Access to the oilfields "is our ultimate objective," he added.

[Czar]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3043330.stm

Poland, which has sent troops to support the US-led forces in Iraq, has acknowledged its "ultimate objective" is to acquire supplies of Iraqi oil.
The Polish Foreign Minister, Wlodzimierz Cimoszewicz, said his country had never disguised the fact that it sought direct access to the oilfields.

He was speaking as a group of Polish firms signed a deal with a subsidiary of US Vice President Dick Cheney's former company, Halliburton.

The US firm, Kellogg, Brown and Root, has already won million-dollar contracts to carry out reconstruction work in Iraq.

"We have never hidden our desire for Polish oil companies to finally have access to sources of commodities," Mr Cimoszewicz told the Polish PAP news agency.

Access to the oilfields "is our ultimate objective," he added.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

It's nice that Poland wanted access to the oil fields, glad they sent a couple troops to help

CkG

 

[nagger]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
It's nice that Poland wanted access to the oil fields, glad they sent a couple troops to help

CkG

They did send some 4.000 soldiers that were deployed in the North of Iraq.

 

[B00ne]

So basically ppl are finally admitting, that the war was about driving France and Russia out of Iraqi Oilfields to get the US+other combattive friends in there...

Now that shines a different light on the F-US issue - explains the disdain of USA for France after all they were the actual enemy (without them knowing?)

 

[zantac]

Makes ya wonder what the rest of the supporting countries got out of the war.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Coalition members are above reproach. Prospective access to Iraqi oilfields had nothing to do with the unassailable morality of Operation Iraqi Freedom.

I thought Poland sent just 200 commandos? If they've sent more troops they were deployed within Kurdish controlled regions of the North.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: B00ne
So basically ppl are finally admitting, that the war was about driving France and Russia out of Iraqi Oilfields to get the US+other combattive friends in there...

Now that shines a different light on the F-US issue - explains the disdain of USA for France after all they were the actual enemy (without them knowing?)

All they had to do was help, but they decided to oppose the action every step of the way. France and Russia would have rather protected a brutal dictator to stay in the oil fields. This is not a terribly attractive position either.

 

[freegeeks]

All they had to do was help, but they decided to oppose the action every step of the way. France and Russia would have rather protected a brutal dictator to stay in the oil fields. This is not a terribly attractive position either.

yeah Right, Chirac and Putin wanted to protect Saddam

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: freegeeks

All they had to do was help, but they decided to oppose the action every step of the way. France and Russia would have rather protected a brutal dictator to stay in the oil fields. This is not a terribly attractive position either.

yeah Right, Chirac and Putin wanted to protect Saddam

They both had billions in oil contracts. Russia also was owed billion by Saddam. They were quite interested in the status quo.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

It is kind of strange to argue kicking Saddam out (well sort of out) was the right thing to do on moral grounds while ignoring far more egregious offenses to humanity throughout the world. The administration consistently stated Iraq was a unique situation quite unlike Iran, North Korea, Congo, Sudan, Liberia, Chechnya, or Aceh. The uniqueness was not WMD, brutal regime, or a suffering populace . . . I wonder what it could be . . .

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
It is kind of strange to argue kicking Saddam out (well sort of out) was the right thing to do on moral grounds while ignoring far more egregious offenses to humanity throughout the world. The administration consistently stated Iraq was a unique situation quite unlike Iran, North Korea, Congo, Sudan, Liberia, Chechnya, or Aceh. The uniqueness was not WMD, brutal regime, or a suffering populace . . . I wonder what it could be . . .

I will have to agree here, but at the same time our armed forces are not large enough to right every wrong that happens in every country. We have been dealing with NK and looks like troops on are their way to Liberia. So it looks like we are doing the right thing in a few places.

 

[MonstaThrilla]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
It is kind of strange to argue kicking Saddam out (well sort of out) was the right thing to do on moral grounds while ignoring far more egregious offenses to humanity throughout the world. The administration consistently stated Iraq was a unique situation quite unlike Iran, North Korea, Congo, Sudan, Liberia, Chechnya, or Aceh. The uniqueness was not WMD, brutal regime, or a suffering populace . . . I wonder what it could be . . .

Well Wolfowitz did make that "Iraq swims on a sea of oil" comment a month back. But he really didn't mean that we went to war to get that oil. He meant that with Iraq's oil wealth and the fact that Saddam controlled that oil, only a military invasion would have solved the problem Saddam's regime posed. In poorer countries, diplomatic/economic solutions could be used. It was evident that Saddam was perfectly content with the UN sanctions that were starving the people of his nation as he and those he cared about lived the good life in relative safety. But then again, most tyrannical dictators could care less about their people and also have tight security and comfort.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

I wouldn't argue for American troops to circle the globe (unlike Rummy and the Neocons). But moral leadership and commitment almost always produces a decent following. In Iraq we have the commitment (allegedly) but not the moral leadership. Arguably we showed some semblance of moral leadership in Afghanistan but its clear we lack commitment. Until an American ExO manages to put the two together we will remain isolated with the exception of those we can bribe.

We are not doing anything of consequence in North Korea. China is dealing with North Korea. Ultimately, if North Korea really steps out of line (according to China) they will get smacked down. US forces are already stretched thin (comparable to Clinton except this military has more money to spend AND WASTE). North Korea knows they have little to fear from the US as long as Iraq remains a mess.

 

[Moonbeam]

American corporations have bought and paid for every politician in America. When they want oil they get it. You and your brainwashed mind are just along for the ride and for a vote every few years. The form of your thinking cost corporations billions. You are plugged into the matrix and have no idea how deep goes the rabbit hole.

 

[B00ne]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: freegeeks

All they had to do was help, but they decided to oppose the action every step of the way. France and Russia would have rather protected a brutal dictator to stay in the oil fields. This is not a terribly attractive position either.

yeah Right, Chirac and Putin wanted to protect Saddam

They both had billions in oil contracts. Russia also was owed billion by Saddam. They were quite interested in the status quo.

While that is probably true, it isnt much better for them now, and c'mon u gotta admit the US are the first to accept a status quo with shady regimes, as long as profits are flowing or other interest protected. And Saddam was propped up by the US too, as long as he did what was in US interest...

Anyway, my comment above wasnt to be taken as an "opinion" just an ironic remark

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

In poorer countries, diplomatic/economic solutions could be used. It was evident that Saddam was perfectly content with the UN sanctions that were starving the people of his nation as he and those he cared about lived the good life in relative safety. But then again, most tyrannical dictators could care less about their people and also have tight security and comfort.

The problem is this administration would have the world (and certainly the uninformed American) believe Saddam was the world's greatest blight since Hitler or Stalin. Do you remember Cheney, Rumsfeld, or Powell going to Sudan, Liberia, or the Congo to help settle conflicts? Can you find a single reference by Cheney or Rumsfeld about the humanitarian disasters in Africa? The only time they talked about the humanitarian morass in NK it was to denigrate Kim Jong Il NOT offer realistic solutions. As long as the US feels entitled to offer the ONLY solution to every problem in the world . . . many problems will remain unanswered. Sometimes true leadership requires you to follow the direction set by others. We lack support throughout the world b/c our motivations are suspect. Until we engender some trust it's going to be hard to find anyone reputable willing to stand at our side . . . OK behind us.

 

[Moonbeam]

Lybia may be a cheep way to pretend we have good motives.

 

[freegeeks]

the world is a better place without Saddam

I just can't understand that the american public doesn't feel lied to by the Bush administration.
American and UK soldiers were sent in because Saddam was an imminent danger and could attack within 45 minutes with his WMD. They died with the notion that with this sacrifice the world would be a safer place.

A few month have passed and no WMD yet

Wolfowitz and co already made it clear why the US is in Iraq.

Somebodies son or daughter has died in Iraq because of the interests of the Chevrons and Texaco's in this world.

 

[JellyBaby]

At least the Pols are honest, even if their self interest is deplorable.

I say when we "do" the next third-world, oil-rich, WMD-possessing, tyrannical middle eastern nation We the People demand that no U.S. corporation can even look at the target country's natural resources for a period of 20 years. No plundering, no trade, nothing. Think that might help prevent going in for all the wrong reasons?

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: JellyBaby
At least the Pols are honest, even if their self interest is deplorable.

I say when we "do" the next third-world, oil-rich, WMD-possessing, tyrannical middle eastern nation We the People demand that no U.S. corporation can even look at the target country's natural resources for a period of 20 years. No plundering, no trade, nothing. Think that might help prevent going in for all the wrong reasons?

International Law already protects against such atrocities, but the way Bush adheres to International Law....

It may take the US voter to hold him back, how is the problem.

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: B00ne
So basically ppl are finally admitting, that the war was about driving France and Russia out of Iraqi Oilfields to get the US+other combattive friends in there...

Now that shines a different light on the F-US issue - explains the disdain of USA for France after all they were the actual enemy (without them knowing?)

I see where he admitted they wanted free and open access to the oil fields instead of having them controlled by people who were bought off with them by Saddam.

It does not say or even imply that the US motive was the same.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

I see where he admitted they wanted free and open access to the oil fields instead of having them controlled by people who were bought off with them by Saddam.

It does not say or even imply that the US motive was the same.

Don't you get the impression the only thing we planned well for was 1) blowing stuff up and 2) how to protect and then pump some oil?

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

I see where he admitted they wanted free and open access to the oil fields instead of having them controlled by people who were bought off with them by Saddam.

It does not say or even imply that the US motive was the same.

Don't you get the impression the only thing we planned well for was 1) blowing stuff up and 2) how to protect and then pump some oil?

No, but if my only agenda was bashing Bush than I could see how that is the only thing that some people see.

 

[HombrePequeno]

Originally posted by: freegeeks

All they had to do was help, but they decided to oppose the action every step of the way. France and Russia would have rather protected a brutal dictator to stay in the oil fields. This is not a terribly attractive position either.

yeah Right, Chirac and Putin wanted to protect Saddam

Considering that Russian military officers were helping Saddam plan the war, Russia sure as heck wasn't hurting Iraq.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

No, but if my only agenda was bashing Bush than I could see how that is the only thing that some people see.

Please continue . . . I would love to know what was well-planned other than bombing, killing the enemy, and protecting oil fields. The Bush administration deserves credit for not killing more civilians and removing a brutal dictator from power. Maybe a 1, or 10 yr timeline will illuminate the masterful planning/execution of Operation Iraqi Freedom, Desert Scorpion, Anaconda, and whatever the flavor of the week may be. But how come everything this administration criticizes gets an explicit timeline while anything they endorse gets an indefinite one? Oh I know . . . it's called rank hypocrisy.