Australia admits Iraq war was about oil

Bounty · Post by **Bounty** » 2007-07-05 06:23am

BBC wrote:Australian Defence Minister Brendan Nelson has admitted that securing oil supplies is a key factor behind the presence of Australian troops in Iraq.

He said maintaining "resource security" in the Middle East was a priority.

But PM John Howard has played down the comments, saying it was "stretching it a bit" to conclude that Australia's Iraq involvement was motivated by oil.

The remarks are causing heated debate as the US-led Iraq coalition has avoided linking the war and oil.

Oil concerns

Australia was involved in the invasion of Iraq in 2003, and has about 1,500 military personnel still deployed in the region.

There are no immediate plans to bring them home.

In comments to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, Mr Nelson admitted that the supply of oil had influenced Australia's strategic planning in the region.

"Obviously the Middle East itself, not only Iraq but the entire region, is an important supplier of energy, oil in particular, to the rest of the world," he said.

"Australians and all of us need to think what would happen if there were a premature withdrawal from Iraq.

"It's in our interests, our security interests, to make sure that we leave the Middle East, and leave Iraq in particular, in a position of sustainable security."

This is thought to be the first time the Australian government has admitted any link between troop deployment in Iraq and securing energy resources.

But Prime Minister John Howard was quick to play down the significance of his defence minister's comments.

"We didn't go there because of oil and we don't remain there because of oil," he told a local radio station.

"A lot of oil comes from the Middle East - we all know that - but the reason we remain there is that we want to give the people of Iraq a possibility of embracing democracy," he added.

Opposition criticism

Opposition politicians, though, have chastised Mr Howard's government over the comments.

"This government simply makes it up as it goes along on Iraq," Labor leader Kevin Rudd told reporters.

Anti-war protesters say the government's admission proves that the US-led invasion was more of a grab for oil rather than a genuine attempt to uncover weapons of mass destruction.

But ministers in Canberra have brushed aside the criticism, saying they remain committed to helping the US stabilise Iraq and combat terrorism.

They have also stressed that there will be no "premature withdrawal" of Australian forces from the region.

Post by **K. A. Pital** » 2007-07-05 06:39am

"A lot of oil comes from the Middle East - we all know that - but the reason we remain there is that we want to give the people of Iraq a possibility of embracing democracy"

Holy shit, what a prime example of doublespeak something... That's not even funny any more.

Stark · Post by **Stark** » 2007-07-05 08:40am

PS nobody really takes anything Howard says seriously.

J · Post by J » 2007-07-05 10:25am

Australia, a country with little oil of its own, getting involved in Iraq which has oodles of oil, clearly, this has nothing to do with oil.

Stark · Post by **Stark** » 2007-07-05 03:15pm

J wrote:Australia, a country with little oil of its own, getting involved in Iraq which has oodles of oil, clearly, this has nothing to do with oil.

Australia actually expecting to see any tangible benefit from it's support of America, however, is deeply amusing.

Flagg · Post by **Flagg** » 2007-07-05 03:21pm

I always get a kick out of peoples saying the Iraq war "had nothing to do with oil!!!". Every single thing that has anything to do with the Middle East is about oil. Everything. Why the fuck else would anyone give 2 flying fucks about a big desert with a bunch of religious nutjobs willing to strap bombs on themselves?

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2007-07-05 03:48pm

Stark wrote:
J wrote:Australia, a country with little oil of its own, getting involved in Iraq which has oodles of oil, clearly, this has nothing to do with oil.
Australia actually expecting to see any tangible benefit from it's support of America, however, is deeply amusing.

I suspect that this delusion is only maintained because Australia is so far from America. They probably expect America to handsomely reward its friends and allies: the kind of quid pro quo policy for which America has quite frankly demonstrated nothing but contempt. We in Canada know better; American is your friend so long as you're doing what they want, but decades of partnership mean nothing if the latest administration decides it can score political points at your expense.

rhoenix · Post by **rhoenix** » 2007-07-05 03:48pm

Actually, I see this as a promising sign. It sounds as if he didn't prepare his speech, and did some of it off the cuff - enough to show that there are fractures in the facade at large.

I can only hope this continues.

Wicked Pilot · Post by **Wicked Pilot** » 2007-07-05 04:58pm

Every action west of the Dead Sea is motivated by religion, everything east is oil. The Middle East sucks, there would be zero interest in that part of the world if it weren't for those two.

Spyder · Post by **Spyder** » 2007-07-05 08:10pm

Someone started messaging me after the war started saying "You know, if NZ joined in you'd be welcome back in ANZUS!"

ANZUS...I'll try to curb my excitement.

Flagg · Post by **Flagg** » 2007-07-05 08:16pm

Wicked Pilot wrote:Every action west of the Dead Sea is motivated by religion, everything east is oil. The Middle East sucks, there would be zero interest in that part of the world if it weren't for those two.

When it comes to modern US support for Israel, I think alot of it is still oil related. Not to discount the Israel lobby or the fundies.

Resinence · Post by **Resinence** » 2007-07-05 09:14pm

Could someone point me in the direction of a decent, in detail, book or whatever on WHY America seems to support Isreal so much, I just don't get it?

