Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

IS THIS PERSPECTIVE ACKNOWLEDGED IN THE US AT ALL?
The Guardian (UK) ^ | 5.09.02 | Mo Mowlam

Posted on 09/06/2002 12:58:15 AM PDT by bigfishnetholes

The real goal is the seizure of Saudi oil

Iraq is no threat. Bush wants war to keep US control of the region

Mo Mowlam Thursday September 5, 2002 The Guardian

I keep listening to the words coming from the Bush administration about Iraq and I become increasingly alarmed. There seems to be such confusion, but through it all a grim determination that they are, at some point, going to launch a military attack. The response of the British government seems equally confused, but I just hope that the determination to ultimately attack Iraq does not form the bedrock of their policy. It is hard now to see how George Bush can withdraw his bellicose words and also save face, but I hope that that is possible. Otherwise I fear greatly for the Middle East, but also for the rest of the world. What is most chilling is that the hawks in the Bush administration must know the risks involved. They must be aware of the anti-American feeling throughout the Middle East. They must be aware of the fear in Egypt and Saudi Arabia that a war against Iraq could unleash revolutions, disposing of pro-western governments, and replacing them with populist anti-American Islamist fundamentalist regimes. We should all remember the Islamist revolution in Iran. The Shah was backed by the Americans, but he couldn't stand against the will of the people. And it is because I am sure that they fully understand the consequences of their actions, that I am most afraid. I am drawn to the conclusion that they must want to create such mayhem.

The many words that are uttered about Saddam Hussein having weapons of mass destruction, which are never substantiated with any hard evidence, seem to mean very little. Even if Saddam had such weapons, why would he wish to use them? He knows that if he moves to seize the oilfields in neighbouring countries the full might of the western world will be ranged against him. He knows that if he attacks Israel the same fate awaits him. Comparisons with Hitler are silly - Hitler thought he could win; Saddam knows he cannot. Even if he has nuclear weapons he cannot win a war against America. The United States can easily contain him. They do not need to try and force him to irrationality.

But that is what Bush seems to want to do. Why is he so determined to take the risk? The key country in the Middle East, as far as the Americans are concerned, is Saudi Arabia: the country with the largest oil reserves in the world, the country that has been prepared to calm the oil markets, producing more when prices are too high and less when there is a glut. The Saudi royal family has been rewarded with best friend status by the west for its cooperation. There has been little concern that the government is undemocratic and breaches human rights, nor that it is in the grip of an extreme form of Islam. With American support it has been believed that the regime can be protected and will do what is necessary to secure a supply of oil to the west at reasonably stable prices.

Since September 11, however, it has become increasingly apparent to the US administration that the Saudi regime is vulnerable. Both on the streets and in the leading families, including the royal family, there are increasingly anti-western voices. Osama bin Laden is just one prominent example. The love affair with America is ending. Reports of the removal of billions of dollars of Saudi investment from the United States may be difficult to quantify, but they are true. The possibility of the world's largest oil reserves falling into the hands of an anti-American, militant Islamist government is becoming ever more likely - and this is unacceptable.

The Americans know they cannot stop such a revolution. They must therefore hope that they can control the Saudi oil fields, if not the government. And what better way to do that than to have a large military force in the field at the time of such disruption. In the name of saving the west, these vital assets could be seized and controlled. No longer would the US have to depend on a corrupt and unpopular royal family to keep it supplied with cheap oil. If there is chaos in the region, the US armed forces could be seen as a global saviour. Under cover of the war on terrorism, the war to secure oil supplies could be waged.

This whole affair has nothing to do with a threat from Iraq - there isn't one. It has nothing to do with the war against terrorism or with morality. Saddam Hussein is obviously an evil man, but when we were selling arms to him to keep the Iranians in check he was the same evil man he is today. He was a pawn then and is a pawn now. In the same way he served western interests then, he is now the distraction for the sleight of hand to protect the west's supply of oil. And where does this leave the British government? Are they in on the plan or just part of the smokescreen? The government speaks of morality and the threat posed by weapons of mass destruction, but can they really believe it?

· Mo Mowlam was a member of Tony Blair's cabinet from 1997-2001


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-25 next last

1 posted on 09/06/2002 12:58:15 AM PDT by bigfishnetholes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: bigfishnetholes
Mo Mowlam was a member of Tony Blair's cabinet from 1997-2001...

