Are All Wars Religious in Nature?...

[Lost Cause]

Seems to be the case in all current wars going on right now. How can you solve a conflict when the opponents each believe they will "go to hell" if they don't win? How can you get through to them without a complete destruction of one side or the other?

urrent conflicts and wars:
Source: http:/www.religioustolerance.org/curr_war.htm
Some of the world's current "hot spots" which have as their
base a significant component of religious intolerance are listed below:


Country and Main religious groups involved
1. Afghanistan Extreme radical Fundamentalist Muslim terrorist
groups & non-Muslim Osama bin Laden heads a terrorist group
called Al Quada (The Source) whose headquarters were in
Afghanistan.
2. Bosnia Serbian Orthodox Christians, Roman Catholic, Muslims
3. Cote d'Ivoire Muslims, Indigenous, Christians
4. Cyprus Christians & Muslims
5. East Timor Christians & Muslims
6. Indonesia, province of Ambon Christians & Muslims
7. Kashmir Hindus and Muslims
8. Kosovo Serbian Orthodox Christians, Muslims
9. Kurdistan Christians, Muslims Assaults on Christians (Protestant, Chaldean Catholic & Assyrian Orthodox). Bombing campaign
underway.
10. Macedonia Macedonian Orthodox Christians & Muslims
11. Middle East Jews, Muslims, &Christians
12. Nigeria Christians, Animists, & Muslims
13. Pakistan Suni & Shi'ite Muslims
14. Philippines Christians & Muslims
15. Russia, Chechnya Russian Orthodox Christians, Muslims. The
Russian army attacked the breakaway region. Muslims had allegedly
blown up buildings in Moscow. Many atrocities have been alleged.
16. Serbia, province of Vojvodina Serbian Orthodox & Roman Catholics
17. Sri Lanka Buddhists & Hindus Tamils (a mainly Hindu 18%
minority) are involved in a war of independence snce 1983 with the
rest of the country (70% Buddhist)..
18. Uganda Animists, Christians,& Muslims
19. Thailand: Pattani province: Buddists and Muslims
20. Bangladesh: Muslim-Hindu (Bengalis) and Buddists (Chakmas)
21. Tajikistan: intra-Islamic conflict

Jeebus save us!

 

[Guest]

 

[android1966]

A lot of the time religion is the pretext rather than the cause. If a leader asked people to fight over resources or because he wanted to go down in history he wouldn't have many takers. So the people are told it's because their faith is threatened.

 

[Don K Dyck]

Same Pattern Again . . .

A lot of the time religion is the pretext rather than the cause. If a leader asked people to fight over resources or because he wanted to go down in history he wouldn't have many takers. So the people are told it's because their faith is threatened.

Good point, Android . . . the British had it down to a fine art in the nineteenth century . . . send in the missionaries, then send in the traders . . . now in the twenty-first century it's send in the B52s, take out the oil . . .

 

[Mad_Jack_Rabbit]

The 'War of the roses' wasn't about religion.

The English Civil War wasn't about religion.

So no.

And What about 'Star Wars'?

 

[MissTaken]

How better to summon support, have militants blindly follow your lead than to make it a religious issue?

As you said, religion can be a powerful piece of mind control.

Look at OBL.

I dont' believe wars about religion in all cases. I just think that those seeking war use religion to their advantage.

It is much easier to motivate someone based on their intrinsic beliefs than it is to teach them patriotism or loyalty to a new idea or concept.

 

[weed]

It does seem like the jihad is our modern war, doesn't it. But I wonder while the religion may be the reason of the extremists aren't there many other reasons typically involving resources, economics and international relationships? I think defense of human rights is also used as an excuse from time to time although I'd like to know if there are any wars for the cause of human rights that didn't have additional motives.

 

[patient1]

Religion is a power structure, so obviously it's going to be used & abused by the power-hungry.

Religion also serves to keep ethnics seperated for centuries because of the stigma of marrying outside of your faith. It maintains an "Us & Them" mentality. The more marriages that occur between different races, ethnicities,social classes, etc, the more bridges we build. Most people won't disown their grandchildren permanetly.

 

[busybody..]

Lost Cause

The site you report has no credibility, imo.

The very first notation, states:

1. Afghanistan Extreme radical Fundamentalist Muslim terrorist
groups & non-Muslim Osama bin Laden heads a terrorist group
called Al Quada (The Source) whose headquarters were in
Afghanistan.

Well, OBL is a Muslim, fights in the name of Islam, and was invited by Afghanistan to set up camp.

Further, the rest of the notations imply that ALL RELIGIONS ARE EQUALLY GUILTY OF THE FIGHTS AND TERROR MENTIONED. Where in fact, it is Muslims in the name of Islam that perpetuates and initiates the terror and others DEFEND themselves.

 

[busybody..]

Donald Dyke

Can you point to ONE war the US has fought for the "occupation of OIL"?

 

[Stout chap]

War is primarily about oil. Unfortunately, a good deal of oil is in the Islamic states of the middle east. In order to get public opinion high for such schemes, you have to demonise the enemy: that's why there are so many anti-muslim bigots about. The other side generally do the same (Iraq's coverage of the World Trade Centre attacks relayed the pictures with the Iraqi National Anthem playing in the background).

 

[Stout chap]

Let's all take a lesson from Pink Floyd:

Us and Them
And after all we're only ordinary men
Me, and you
God only knows it's not what we would choose to do
Forward he cried from the rear
and the front rank died
And the General sat, as the lines on the map
moved from side to side
Black and Blue
And who knows which is which and who is who
Up and Down
And in the end it's only round and round and round
Haven't you heard it's a battle of words
the poster bearer cried
Listen son, said the man with the gun
There's room for you inside
Down and Out
It can't be helped but there's a lot of it about
With, without
And who'll deny that's what the fightings all about
Get out of the way, it's a busy day
And I've got things on my mind
For want of the price of tea and a slice
The old man died.

 

[busybody..]

Limp Chap

Can you point to the "wars" that involve OIL?

And

Can you point to the "wars" the US is involved or was involved in that was about OIL?

I thank you in advance........If you will respond.

 

[Stout chap]

http://www.unclenicks.net/research/Oil_Wars/oil_wars.html

Boom boom!

With, without; who'll deny that's what the fighting's all about?

 

[busybody..]

Limp Chap

As I thought, you could not answer my questions.

A web site of a conspiracy fool, that makes ZERO sense counts for ZERO!

You are yet another IDIOT that has infiltrated this board, WELCOME, you have MANY with whom to "talk".

 

[sufisaint]

More about gold than God when you get right down to it...greed for money and power.

 

[weed]

Re: Limp Chap

Can you point to the "wars" that involve OIL?

And

Can you point to the "wars" the US is involved or was involved in that was about OIL?

I thank you in advance........If you will respond.

Oil Wars
:: Western "Humanitarianism" in Iraq ::


by Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed
On December 1998, the United States of America, allied with the United Kingdom, embarked upon a new bombing campaign against Iraq. As far as the Anglo-American allies were concerned, the professed reasons for the bombing were straightforward: Saddam Hussein had failed to comply with the UN weapons inspections. His alleged ongoing failure to cease his nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programmers, meant that the Hitler of the 90s still constituted a grave and immediate danger to not only his own people, but to his Middle East neighbours and, in fact, the entire world.

I. Oil at the Roots

A glance at the history of the West’s relations with Iraq explains the roots of the Persian Gulf crisis. Iraq was a compliant ally of the West - particularly of the United States - throughout the 1980s, despite the fact that the Iraqi masses were tyrannised under Saddam Hussein’s anti-humanitarian military regime. The reason is clear: Iraq contains 10 per cent of the world’s oil reserves. When the West’s puppet in Iran (the Shah) was toppled, the Western powers colluded to push Iraq into a war with the newly formed Islamic Republic, the aim being to re-impose Western hegemony over the oil-rich region. This entailed strengthening the Iraqi war machine. Iraq’s Western-endowed weapons of mass destruction - including chemical and biological weapons - were subsequently employed in its war against Iran, as well as at home in the gassing of defenceless Kurds and Shi’ites, all of which occurred under the auspices of the Saddam-West alliance.

However, when Saddam invaded Kuwait in August 1990, endangering Western control over Middle East oil reserves, it was clear that the West’s love affair with the genocidal tyrant was over. The Western powers, indignant at this act of rebellion by a former servant, saw the need to teach him and his people a lesson in the rules of ‘world order’. Iraq was to set an example of what happens to countries who refuse to follow the rules of this ‘new’ world order. Cue the Gulf War.

II. Terminating Iraqis with an Iron Fist

The aim of the war, right from the outset, was to smash the country’s civilian infrastructure, as well as to provoke the Iraqi population and military into removing Saddam and installing a new pro-West military dictatorship - a fact even noted in July 1991 by chief diplomatic correspondent of the New York Times, Thomas Friedman. Friedman reported that the West’s hope was for Iraqi generals to topple Saddam Hussein, “and then Washington would have the best of all worlds: an iron-fisted Iraqi junta without Saddam Hussein.” In this way, the United States - civilised leader of the “free world” - hoped to recreate the days when Saddam’s pro-West “iron-fist... held Iraq together, much to the satisfaction of the American allies Turkey and Saudi Arabia” – but this time without disobedient Saddam.

Eric Hoskins, a Canadian doctor and Coordinator of a Harvard study team on Iraq, observed that the Gulf War bombing campaign “effectively terminated everything vital to human survival in Iraq - electricity, water, sewage systems, agriculture, industry, health care. Food, warehouses, hospitals and markets were bombed. Power stations were repeatedly attacked until electricity supplies were at only 4 per cent of prewar levels.” (New Statesman, 17 January 1992) Hoskin’s team of experts further recorded that: “The children strive to understand what they saw: planes bombing, houses collapsing, soldiers fighting, blood, mutilated and crushed bodies. The children fight to forget what they heard: people screaming, desperate voices, planes, explosions, crying people. They are haunted by the smell of gunfire, fires and burned flesh.” (The Guardian, 23 October 1991)

III. Cutting off the Life-Line

As part and parcel of this new crusade to install “an iron-fisted” military dictatorship in Iraq – but this time without Saddam - comprehensive US/UN sanctions were imposed against the country, preventing its people from receiving food, medicine and other essentials of life. The official reason for the sanctions is to prevent Saddam from obtaining the materials necessary for mass destruction. The accompanying imposition of UNSCOM - the UN Weapons Inspection Committee - was also justified on the same objective. However, included amongst the food and medicine banned under the sanctions are extraneous objects bearing no relation to the prevention of weapons of mass destruction, e.g. ping-pong balls, wheel-barrows, books, pencils, sandals - the list goes on; revealing that the sanctions have other more sinister motives behind their imposition. The real objectives of the sanctions were admitted by U.S. Deputy National Security Adviser Robert M. Gates in May 1991: “Saddam is discredited and cannot be redeemed. His leadership will never be accepted by the world community. Therefore, Iraqis will pay the price while he remains in power. All possible sanctions will be maintained until he is gone... Any easing of sanctions will be considered only when there is a new government.” (Los Angeles Times, 9 May 1991)

Accordingly, the overall result has been the wholesale degradation of Iraqi civilian life. Iraqis are now dying from starvation, disease, lack of clean water, lack of health-care, lack of education, lack of electricity, sewage in the streets, among other huge Western inflicted problems - all of which remain conveniently under-reported by the mass media. The findings of human rights organisations that have sent delegations to investigate the crisis, such as the Chicago-based Voices in the Wilderness, admit the reality of “increasing suffering, death and desperation throughout Iraq”, as is similarly “confirmed by recent UN reports”. For example, the World Health Organization (WHO) observed in March 1996: “Since the onset of sanctions, there has been a six-fold increase in the mortality rate for children under five and the majority of the country’s population has been on a semi-starvation diet.” The UN Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) reported in 1997: “Famine threatens four million people in sanctions-hit Iraq - one fifth of the population - following a poor grain harvest... The human situation is deteriorating. Living conditions are precarious and are at pre-famine level for at least four million people... The deterioration in nutritional status of children is reflected in the significant increase of child mortality, which has risen nearly fivefold since 1990.”

