Iraq - It Was About Oil. So Is Libya

[Sunfish]

The Independent has published leaked memos that confirm that the Iraq war was about oil - to the point that Britain went to war to ensure that BP and Shell could get their fair share of the spoils.

I think we can now safely presume that European and American action in Libya is driven by exactly the same dynamic. It would appear that Governments, whatever their persuasion, are NOT safe from our attentions if they are sitting on lakes of oil.


After another meeting, this one in October 2002, the Foreign Office's Middle East director at the time, Edward Chaplin, noted: "Shell and BP could not afford not to have a stake in [Iraq] for the sake of their long-term future... We were determined to get a fair slice of the action for UK companies in a post-Saddam Iraq."

Whereas BP was insisting in public that it had "no strategic interest" in Iraq, in private it told the Foreign Office that Iraq was "more important than anything we've seen for a long time".

Secret memos expose link between oil firms and invasion of Iraq - UK Politics, UK - The Independent (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/secret-memos-expose-link-between-oil-firms-and-invasion-of-iraq-2269610.html)

[Hipper]

Of course it was, for the reasons given in the article and surely also because we need a stable region in which to trade. Saddam was, since he invaded Kuwait, a source of instability and had to go.

The problem is that we, the British public, are too sensitive to the realities of our relatively high standard of living, and so had to be lied to. Blair did us a favour, frankly, and as usual with us, gets flak for it.

[Willard Whyte]

Maybe we should be more like China and trade with any old nutter?

[Rector16]

To be fair (if only briefly) the newly discovered memos only say that:

'We were determined to get a fair slice of the action for UK companies in a post-Saddam Iraq'

Nothing in the article says that we went to war because of oil (that doesn't mean we did or we didn't - it's just that the article doesn't help either way), what it says is - having spent UK blood and treasure invading the place isn't it reasonable that UK should get a fair share of the rewards?

I accept that I am a bluff old traditionalist, but that doesn't sound like big news to me. A 'leaked' memo showing Tony B had said 'the oil is why we are invading - I made up the WMD thing to fool everyone' would be interesting; this is not. :bored:

[Grimweasel]

BBC News - British military officers to be sent to Libya (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13132654)

So much for not putting troops on the ground. This is exactly the same thing that happened to the US in the early 60's in Vietnam - and look where that led to! Seems we forget the lessons of only 30 years ago too readily!

[Lonewolf_50]

That would be 40-50 years ago, if you refer to Viet Nam.

30 years ago it was the year 1981 ... :sad: We are getting old, are we not?

EDIT:

Is it just me or is the UN embarking on yet another disturbing facet of globalization? Libya is a curious operation, to date. If nothing else, it lets the French show that they can wave their willies as well as any other power. For that, we thank our French friends.

But let's look at this with as neutral a view as we can.

A sovereign nation state and UN member (regardless of how strangely led, or how culturally backward) is having a civil war. The UN cannot iron out a cease fire, nor a peace agreement, nor get the sides to stop shooting (a common failing on the part of the UN) so it chooses sides and asks various member states to offer up war waging capability in order to back a preferred side with blood and iron.

What member state is pleased with this turn of events?

To paraphrase the lyrics from a Hollywood soundtrack ...

Watcha gonna do when they come for you?

One of these days, it's gonna be the Chinese, rather than the French, waving their willies about ...

Twenty years ago, I was a UN fan. Since about 1992, as I began to understand the distrust of the UN at local levels (Somalia being a beginning, the curious case of Specialist Michael New being another, the cock-ups Ritter exposed over the cease fire agreements,1991 Gulf War, the UN brushed aside by NATO to bomb Serbia over Kosovo in 1999).

I find my taste for that level of multinational collective security to have declined sharply.

What really annoys me, however, is the gutlessness. Note how the UN cut and ran, tail between legs, along with some of its donor nations, after the UN HQ in Baghdad was hit with a bomb in August 2003. Predictable, if you watched UN shenanigans in Somalia, eh?

