Quote:
Originally posted by Shaun
The last time I checked, we weren't under a fascist totalitarian regime at all. And invading countries of our own free will? We're still in Iraq and Afghanistan...but those are the only two I can think of (correct me if I'm wrong  )
As for the war in Iraq, saying the invasion was for oil and supplies is just about as unfounded as the claims of Weapons of Mass Destruction were - there's no denying that, under Saddam Hussein, people were tortured and killed, and he committed genocide against the Kurds.
Your post also confuses me - you criticise us for stopping one dictatorship killing its citizens, but reckon that we should do the same with another?
I'm all for intervention in Burma, however, and this situation really is getting out of hand.
|
We invaded Iraq we were old becasue of WMD
Lie
That the changed to we invaded to save the people from a murderer
Lie [and also an attack to enforce regime change is illegal under international law ]
But the truth is easy to discover
Upon invasion what were the first facilities seized by US and British Troops ?
Oil Infrastructure
No rebuilding hospitals, no repairing hospitals, no rebuilding schools, no school restoration, no medical supplies, no water restotartion - No, only the oil pipelines and pumping stations were secured.
Arms dumps were left to be looted whilst the real reason for invasion was safeguarded
No doubt you will argue that the oil was necessery for the future of Iraq, so it could pay its bills.
In that case why were oil contracts handed out in the form of No-Bid Contracts to Haliburton and the Carlyle Group amongst others, these companies, by a law imposed on the new Iraqi Government, with a complete lack of imagination called, The New Oil Law
My post asked a pretty clear question :
Given the reasons we are now told where the actual reasons for invading Iraq, saving its people etc, why do we not intervene likewise in Burma.
I even answered it
We intervened in Iraq because of oil
Wheras Burmas natural resources go exclusively to Russia and China - as therefore are out of our grasp
or to be even more precise, in these days of dwindling oil supplies Iraq's energy reserves are an incredibly rich prize. According to the U.S. Department of Energy, "Iraq contains 112 billion barrels of proven oil reserves, the second largest in the world (behind Saudi Arabia), along with roughly 220 billion barrels of probable and possible resources. Iraq's true potential may be far greater than this, however, as the country is relatively unexplored due to years of war and sanctions." For perspective, the Saudis have 260 billion barrels of proven reserves.
Iraqi oil is close to the surface and easy to extract, making it all the more profitable. James Paul, executive director of the Global Policy Forum, points out that oil companies "can produce a barrel of Iraqi oil for less than $1.50 and possibly as little as $1, including all exploration, oil field development and production costs." Contrast that with other areas where oil is considered cheap to produce at $5 per barrel or the North Sea, where production costs are $12 to $16 per barrel
The saudis have 260billion barrels of reserves, but the more you extract the more expensive it is to continue extracting, oil is extracted on a bell curve principle, and we are currently on the downside, after peak oil and at the current rate of usage Saudi will be dry in 20 years.
that is why we invaded
the same question could be asked of North Korea - why don't we invade there, they fit the same criteria as Iraq, psychopathic madman in charge, subjugation of his people and more importantly NO natural resources, so why don't we invade, simple North Korea is Nuclear capable. So we talk to them. Bullies of the world don't pick on the little kids who can hit back
We claim to champion democracy, yet we only "help and assist" a people when we can get a benefit.
yes we are currently only In Iraq and Afghanistan, are two not enough for you ?
We invade two countries who posed absolutely NO threat to us
We invaded becasue we were told they did, why were we told that ? - because to invade a country that does not pose an immediate risk is against British law.
yet I do not see the dear leader, Chairman Blair, in the dock.
Why not - we are currently hunting the remainder of the serbian leaders for their invasion, we have just seen Saddam executed for his "crimes"
I parenthesise Saddams crimes, as his "crimes" were not crimes when he was our friend and the friend of the US, and we were both busy supplying him with the means to build his WMD.
Ah yes, he had oil money to spend.
My question is simple, in 50 years we have gone from champions of freedom to the new thugs of the block [behind americas coat-tails], and all the while our government is listening to our phone calls, reading our texts, encouraging neighbours to spy on neighbours, family member to spy on family member, and invading countires under spurious reasons, later proven to be false.
That sounds exactly like cold war era Russia to me.
and in the meantime our politicians talk
our people are happy in ignorance
and In Burma people wanting the very things that we are giving away are slaughtered,
while we watch it censored for our western sensibilities on TV,
our politicians make pontificating noises and the partisan media makes sure we concentrate on the important things like z-list celebrity ballroom dancing and glossing over our freedoms being taken away.
All quiet of the far eastern front