In March 2003, just before Britain went to war, BP denied that it had any "strategic interest" in Iraq, while Tony Blair described "the oil conspiracy theory" as "the most absurd" now the Independent reports plans to exploit its oil reserves were discussed by government ministers and the world's largest oil companies the year before Britain took a leading role in the invasion.
The Foreign Office invited BP in on 6 November 2002 to talk about opportunities in Iraq "post regime change". Its minutes state: "Iraq is the big oil prospect. BP is desperate to get in there and anxious that political deals should not deny them the opportunity." BP told the Government it was willing to take "big risks" to get a share of the Iraqi reserves, the second largest in the world.
But for many that's old news.
2 comments:
No. It is not "old" news because the war on Iraq was NOT for oil. It was FOR Zionism. I find it weird that a "Socialist" group has no desire to get the truth out about Iraq.
The entire Bush crew were operated by neo-cons who desire to further Zionist goals are on record. The oil firms where not in favor of war. In fact they wanted the sanction lifted by the Zionist lobby favored sanctions and war policies. PNAC which Dick Chaney was a signatory had more to do with the War on Iraq then BP
The WSM won't deny that sometimes lobby groups do influence government policy for their own vested interest . But our understanding of the material conception of history leads us to say that oil is the major factor in the Middle East , not the existance of Israel or the Zionism ideology. The West's desire to control the oil producing region (not to mention the geographical strategic importance such as the Suez Canal) pre-dates Israel. The West imposed the Shah upon Iran when oil companies were threatened in the early 50s, before the USA-Israel alliance was established. We have to ask ourselves that in a world where the state of Israel did not exist, where Zionism had not succeeded, whether the Iraq War would have occurred. The WSM argue it would have ,albeit perhaps possibly differently but take place in more liklihood - yes.
As an aside and as a personal observation rather than a WSM position to respond to a previous comment by you on an earlier blog on Libya i ahve been wondering about the unusual restraint on the events taking place in Syria. I would have envisaged it would be much more in Israel's interests to direct and focus upon the unrest there and demand UN intervention , yet the "zionazis" except for some diplomatic condemnation have not mobilised public opinion or government policy to assist in their declared aim for a "Greater Israel" that incorporates Syria.
Post a Comment