IV. Blood for Oil Equals Genocide

Every month, 8,000 Iraqis die as a direct result of the sanctions. In total, this has resulted in the death of nearly 2 million civilians in about a decade, half of whom have been children. Indeed, Dennis Halliday - former UN humanitarian coordinator in Iraq and former UN assistant Secretary-General - and his successor Hans von Sponeck both resigned in protest of the sanctions, calling them “genocidal” (Cape Cod Times, June 2001). In light of these horrifying facts, the ‘Oil for Food’ resolution that is so lauded within the West, is exposed as a mere political fraud. As noted in the March 1999 report of the UN Security Council’s own Humanitarian Panel: “… in order for Iraq to aspire to social and economic indicators comparable to the ones reached at the beginning of the decade humanitarian efforts of the kind envisaged under the ‘oil for food’ system alone would not suffice and massive investment would be required in a number of key sectors, including oil, energy, agriculture and sanitation.” The report finds that even if ‘Oil for Food’ works perfectly, “the humanitarian situation in Iraq will continue to be a dire one in the absence of a sustained revival of the Iraqi economy, which in turn cannot be achieved solely through remedial humanitarian efforts.”

The United Nations Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights further issued a Resolution in August 2000 outlining the direct link between sanctions and the Iraqi civilian population’s suffering, and affirmed that it was “considering any embargo that condemned an innocent people to hunger, disease, ignorance and even death to be a flagrant violation of the economic, social and cultural rights and the right to life of the people concerned and of international law.” The UN human rights body further referred to the 1949 Geneva Conventions which “prohibit the starving of civilian populations and the destruction of what is indispensable to their survival”, and accordingly “decided, without a vote, to appeal again to the international community, and to the Security Council in particular, for the embargo provisions affecting the humanitarian situation of the population of Iraq to be lifted.”

However, Iraq itself has been blamed by the Western powers for the effects of the sanctions. Saddam has been accused by both the British and American governments of deliberately witholding food or medicine from his own people. However, the accusations, eagerly consumed by elements of the mass media, contradicts the testimony of independent observers on the ground. For instance, head of the UN Multidisciplinary Observer Unit Michael Stone countered the political fabrications in an 18th December 1998 letter to The Independent: “Ministers and senior members of the Opposition frequently state that the Iraqi leadership have diverted supplies under this programme. This is a serious error. Some 150 international observers, travelling throughout Iraq, reported to the United Nations Multidisciplinary Observer Unit, of which I was the head. At no time was any diversion [of food or medicine supplies] recorded. I made this clear in our reports to the UN Secretary General, and he reported in writing to the Security Council accordingly.”

V. Bombs Away

Nevertheless, in December 1998, the merciless Western onslaught against Iraq was renewed on the pretext of Saddam’s alleged failure to comply with UN inspections. As was later revealed, UN inspections were merely a ruse to allow the West to gather inside-intelligence on Iraq - the ongoing covert objective being to overthrow Saddam and install a new pro-West tyrant. Thus, Saddam’s alleged non-compliance with the UN inspections was merely a fabrication, publicised by the US-UK partners to legitimise their planned bombing campaign, which also provided a convenient justification for the continuation and expansion of the Western military presence - and thereby military hegemony - in this strategic Gulf region. Political analyst Sara Flounders of the New York-based International Action Center, founded and headed by former US Attorney-General Ramsey Clark, refers to the fact that: “Former UNSCOM inspector Raymond Zalinskas admitted to National Public Radio that UN inspectors had already seen all reasonable weapons sites and had destroyed whatever potential existed. Only by killing all the Iraqi scientists could the US do more. [It is] all a ruse, used to cloak Washington’s real aims in the Persian/Arabian Gulf.”

In fact, the report used to justify the bombing - which had been produced by Executive Chairman of UNSCOM, Richard Butler - was falsified for the sole purpose of justifying a new campaign of terror. The New York Post reported in December 1998 that former chief UNSCOM inspector Scott Ritter testified: “What Richard Butler did last week with the inspections was a set-up. This was designed to generate a conflict that would justify a bombing.” Ritter added that US government sources informed him when the inspections resumed that “the two considerations on the horizon were Ramadan and impeachment.” He continued: “If you dig around, you’ll find out why Richard Butler yesterday ran to the phone four times. He was talking to his National Security adviser. They were telling him to sharpen the language in his report to justify the bombing.”

