If it’s not about oil, why only protect Iraq’s Oil
malaysiakini.com Ahmaf Albab UK 3:38pm Wed Apr 23rd, 2003
I disagree with Wan Sai Hou in his letter stating that the Iraq war was a pre-emptive strike by the US against terrorism instead of exploiting Iraq's oil reserve. Wan, ask yourself, if oil was not the issue, what is? To strike against terrorism? To free the Iraqi people against Saddam's regime? A favour to the Israelis to free the region from weapons of mass destruction (WMD)?
Firstly, the US has never been able and is still trying to prove or convince, call it what you may, the world that Iraq has WMD - something which even Hans Blix of Unmovic has said Iraq doesn’t have. As mentioned in my previous letter, Bush has already hedged his position against this point by saying that freeing the Iraqi people from Saddam's regime was justification enough.
Secondly, if the war is to strike against terrorism, shouldn’t he be looking for Osama instead? What link has there been to prove that Iraq had harboured terrorists? Finding a few people oún the wanted list of terrorists in Iraq doesn’t make Iraq a haven for terrorists. I am sure there are members of these terrorists in the US and the UK not to mention other European countries. The crux of the matter is Iraq’s link to terrorism has not been proven.
Thirdly, if it was about freeing the Iraqi people from Saddam's regime, why now? Why not in 1991 when they left the people they asked to uprise against Saddam for dead? Why not last year or a few years ago? According to Bush, Saddam has been ruling with an iron fist for a long time. So, why leave it so late to justify his actions?
Bear in mind that oúnly Iraq, which has the second largest oil reserves in the world after Saudi, has yet to be an ‘ally’ of the US. Saudi, Venezuela, Iran, to name a few. Essentially, the US will ‘control’ two-thirds of the oil reserves in the world by capturing Iraq and putting a regime the Iraqi people can choose but oúnly approved by the US government.
Below is an excerpt from ABCNews.com: "The fundamental issue is, the day after Saddam is removed, the Iraqi oil industry is open for grabs, and it will depend upon the government of Iraq to decide how it will dispense that resource," says oil consultant Rob Sobhani, a professor at Georgetown University in Washington. "Certainly, American companies would be in a very, very strong position to compete for the right." In addition, not oúnly oil is up for grabs but also the rebuilding of Iraq. Just today, Bechtel, the American engineering and construction giant, has been awarded a United States government contract that could reach US$680 million to help rebuild Iraq's infrastructure.
But read oún..."Other companies that were invited to bid were Parsons, Fluor, Louis Berger and Washington Group. A subsidiary of Halliburton, formerly run by Vice-President Dick Cheney, was invited to bid but decided instead to seek work as a subcontractor. Bechtel rose from a family business to a privately held international engineering powerhouse. Its executives have included George Shultz, a former secretary of state, and Caspar Weinberger, a former US defence secretary.
"The group and its employees have been among the biggest political donors in the general contracting industry, according to an analysis by the Center for Responsive Politics, a Washington-based group that tracks campaign finance..."
One more point, if oil is not the reason(s), why has the coalition guarded oúnly the building that stores all documents and information oún Iraq's oil production and let other buildings, banks and even hospitals to be looted?
Wan, wake up and smell the coffee...the new US imperialist regime is arising and we better be prepared otherwise, we might be next!