What nation actually benefits from being a UN member?
At what point does the cost benefit curve knee, or diverge?
How did Iraq benefit from being a UN member?
How does Lebanon?

I ask this at the collective security level, not the health and trade level, where the UN IMO does yeoman work.

[dallas]

To be fair (if only briefly) the newly discovered memos only say that:

'We were determined to get a fair slice of the action for UK companies in a post-Saddam Iraq'

Nothing in the article says that we went to war because of oil (that doesn't mean we did or we didn't - it's just that the article doesn't help either way), what it says is - having spent UK blood and treasure invading the place isn't it reasonable that UK should get a fair share of the rewards?

I accept that I am a bluff old traditionalist, but that doesn't sound like big news to me. A 'leaked' memo showing Tony B had said 'the oil is why we are invading - I made up the WMD thing to fool everyone' would be interesting; this is not. :bored:
Exactly. BP et al would be negligent not to consider the post-Saddam landscape and try and gain some advantage. I'll bet the world's tobacco producers are in the wings for an opportunity if Mugabe loses Zimbabwe, but it wouldn't be the 'tobacco revolution' if he went. It must be a quiet news week.

[Brewster Buffalo]

BP et al would be negligent not to consider the post-Saddam landscape and try and gain some advantage

Did BP gain any advantage I wonder..

[Lima Juliet]

Good job that Shell is Dutch then...:ugh:

http://www.logodesignlove.com/images/evolution/shell-logo-2.gif

Royal Dutch Shell plc is its full title.

[Grimweasel]

Leon -Shell is an Anglo-Dutch company!

From the website:

Shell is a global group of energy and petrochemical companies. Our headquarters are in The Hague, the Netherlands, and our Chief Executive Officer is Peter Voser. The parent company of the Shell group is Royal Dutch Shell plc, which is incorporated in England and Wales.

[Grimweasel]

They nicked my bloody idea LOL!

British troops go to Libya amid 'Vietnam' warnings - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8461863/British-troops-go-to-Libya-amid-Vietnam-warnings.html)

[Thelma Viaduct]

Blair did us a favour, frankly, and as usual with us, gets flak for it.

With all due respect........Bollocks, the sh1tbag should have been banged up long ago.

[TBM-Legend]

I say bring in a B-52 strike.....:ok:

anyone who drives a car, rides a bus or train, buys food, clothing etc etc is a consumer of oil.

Strategically our pollies must preserve the supply otherwise our current lifestyle is up the creek...

Simple really..

[MATELO]

Secret memos expose link between oil firms and invasion of Iraq - UK Politics, UK - The Independent (http://go.redirectingat.com/?id=42X487496&xs=1&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.independent.co.uk%2Fnews%2Fuk%2Fpolitic s%2Fsecret-memos-expose-link-between-oil-firms-and-invasion-of-iraq-2269610.html&sref=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pprune.org%2Fmilitary-aircrew%2F449231-iraq-about-oil-so-libya.html)

What secret memos where they like. All I see are quotes from publicised documents.

[Lima Juliet]

Grim

The oil part of Shell is as Dutch as windmills, hookers, clogs and "coffee shops" - the UK bit of the company was mostly transport. The petroleum company started in the Dutch East Indies and the Royal Dutch Petroleum Company was formed - that merged with Shell Transport to become Royal Dutch Shell in the 1900s (split 60/40 in favour of the "cloggies").

In my mind they are more Dutch than British - but then again BP and BAES have more non-UK workers than ones from our fair isles.

If we really did go to war for the Global Company benefits then Bliar and the cycloptic jock are even worse than I thought! Thank God that it looks like Cameron is going to veto Brown's bid to lead the IMF - we'd be proper f00cked if that happened.

There might after all be a God :D

[500N]

Putting Brown in charge of the IMF. Now who thought that bright idea up ?

No good in any of the Gov't jobs he did so is this a case of promote the incompetent to get them out of the way ?