The real extent of the ‘humanitarian’ motives behind the US-UK attack can be further gauged from its results. According to the Boston Globe reporting in December 1998, the Anglo-American air raids commenced by destroying civilian structures: flattening an agricultural school, damaging at least a dozen other schools and hospitals, and knocking out water supplies for 300,000 people in Baghdad, as reported by the UN. This included the annihilation of a large storehouse in Tikrit, filled with 2,600 tonnes of rice. A maternity hospital, a teaching hospital and an outpatients’ clinic were also damaged, as well as parts of the Health Ministry. As for the cutting off of water supplies to 300,000 civilians, this was accomplished when a cruise missile destroyed one of the main water systems in Karrada, a Baghdad suburb. Ten schools suffered damage in Basra, while a secondary school in the Kirkuk in the Kurdish north, reportedly sustained a direct hit. The systematic targeting of civilian infrastructure has gone on ever since. For example, by the end of November 1999, as the Holy Month of Ramadan drew closer, the allies implemented yet another 18 bombing sorties over three northern provinces of Iraq. This time US bombs hit a school in Mosul, injuring eight people, including children, as well as damaging the school building and cars parked in the surrounding area.

Thus, the expansion of the US/UK military presence over Iraq via the so-called ‘no-fly-zones’ is clearly not motivated by humanitarian considerations. While the US claims to be ‘concerned’ about the Kurds in northern Iraq and the Shiite population in the south, the fact is that those are the people who are being killed and maimed on an almost daily basis by US bombs and missiles. In reality, the US wants absolute control over these two regions because that is where Iraq’s lucrative oil reserves are located. An internal UN Security Sector report for a single five-month period records that: “41 per cent of victims of the bombing were civilians in civilian targets: villages, fishing jetties, farmland and vast, treeless valleys where sheep graze.” British journalist John Pilger remarks on one particular incident when: “A shepherd, his father, his four children and his sheep were killed by a British or American aircraft, which made two passes at them.” A single year of this bombing campaign against the Iraqi people has “cost the British taxpayer £60 million.” (The Guardian, 4 March 2000)

VI. A New War?

In the aftermath of the 11th September terrorist attacks against the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, the Bush administration has been gearing up for a new war on Iraq. Plans exist to input 100,000 US troops into the country, coupled with a new bombing campaign to topple Saddam and install pro-West elements of the Iraqi opposition (The Herald, 31 January 2002). But the US and British governments do not want democracy in the region. They do not want freedom and prosperity for the Iraqi people. In fact, they never did, as is obvious from the fact that they were ultimately behind the installation and arming of Saddam himself. This is because the freedom and self-determination of the Iraqi people would mean that they utilise domestic resources as they please – and that cannot be permitted.

Thus, the Anglo-American partners hope to re-install a brutal military dictatorship that suppresses the Iraqi people in order to secure unimpeded Western access to Persian Gulf oil reserves – albeit absent disobedient Saddam. In other words, they want a new Saddam-type entity to replace the old one who cannot be redeemed because he disobeyed Western orders. And like all previous Western military invasions of Iraq, the results are likely to be extremely bloody, with thousands of Iraqi civilian fatalities and casualties, and only more brutality and repression under yet another tyrant installed by the West.

What can we do about it? We have to do our best to raise public awareness of the situation in Iraq as a result of the gruesome combination of both Saddam’s and Western policy. And we must thereby generate widespread public opposition to a new military invasion of Iraq, which would only escalate the humanitarian crisis in that country. In this way, we might be able to reign in the British and American governments from inflicting yet more destruction on the Iraqi people.

Mr. Nafeez Ahmed is a British political analyst and human rights activist based in London. He is Executive Director of the Institute for Policy Research & Development and a Researcher at the Islamic Human Rights Commission. For in-depth discussion of Western policy in Iraq see "The 1991 Gulf Massacre" and "Bleeding the Gulf." Mr. Ahmed is the author of the new 9/11 study, The War on Freedom: How and Why America was Attacked, September 11, 2001

 

[busybody..]

Weed B Gone

So you cite an article by a Muslim/Iraqi as your source, how silly!

And if the US is so intent on getting IRAQI oil reserves.......why have we, the US not occupied Iraq? And we surely can!

 

[weed]

Re: Weed B Gone

So you cite an article by a Muslim/Iraqi as your source, how silly!

And if the US is so intent on getting IRAQI oil reserves.......why have we, the US not occupied Iraq? And we surely can!

I may be silly, sometimes.

We probably can occupy Iraq, at a cost, and maybe we will, but our politicians are much too subtle and caring of the voter's opinions to be so frank about it.

Besides, aren't the relationships between all those mid-east oil countries and between the U.S. more complicated than that? The statements coming from Saudi Arabia recently are an example. And it's not just about direct control of the oil fields, I suspect, but also about control of pricing and supply. Political to the very bone.

 

[weed]

Dandelion's flourish.

In Iraqi War Scenario, Oil Is Key Issue
U.S. Drillers Eye Huge Petroleum Pool

By Dan Morgan and David B. Ottaway
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, September 15, 2002; Page A01


A U.S.-led ouster of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein could open a bonanza for American oil companies long banished from Iraq, scuttling oil deals between Baghdad and Russia, France and other countries, and reshuffling world petroleum markets, according to industry officials and leaders of the Iraqi opposition.

Although senior Bush administration officials say they have not begun to focus on the issues involving oil and Iraq, American and foreign oil companies have already begun maneuvering for a stake in the country's huge proven reserves of 112 billion barrels of crude oil, the largest in the world outside Saudi Arabia.

The importance of Iraq's oil has made it potentially one of the administration's biggest bargaining chips in negotiations to win backing from the U.N. Security Council and Western allies for President Bush's call for tough international action against Hussein. All five permanent members of the Security Council -- the United States, Britain, France, Russia and China -- have international oil companies with major stakes in a change of leadership in Baghdad.

"It's pretty straightforward," said former CIA director R. James Woolsey, who has been one of the leading advocates of forcing Hussein from power. "France and Russia have oil companies and interests in Iraq. They should be told that if they are of assistance in moving Iraq toward decent government, we'll do the best we can to ensure that the new government and American companies work closely with them."

But he added: "If they throw in their lot with Saddam, it will be difficult to the point of impossible to persuade the new Iraqi government to work with them."

Indeed, the mere prospect of a new Iraqi government has fanned concerns by non-American oil companies that they will be excluded by the United States, which almost certainly would be the dominant foreign power in Iraq in the aftermath of Hussein's fall. Representatives of many foreign oil concerns have been meeting with leaders of the Iraqi opposition to make their case for a future stake and to sound them out about their intentions.

Since the Persian Gulf War in 1991, companies from more than a dozen nations, including France, Russia, China, India, Italy, Vietnam and Algeria, have either reached or sought to reach agreements in principle to develop Iraqi oil fields, refurbish existing facilities or explore undeveloped tracts. Most of the deals are on hold until the lifting of U.N. sanctions.

But Iraqi opposition officials made clear in interviews last week that they will not be bound by any of the deals.

"We will review all these agreements, definitely," said Faisal Qaragholi, a petroleum engineer who directs the London office of the Iraqi National Congress (INC), an umbrella organization of opposition groups that is backed by the United States. "Our oil policies should be decided by a government in Iraq elected by the people."

Ahmed Chalabi, the INC leader, went even further, saying he favored the creation of a U.S.-led consortium to develop Iraq's oil fields, which have deteriorated under more than a decade of sanctions. "American companies will have a big shot at Iraqi oil," Chalabi said.

The INC, however, said it has not taken a formal position on the structure of Iraq's oil industry in event of a change of leadership.

While the Bush administration's campaign against Hussein is presenting vast possibilities for multinational oil giants, it poses major risks and uncertainties for the global oil market, according to industry analysts.

Access to Iraqi oil and profits will depend on the nature and intentions of a new government. Whether Iraq remains a member of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, for example, or seeks an independent role, free of the OPEC cartel's quotas, will have an impact on oil prices and the flow of investments to competitors such as Russia, Venezuela and Angola.

While Russian oil companies such as Lukoil have a major financial interest in developing Iraqi fields, the low prices that could result from a flood of Iraqi oil into world markets could set back Russian government efforts to attract foreign investment in its untapped domestic fields. That is because low world oil prices could make costly ventures to unlock Siberia's oil treasures far less appealing.

Bush and Vice President Cheney have worked in the oil business and have long-standing ties to the industry. But despite the buzz about the future of Iraqi oil among oil companies, the administration, preoccupied with military planning and making the case about Hussein's potential threat, has yet to take up the issue in a substantive way, according to U.S. officials.

