h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

goes to look

yeah. Vice Pres. went to an OIL meeting within days of 9-11, not sure where in the middle east. The first trip he took overseas afterwards Not much was said about it. Just after the huge *monopoly* of Oil Co. mergers. Companies in which he is involved.

If this regime were in charge of anywhere but the USA, I swear even France and Germany would go to war with them

*will remain frightned and alert*

Presidents & the like are front-men for the mega-conglomerates that really control the world`s purse-strings.Hopefully they`re not so dense as to think a nuclear war is survivable.Then again they`re the ones most likely to have shelters under tons of earth.Hopefully they`ll want their off-spring to not have flippers instead of arms. Neu

Normal service hasbeen resumed..here are todayseducational and informative links. :-0

As the US administration finally tips its hand as to the real concern in this 'war';

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,880437,00.html

here's a helpful cutout and keep guide aboput who uses, imports, exports and stockpiles oil. Quite revealingI'll think you'll find...;

http://www.guardian.co.uk/flash/0,5860,798061,00.html

though you'll need a 'flash' enabled computer in order to read it...Andjustto round of, another piece about Life Death and the old Black Gold;

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,880443,00.html

Thanks BS, good links. Anyone get this far down the line? http://www.guardian.co.uk/oil/story/0,11319,875712,00.html

Apparently the USA needs 270 million barrels of crude a day to run its refineries. Alarmingly it has 272 million left in the system. This means that there is only about four hours slack. If they don't find some oil somewhere soon (and goodness only knows where), they will have to start dipping into their emergency petrolium reserves. This was, of course, completely unseen, and any present troubles in the Middle-East are coincidentally an offshoot of North America's present administration's overwhelming concern for other people's oil.

Sh*t! That should of course have been "other people's welfare." that's "welfair", not "oil".
Gosh, a "Bushism". I hadn't realised just how easy it was. Silly me.

Well, i hate to say I told you so, but this is more or less where I came into the thread.

Very few seemed willing to believe it then. I wonder if any more will be convinced now.

I think there's only two left to convince. On this thread, anyway...

Who would those be I wonder?


Continuing on about oil, I read something in passing about the "lateral" drilling into Iraq from Kuwait. i.e. wells on the Kuwaiti side of the border drilling sideways into Iraqi oil. Odly enough, that area of Iraq is in the no-fly zone and is always patrolled by the UN.

Have you come accross any story that goes into the details of this activity?

Plenty on google, but nothing nuetral.

Nuke 'emm

What it is not a computer game 'SIM Earth Destruction'. Oh silly me

Can sombody tell the 'leaders' of our countries that?

I dont wana die just becaus petrol HAS gone up £0.04 this week!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,880437,00.html

That's fascinating. Some contributors here have cast doubt on the assertion that America intends to steal Iraq's oil.

There is, of course, the expected denial from US officials. Colin Powell has said "The oil of Iraq belongs to the Iraqi people. ...it will be held for and used for the people of Iraq. It will not be exploited for the United States' own purpose."

However (says the article) "There is a debate within the US administration over whether some of Iraq's oil revenues might be used to cover part of the costs of occupation, which is expected to last 18 months.
The office of the vice-president, Dick Cheney, and some officials at the Pentagon have reportedly advocated commandeering revenues from the oilfields to pay for the daily costs of the occupation force until a democratic government can be installed".

Therein lies the US plan:

1] Vehemently deny that oil is the purpose of the invasion.

2] Invade anyway. No reason, that has any resemblance to reality, is required.

3] Occupy the country. Again, no actual reason required.

4] Steal the oil. Supposedly to finance the occupation.

As bizarre as all this is, the most incredible thing is that so many people support it without question.

"As bizarre as all this is, the most incredible thing is that so many people support it without question."


Well it doesn't take a genius to connect 9/11 with Iraq.

It takes, unfortunately, a whole bunch of morons.

Absolutely!

"Plenty on google, but nothing nuetral."

Which way is it leaning?

Regarding France.

If any of you are concerned about what Bush wants to do with Iraq once Saddam is gone then you should (as I have) treat France's defection with horror. It is *vital* that other powerful countries join in the military action against Iraq in order to hold the US back from doing anything stupid (which it may well do) with Iraq following Saddam's removal. The US has no obligation to listen to countries who are not involved in the war.

I probably don't have to tell you that Britain's involvement barely counts as a "steadying hand".

Since France has joined Germany in washing it's hands of all responsibility, there's very little hope of any other European powers joining in except perhaps Italy. And let's face it, Italy isn't a major power and Berlusconi is idelogically pretty close to Bush anyway.

In short, thank you President Chirac for your craven short-sightedness. And if Bush does decide to wreck a potentially retrievable Iraq following the removal of it's dictator, I hope you, Germany and that cretin Blair are all very pleased with yourselves.

Incidentally, does anyone else think France's logic is a little skewed. They say they will "support action against Saddam with a UN mandate" and then say they will veto any move to war?

And you thought Bush was full of s**t.

"There is, of course, the expected denial from US officials. Colin Powell has said "The oil of Iraq belongs to the Iraqi people. ...it will be held for and used for the people of Iraq. It will not be exploited for the United States' own purpose." "

I'm delighted to hear that. Powell is a much smarter man than both Bush and Rumsfeld. He also has the advantage of being an ex-soldier and so knows the territory better than a caretaker Republican and his mad-dog Vice President. Personally, I believe that he thinks the oil belongs to Iraq and should be used to help it rebuild. Whether he can persuade his short-sighted boss to do that remains to be seen. Whatever, given Blair's cowardice and Chirac and Schroder's irresponsible not-getting-involved thank god people like Powell exist in the Bush administration.

"However (says the article) "There is a debate within the US administration over whether some of Iraq's oil revenues might be used to cover part of the costs of occupation, which is expected to last 18 months.
The office of the vice-president, Dick Cheney, and some officials at the Pentagon have reportedly advocated commandeering revenues from the oilfields to pay for the daily costs of the occupation force until a democratic government can be installed". ""

Given that most people thought Bush would steal the oil for his own personal profit (and no doubt subsequently make the US taxpayer fork-out for Iraq's rebuilding) this option comes as something of a surprise. It doesn't really strike me as a very intelligent option, unless it is very short term. Who knows, maybe the US doesn't plan in staying in Iraq for too long.