[SASless]

British troops warned of Vietnam-like committment?:rolleyes:

Errrrrr....last time I checked you lot sat that one out!

The Aussies showed up along with the Thai's, Korean's and Philippino's...but not the folks from Blighty!

[500N]

SASless

Since when did Vietnam fall into the UK's area of defence or NATO ?

Aust has an agreement with the US which means our pollies
blindly follow the Blind US Pollies.

In that era, the UK obviously had more sense !!!


In any case, makes up for the US sitting on the fence for a while in WW11.:O

[TBM-Legend]

SASLess:

The "Vietnam like" situation is a symbolic phrase not an act. There is no suggestion that the UK was directly involved in Vietnam.

Mate it is symbolism.....

[Jane-DoH]

It was about oil: Quelle Surprise

[GreenKnight121]

Drawing an analogy between the US slowly growing ensnarement in Vietnam and the UK moving "advisers" into Libya.

Analogy | Define Analogy at Dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/analogy)
In case you needed a reminder.

[Wensleydale]

Our detachment in the Middle East at the time thought that "Operation Iraqi Freedom" (OEF) should have been called "Operation Iraqi Liberation"........ it seemed more appropriate.

[Sempre 206]

Shock - Horror!

Multinational company involved in contingency planning.

S 206

[bobward]

If someone invented an engine that ran on tobacco does that mean we would go in and regime change in Zimbabwe then?
:oh:

[Lonewolf_50]

If only, but the first folks to get rich from that live in North Carolina and Virginia. :) Tobacco as a different sort of cash crop ...

[Jayand]

It's all about Oil and is a joke, what the **** has it to do with NATO?
It was a civil war/unrest and we just jumped in feet first, what next?

[AdLib]

Proly alot of people being killed.

You know, the usual mix. Old, young, very young. What can we do to change that?

[knowitall]

Oil's one of things we should go to war for, our entire way of life is dependant on it!

Sunfish

I assume your planning to go and live in a cave with no mains electricity and a wood stove for heating?

or are you happy being a hypocrite?

[AdamFrisch]

It's bo***cks. The old oil argument doesn't hold an ounce of water.

There was no embargo against Irak or Libya pre-war. That oil was fully and readily available on the worlds oil markets for anyone to buy. What do you think is cheaper: buying all the oil these countries can or could produce ever, or going to war for it?

You guessed right - buying it.

War is the most expensive and worst way to get your hands on oil. It doesn't make any financial sense. No, these wars were fought on idealistic grounds. Right or wrong can be argued, but that's another discussion.

[Jayand]

Adam war is expensive, very expensive in fact but not nearly as expensive as the lost revenue from the oil fields lost to a country you can't do buisness with. Fighting for Oil maybe be expensive but the west can't live without it, fact! I don't know the figures (could google them) but the cost of the oil being produced in Libya far outstrips the cost of the Wests war machine.

Why are we not bothering with Syria? not even a mention of any military intervention?

[walter kennedy]

Lonewolf
You wrote:
<<What really annoys me, however, is the gutlessness. Note how the UN cut and ran, tail between legs, along with some of its donor nations, after the UN HQ in Baghdad was hit with a bomb in August 2003. >>
Was that not when Sergio di Mello was in charge there?
I seem to recall that he was pushing the line that the US had done its job and it would be better for them to leave Iraq at that point.
The only beneficiaries of this bombing were the Americans who happened to be doing the security at the site - if you wanted to hang around and grind Iraq into the dirt as a viable nation and potential future threat to Israel, and grab her oil, di Mello would have been in your way.
Along with di Mello, about 20 of his staff were killed - the UN got the message.
While there may be many detailed reasons attempting to justify regime change in Iraq, the three main drivers for aggressive military intervention by the US appear to be:
Oil;
Posing a real or potential threat to Israel;
Being a sovereign nationalistic state.

Without any of the above, I am sure that you can think of many appalling regimes that are allowed to carry on.

And you thought that the threat to real freedom of independent nations went with the demise of the Soviet Union, no doubt?