The Future of Iraq Group, a task force set up at the State Department, does not have oil on its list of issues, a department spokesman said last week. An official with the National Security Council declined to say whether oil had been discussed during consultations on Iraq that Bush has had over the past several weeks with Russian President Vladimir Putin and Western leaders.

On Friday, a State Department delegation concluded a three-day visit to Moscow in connection with Iraq. In early October, U.S. and Russian officials are to hold an energy summit in Houston, at which more than 100 Russian and American energy companies are expected.

Rep. Curt Weldon (R-Pa.) said Bush is keenly aware of Russia's economic interests in Iraq, stemming from a $7 billion to $8 billion debt that Iraq ran up with Moscow before the Gulf War. Weldon, who has cultivated close ties to Putin and Russian parliamentarians, said he believed the Russian leader will support U.S. action in Iraq if he can get private assurances from Bush that Russia "will be made whole" financially.

Officials of the Iraqi National Congress said last week that the INC's Washington director, Entifadh K. Qanbar, met with Russian Embassy officials here last month and urged Moscow to begin a dialogue with opponents of Hussein's government.

But even with such groundwork, the chances of a tidy transition in the oil sector appear highly problematic. Rival ethnic groups in Iraq's north are already squabbling over the the giant Kirkuk oil field, which Arabs, Kurds and minority Turkmen tribesmen are eyeing in the event of Hussein's fall.

Although the volumes have dwindled in recent months, the United States was importing nearly 1 million barrels of Iraqi oil a day at the start of the year. Even so, American oil companies have been banished from direct involvement in Iraq since the late 1980s, when relations soured between Washington and Baghdad.

Hussein in the 1990s turned to non-American companies to repair fields damaged in the Gulf War and Iraq's earlier war against Iran, and to tap undeveloped reserves, but U.S. government studies say the results have been disappointing.

While Russia's Lukoil negotiated a $4 billion deal in 1997 to develop the 15-billion-barrel West Qurna field in southern Iraq, Lukoil had not commenced work because of U.N. sanctions. Iraq has threatened to void the agreement unless work began immediately.

Last October, the Russian oil services company Slavneft reportedly signed a $52 million service contract to drill at the Tuba field, also in southern Iraq. A proposed $40 billion Iraqi-Russian economic agreement also reportedly includes opportunities for Russian companies to explore for oil in Iraq's western desert.

The French company Total Fina Elf has negotiated for rights to develop the huge Majnoon field, near the Iranian border, which may contain up to 30 billion barrels of oil. But in July 2001, Iraq announced it would no longer give French firms priority in the award of such contracts because of its decision to abide by the sanctions.

Officials of several major firms said they were taking care to avoiding playing any role in the debate in Washington over how to proceed on Iraq. "There's no real upside for American oil companies to take a very aggressive stance at this stage. There'll be plenty of time in the future," said James Lucier, an oil analyst with Prudential Securities.

But with the end of sanctions that likely would come with Hussein's ouster, companies such as ExxonMobil and ChevronTexaco would almost assuredly play a role, industry officials said. "There's not an oil company out there that wouldn't be interested in Iraq," one analyst said.

Staff writer Ken Bredemeier contributed to this report.


© 2002 The Washington Post Company

 

[SINthysist]

BusyBody. Can you argue without insults please. A_J.

 

[SINthysist]

And yes weed, we're going to war over just oil. That's all. Russians and Chinese doin' it too, but everyone seems to think that's right and proper 'cause they're not the great Satan!

 

[weed]

Dick Cheney: Oil & Politics Do Mix
July 25, 2000
Having ensured the continued flow of cheap oil from the Gulf by waging a war with Iraq, and after his boss, George Bush's ouster from office by Clinton in 1992, Dick Cheney turned his attention to the corporate world. In 1993 he joined the American Enterprise Institute in Washington as a senior fellow. In October of 1995 he became president and chief executive officer of the Halliburton Company in Dallas, Texas. He also serves on the boards of Procter & Gamble, Union Pacific and Electronic Data Systems Corp.