If Mo Mowlam likes "pertinent questions", perhaps the most pertinent I can see at this moment is why he/she is no longer a member of Blair's cabinet?

the infowarrior

2 posted on 09/06/2002 1:07:52 AM PDT by infowarrior
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: infowarrior
Followed by, why he/ she wears a full bodysuit, hat and shoes of tinfoil.
3 posted on 09/06/2002 1:12:19 AM PDT by nopardons
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: infowarrior
Mo Mowlam was pushed out of the cabinet mainly because she was proving to be more popular than Mr. Blair... She also suffered a bout of cancer which certainly had an adverse effect on her career.
4 posted on 09/06/2002 1:21:41 AM PDT by bigfishnetholes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: nopardons
Perhaps the two questions are, as they say, somewhat remotely related?

the infowarrior

5 posted on 09/06/2002 1:21:48 AM PDT by infowarrior
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: nopardons
Mo Mowlam is to the left of Tony Blair. She makes him look like a closet conservative. We could use more of them in the U.K and in Euroland but lets face it, Blair's as good as we're going to get over there. What's really needed now is to get the show on the road!!!
6 posted on 09/06/2002 1:25:17 AM PDT by goldstategop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: infowarrior
Yes, I think they are.
7 posted on 09/06/2002 1:28:42 AM PDT by nopardons
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop
I agree; on all accounts. :-)
8 posted on 09/06/2002 1:29:29 AM PDT by nopardons
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop
I agree, goldstategop... we definitely could use more people who are to the left of tony blair... you're not wrong there.
9 posted on 09/06/2002 1:29:30 AM PDT by bigfishnetholes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: bigfishnetholes
I don't think that that was what he meant.
10 posted on 09/06/2002 1:32:14 AM PDT by nopardons
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: nopardons
I meant we could use more people like Tony Blair over there. Which speaks volumes about how estranged Euroland is from the U.S on the issue of defending freedom and Western civilization.
11 posted on 09/06/2002 1:35:34 AM PDT by goldstategop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: bigfishnetholes
Yes, but we dismiss it quickly. The US gets only 30-40% of its oil needs from the Middle East, principally from Saudi Arabia. Europe (excluding the UK) gets 98% of its oil from the Middle East. I think the more pertinent question might be why isn't Europe more concerned than it is?

If Ms. Mowlam wants there to be anger at the Saudi regime in the US, there is plenty. Both from the man in the street and from the administration. But Saudi Arabia has never taken Americans and Brits hostages and used them as human shields and shown them on TV like Saddam Hussein did. The Saudis have never fired missiles into Israel. I think we have chosen our interests there carefully and correctly.

12 posted on 09/06/2002 1:36:47 AM PDT by Roy Tucker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bigfishnetholes
A newbie posting leftwing dribble, I am shocked I tell ya. Saddam is evil but poses no threat? Really. If Osama can do it from the caves in Afganastan, why can't Saddam?
13 posted on 09/06/2002 1:41:41 AM PDT by Always Right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop
And that is exactly the way I read your post ! Unfortunately, there are quite a few, around here, who need immediate classes in reading comprehension.
14 posted on 09/06/2002 1:43:12 AM PDT by nopardons
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Always Right
Exactly. We underestimated Osama's ability to pull off a devastating surprise attack on the U.S without any inkling on our part of what he was up to. We dare not give Saddam the surprise opportunity to get in the first chance to incinerate New York and Washington, D.C. The time to act is now.
15 posted on 09/06/2002 1:47:43 AM PDT by goldstategop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: bigfishnetholes
I should also add that Saudi Arabia has never attacked a neighboring country to sieze its oil wealth and then when they were retreating in abject defeat set them ablaze to cripple the triumphant country.
16 posted on 09/06/2002 1:52:51 AM PDT by Roy Tucker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Roy Tucker
certainly, the saudi administration has been well cultivated by the west (of course, when I mean west, I mean the USA)... I think something like 28 of the 30 man cabinet were educated at ivy league universities... that said, anti-american feeling amongst the Saudi people his extrodinarily high... and the old guard will not be able to retain power indefinitely...

i'm sure George W is well aware of what this will mean for US 'interests' (what a euphemistic word that is...) in the region...

hence the need for a USA friendly puppet leader in Iraq...
17 posted on 09/06/2002 1:53:59 AM PDT by bigfishnetholes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: bigfishnetholes
Ms Mo should just accept the singular fact that the reason the US/British Position is so unpopular around the world is simply becasue we also propose an agenda completely at odds with all the unelected governments of the world, e.g., Democracy, Elections, Equality and Freedom. Should Iraq fall to the US and an elected government succeed in providing first elections and then equality in the land of the Arab/Islam/Koran, then all tenants of power would be at risk. The "information flow" in the world today is already increasing pressure on non-democracies (and it is hurting liberals in democracies as well).

Europe and the Western World would do well to understand that the entire social system (craddel to the grave government support in Europe) and our industrialized way of life is dependent on $14 a barrel oil to save us, just for now.... At $25 a barrel, oil will destroy Europe's social system and the free trade.

18 posted on 09/06/2002 1:54:50 AM PDT by Jumper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Roy Tucker
Good points. I was wondering why many Brits were coming out against this and then it hit me. When all is said and done in Iraq, there will be a massive rebuilding. The only people we will have to share contracts with will be those who supported us. Not so for England. The will have share with the rest of the EU nations that didn't lift a finger to help.
19 posted on 09/06/2002 2:03:25 AM PDT by Hillarys Gate Cult
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: bigfishnetholes
..hence the need for a USA friendly puppet leader in Iraq...

So, you're saying that there is no threat from Iraq, and this is all just a ploy on the part of President Bush to install a US friendly government?

20 posted on 09/06/2002 2:05:57 AM PDT by kattracks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-25 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson