, so what else is new?