Halliburton Co. is the leader amongst the world's diversified energy services companies. Oil & Gas Journal's list of top energy companies in the world, ranks Halliburton 24th by market value at $18.2 billion (1). In 1999, its consolidated revenues were $14.9 billion and it had a workforce of about 100 000 in more than 120 countries. It provides equipment and other services to oil and natural gas companies for exploration and production.

TRACK RECORD
Under Cheney's leadership, Halliburton has been accused of involvement in human rights violations most notably an incident reported by the group, Environmental Rights Action (ERA) which occurred in September of 1997 when eighteen Nigeria's Mobile Police (MOPOL) officers on the orders of Halliburton (contracting for Chevron Oil Co.) shot and killed Gidikumo Sule at the Opuama flow station at Egbema in the city of Warri (2).

Cheney's record on environmental issues is dismaltoo: as a house rep from Wyoming from 1978 to 1989, he cosponsored a measure to open up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska to oil drilling and voted against the Clean Water Act which required industries to release publicly their records on toxic emissions. The Sierra Club quoting from a 1997 EPA data point out that, Halliburton's facility in Duncan, Okla., was in the top 20 percent of the dirtiest in the United States.

Brown & Root – Murphy LLC, a joint venture equally owned by Halliburton's Brown & Root Energy Services business unit are involved in a controversial pipeline construction, the so-called Bolivia – Brazil Gas Pipeline Project. Brazilian environmental groups, Defense of Pantanal Association and Brazilian Institute of Cultural Heritage have expressed concern over the project. Trade unions in both countries have expressed anger over the private sector role in the project. Several environmental groups from the United States, have asked why the project is proceeding without allowing communities to respond to the company proposals (3).

Cheney is a member of a group called COMPASS (Committee to Preserve American Security and Sovereignty) that is affiliated with the conservative George C. Marshall Institute. COMPASS members including Cheney wrote to President Clinton in 1998 to protest the Kyoto climate change treaty, concluding with the Zinger that Kyoto appeared to be "nothing more than a 'feel good' public relations ploy." (4)

BACKGROUND
Cheney once drew parallels between his role as CEO of Halliburton to his role as defense secretary. Addressing the Gulf Coast Association of Geological Societies convention in Corpus Christie in 1998, he stated; "In the oil and gas business, I deal with many of the same people." (5) With a $45.5 million stake, he is the company's biggest individual stockholder. Last month he sold 100 000 shares of stock for an estimated $5.1 million, cashing in on the high price of oil. The company has also been active on the political front giving almost $200 000 in the 2000 Republican campaign.

According to an examination of regulatory filings showed on Monday (July 24), as CEO he raked in $1.28 million in salary and $640, 914 in other compensation last year plus stock options worth $7.4 to $18.8 million depending on the company's future stock performance (6). Comparing this to the $181,400 salary of a vice president raises interesting questions.

His motivations are clearly guided by his stated philosophy. In October 1999 speaking at the Louisiana Gulf Coast Oil Exposition he said that members of the oil business could help the industry to become more effective by becoming active in the political arena and helping elect the right people to office. He also noted that the oil industry needed to do a better job of telling its story to the public, such as the importance of the oil and gas industry, and the task of finding, producing, refining and distributing energy at a bargain price (7).

He therefore brings to the Bush campaign and possible presidency an agenda of helping increase the oil industry's public profile and bridging the divide between politics and oil money. Cheney is clearly forward-looking and maximization of oil profits is a stated goal of his. He was quoted in "Corpus Christi online" stating; "By the year 2010 the oil and gas industry will have to provide 43 million barrels per day to meet demand…There will indeed be plenty of work in the years ahead… As long as we are good as we are – and reducing costs." His cost reduction strategy is demonstrated by the fact that, under his leadership he organized a merger between Dresser Industries Inc. and Halliburton that resulted in a 7,000 employee cutback worldwide (8).

http://www.moles.org/ProjectUnderground/pr_archive/cheney000725b.html

And just why would I not think that Cheney and Bush (an oil son) not be interested in oil over there.

 

[weed]

And yes weed, we're going to war over just oil. That's all. Russians and Chinese doin' it too, but everyone seems to think that's right and proper 'cause they're not the great Satan!

Why do you think I'd think it's ok for the Russians and Chinese to do it, too?

 

[weed]

And sure....they've come up with other reasons, too. That's the subtlety.