yurbud
yurbud's Journal
Chilcot Report: UK Oil Interests Were Lead Motive For Iraq War
I thought this was going to be the main thrust of the Chilcot report since the false evidence publicly presented has already been hashed over pretty thoroughly.
Still, any documentation of the oil motive is historically important, and this clearly shows it was even strategic access or anything like that--it was just a matter of who would profit from sucking the oil out of the ground.
That's why our government killed a couple of hundred thousand to over a million Iraqis, left the country in a shambles, and created recruits for ISIS.
Our democracy and foreign policy is based on a lie until this gets a similar investigation and honest discussion here.
Secret meetings between government officials and BP and Shell to discuss how they would proceed once Saddam was been toppled are revealed in the document. Iraq, the minutes of one such a meeting read, is “special for the oil companies” and “BP are desperate to get in there.”
In other words, what Chilcot’s report has revealed, albeit reluctantly and seemingly unwillingly, is that energy, not weapons for mass destruction (non-existent as it turned out) was the main motive for the Iraq invasion and the bloody conflict that ensued.
Energy concerns continued to top the agenda in the aftermath of the war as well. According to Open Democracy, a theme repeatedly appearing in the documents that were analysed by Chilcot and his team was “to transfer Iraq’s oil industry from public ownership to the hands of multinational companies, and to make sure BP and Shell get a large piece of that.”
http://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Chilcot-Report-UK-Oil-Interests-Were-Lead-Motive-for-Iraq-War.html
Will release of Chilcot Inquiry report on Iraq War lies this week affect the election?
The farther we get from 9/11, the less credible some of those lies seem, including not just the facts of whether Saddam Hussein had WMD, but the assumption that even if he did, he would dare use them against us or our allies or give them to terrorists who may use them against us or our allies given our THOUSANDS of nukes we had (and have to retaliate with) and even the hundreds Israel has and their willingness to attack their neighbors when they feel the need.
Any politician old enough to remember the Cold War or even vaguely familiar with our nuclear arsenal should have known what Bush was selling was nonsense, and it is likely that the Chilcot Report will show exactly that being discussed behind the scenes as well as the real business and finance motives for turning Iraq into a mass grave and first of several ungovernable free fire zones we've created since like Libya and are seemingly trying to create in Syria.
It is also shameful that the Chilcot Inquiry has no parallel in the United States. For all the problems the Brits have, their pols are at least honest enough to do that, but ours can't be bothered.
George Orwell on why economic inequality exists
I stumbled upon this a couple of years ago, but it is even more relevant today.
It is a neat piece of doublethink that has distracted us from how much more wealth a worker creates than in the past, yet isn't shared with them.
Instead, we have been convinced that being given a job is a form of charity bestowed upon us by "job creators" and that they deign to pay us at all is further sign of their altruism and generosity.
The investor class could let a lot more of the grain the ox tramples make it into our feed bag and still be wealthy beyond human imagination, but the reason they don't is precisely what Orwell mentions here.
But it was also clear that an all-round increase in wealth threatened the destruction -- indeed, in some sense was the destruction -- of a hierarchical society. In a world in which everyone worked short hours, had enough to eat, lived in a house with a bathroom and a refrigerator, and possessed a motor-car or even an aeroplane, the most obvious and perhaps the most important form of inequality would already have disappeared. If it once became general, wealth would confer no distinction. It was possible, no doubt, to imagine a society in which wealth, in the sense of personal possessions and luxuries, should be evenly distributed, while power remained in the hands of a small privileged caste. But in practice such a society could not long remain stable. For if leisure and security were enjoyed by all alike, the great mass of human beings who are normally stupefied by poverty would become literate and would learn to think for themselves; and when once they had done this, they would sooner or later realize that the privileged minority had no function, and they would sweep it away.
http://professorsmartass.blogspot.com/2008/01/orwells-1984-war-economy-exists-to.html
Profile Information
Member since: Sun Jul 11, 2004, 07:58 PMNumber of posts: 39,405