B5B7 · Post by **B5B7** » 2007-07-05 10:46pm

J wrote:Australia, a country with little oil of its own, getting involved in Iraq which has oodles of oil, clearly, this has nothing to do with oil.

Australia does have significant oil reserves, but wishes to keep that where possible as a strategic reserve. Also has lots of alternate energy resources - gas, coal, uranium (plus sun and wind, etc).
But your main point stands - So, yes it still is about oil.

Resinence wrote:Could someone point me in the direction of a decent, in detail, book or whatever on WHY America seems to support Isreal so much, I just don't get it?

It is not possible to get it from a rational veiwpoint - it's about religion - Christian fundamentalism (that actually has as one of its origin points anti-semitism) has taken up the myth of Israel - that existence of Israel is necessary for Judgment Day, the Rapture and all that shit.

If you check Skeptic sites, one might find a book that specifically deals with this issue.

Resinence · Post by **Resinence** » 2007-07-05 11:33pm

It is not possible to get it from a rational veiwpoint - it's about religion - Christian fundamentalism (that actually has as one of its origin points anti-semitism) has taken up the myth of Israel - that existence of Israel is necessary for Judgment Day, the Rapture and all that shit.

If you check Skeptic sites, one might find a book that specifically deals with this issue.

Erm, ok... Thanks. Thought it would be something like that, I'll search around.

Stuart Mackey · Post by **Stuart Mackey** » 2007-07-06 06:23am

Darth Wong wrote: We in Canada know better; American is your friend so long as you're doing what they want, but decades of partnership mean nothing if the latest administration decides it can score political points at your expense.

As do we in New Zealand: We said no to Nukes, and the US did not like that expression of democratic free will one little bit.

tim31 · Post by **tim31** » 2007-07-06 08:00am

B5B7 wrote:
J wrote:Australia, a country with little oil of its own, getting involved in Iraq which has oodles of oil, clearly, this has nothing to do with oil.
Australia does have significant oil reserves, but wishes to keep that where possible as a strategic reserve. Also has lots of alternate energy resources - gas, coal, uranium (plus sun and wind, etc).
But your main point stands - So, yes it still is about oil.

Australia's reserves are the equivalent of six months consumption for the U.S, but your point stands; it's a good nest egg.

Selling uranium to China was a great idea too

Ford Prefect · Post by **Ford Prefect** » 2007-07-06 08:07am

"This government simply makes it up as it goes along on Iraq," Labor leader Kevin Rudd told reporters.

I need to watch Question Time. If Labour doesn't drive this home like a freight train, I'll be surprised.

tim31 · Post by **tim31** » 2007-07-06 08:10am

To be honest, I won't be surprised if Rudd fumbles. It's just what Labour leaders do when handed a golden egg late in the election campaign.

Ford Prefect · Post by **Ford Prefect** » 2007-07-06 08:19am

tim31 wrote:To be honest, I won't be surprised if Rudd fumbles. It's just what Labour leaders do when handed a golden egg late in the election campaign.

Shut up.

I didn't want John Howard in power since I was seven years years old. I have watched Labour stumble and fall into piles of shit many times over this past decade, and right now I'm looking at the best thing Labour has had since Bob Hawke (did you see the schooling he gave Howard in Parliament a few months ago?). So don't you rain on my goddamn parade.

Please.

tim31 · Post by **tim31** » 2007-07-06 08:35am

Sorry. Didn't mean to be rude. I always number the indies, and leave the two parties.

Lonestar · Post by **Lonestar** » 2007-07-06 09:46am

Stuart Mackey wrote: As do we in New Zealand: We said no to Nukes, and the US did not like that expression of democratic free will one little bit.

Waa Waa. I don't want ships that may or may not have Nukes make port calls!

Stark · Post by **Stark** » 2007-07-06 07:47pm

Lonestar wrote:Waa Waa. I don't want ships that may or may not have Nukes make port calls!

Yeah, sovereign determination is so terrible, right? The NZ'ers wouldn't have been conquered by the Martians if they'd just let the US do what they want.

Oh wait, they made a (lame) decision and didn't let the US pressure them into changing their minds. I'm sure the US was flabbergasted.

Lonestar · Post by **Lonestar** » 2007-07-06 09:25pm

Stark wrote:
Yeah, sovereign determination is so terrible, right? The NZ'ers wouldn't have been conquered by the Martians if they'd just let the US do what they want.

Oh wait, they made a (lame) decision and didn't let the US pressure them into changing their minds. I'm sure the US was flabbergasted.

I sure as Hell am. They don't wanna play ball on something as bloody simple as a SSN paying a port call, then why should we give two shits about what happens to them?

Stark · Post by **Stark** » 2007-07-06 09:29pm

Erm, they don't? They never did? So... what?

I'm not a huge fan of the decision, but it's not like their continued survival is dependent on sucking US cock. So... who cares? It doesn't make a difference to the US, so... ? You're basically saying 'you should let the US do whatever they want even when the US has nothing to offer and rapes AU despite it's cooperation'. Let's face it: the US is never going to treat a tiny nation like NZ as anything more than a doorstop (neither is anyone else, lol), so who cares?

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2007-07-06 09:30pm

Would have made more sence to attack Borneo, they could even dust off the plans from the 1945 invasion!