OK michaelr,

Lets have a look at, "..the all-too-obvious truth", as laid out by Guest Axix of Oil:

We were all terrorised into believing there was a,
"..threat of imminent nuclear conflict."

No we weren't. The "all-too-obvious truth" bit here was that under the auspices of the UN, Iraq was being allowed to ignore the requirements of binding obligations detailed in numerous UN Security Council Resolutions. The UN and IAEA inspection teams could not function and there had been no inspection programme in Iraq since 1998. The UN sanctions were becoming increasingly ineffective (in fact they were about as water-tight as a collander) and pressure was mounting to have them removed completely. With no inspections, no disarmament and the prospect of sanctions being lifted please explain to me why it should be completely ruled out, and considered totally out of the question that Saddam Hussein's Iraq would not pursue their nuclear programme. The evaluation of an unrestricted restart of that programme put Iraqi acquisition of "home grown" nuclear weapons at five years down the road at the earliest. Should they opt for buying in from abroad they could achieve this much earlier, shortest estimate was 12 months. Nothing imminent about that, highly undesireable, but nothing immenent. In any event, post-911, there was absolutely no way that ANY American administration was going to allow that to happen and rightly so, given Iraq's track record.

Axis of Oil more or less owns up to that by ammending his text to down grade his immenent threat to, "the threat of potentially NUCLEAR attacks: - Attacks that could be launched WITHIN 45 MINUTES! - Attacks that might be directed against the West!"

Here Guest Axis of Oil is confusing various things and taking them totally out of context. Now where is the "all-too-obvious truth" in what Axis of Oil says here are lies.

Potential nuclear attacks? Given the circumstances outlined above I repeat my question - what rules the possibility out?

Those potential nuclear attacks being capable of being launched in 45 minutes? No-one has ever said that Iraq could launch a nuclear attack in 45 minutes. Here Axis of Oil is confusing the threat of a nuclear attack with the threat of a chemical/biological attack. Again given the circumstances outlined above (no inspections, no disarmament and sanctions lifted) - 45 minutes is perfectly credible. Even under the prevailing circumstances in Iraq at the time the statement was made (September 2002) 45 minutes was perfectly credible.

"Attacks that might be directed against the West!" - The "all-too-obvious truth" was that what was constantly stated was attacks might be directed against the West, against western interests and our allies. I again ask the question - What causes those, who deem this to be a lie, to state categorically that this contention can be totally discounted?

On the 45 minute thing Axis of Oil then quotes Dr. Hans Blix in a fairly recent interview with the BBC -

"Chief UN weapons expert Doctor Hans Blix says:
Mr Blair was "fundamentally mistaken" over the "45 minutes" claim."

The "all-too-obvious truth" here is that it is odd that the good Dr. waited the best part of 10 months to come out with this observation. If it was considered that Mr. Blair was fundamentally mistaken on this issue in July 2003, it must have been equally obvious that Mr. Blair was fundamentally mistaken in September 2002. Also odd that the materials that posed this threat, which Blix seems to discount, were exactly the same as the ones the good Dr. had reported were unnaccounted for when he was in Iraq as deputy head of the UNSCOM inspection effort - another "all-too-obvious truth".

With regard to the attempts to purchase uranium cake - in the UK the jury is still out on the veracity of that contention. The US intelligence agencies were supplied with one piece of evidence that was latter proved to be a forgery, the UK intelligence community say that they have further evidence that is currently being reviewed, but for the moment they still stand by their contention that Iraq did attempt to purchase this material.

Now onto Oil. The "all-too-obvious truth" that Axis of Oil wants us to swallow is that the Iraqi people are not going to benefit from Iraqi oil sales and that the entire proceeds are being stolen by the Americans and given to companies with ties to the Bush regime.

Utter crap! In making this contention Axis of Oil fails to point out the amount of up-front inward investment required to get Iraq's oil production flowing to pre-war levels (7 billion US$ over a period of 3 to 5 years)

Another "all-too-obvious truth" that Axis of Oil wants us to believe: "A Decade of American attacks have crippled the Iraq." What the "all-too-obvious truth" actually is, is that Saddam Hussein crippled Iraq:
- Through his expenditure of the country's resources to further his aims to achieve a very well documented ambition of his - to be known throughout the arab world as the man who finally destroyed the State of Israel;
- Through his expansionist policies within the region that manifested itself in the disasterous war with Iran and his invasion and occupation of Kuwait.

I would also like to see some evidence that any corporation - "pushed for war". The companies engaged in the essential work of rebuilding Iraq will most certainly make money - it would be extremely unusual and bizarre business practice if they did not - but their profit margin is pegged at 2% - normally Halliburton take on work within the international oil-field construction sector with a profit margin of 15%

The importance of oil-fields is not only an "all-too-obvious truth" it is also plain common-sense. By the By another "all-too-obvious truth" is that while work within Iraq's oil-fields is still ongoing, and they are far from full production, Iraq's schools are now open, as are Iraq's hospitals.

Another "all-too-obvious truth", as told by Axis of Oil, that you apparently are more than willing to swallow:

"Iraq is the world's second biggest source of oil." - No it is not. In the 13 years that Iraqi oil has been off the world market it's absence has not been noticed - That is the "all-too-obvious truth" of the matter. That would hardly be the case if what Axis of Oil says is true.

7 billion US$ and potentially 5 years work do not suggest either cheap or easy extraction. The cost/time estimate by the way is the estimate of international oil industry analysts and is fairly well documented. Not positively the "all-too-obvious truth" - but a damn good indication as to the truth of the situation.

On the Iraq/Israel topic Axis of Oil is a bit selective. What Axis, and obviously yourself, contend as the "all-too-obvious truth" is that - "Iraq was a significant and nearby opponent of Israel's illegal occupation of Palestinian territory." - Whereas the whole truth is that Iraq has always been one of Israels most implacable foes, it was Saddam Hussein's aim to completely destroy the State of Israel, a State whose sovereignty is both recognised and guaranteed by the United Nations - has been since it's formation in 1948.

As to the contention - "If Iraq posed a threat to anybody then it was only to Israel." - The "all-too-obvious truth"? - Hardly!! ask Iran, Kuwait, Jordan, Syria, Saudi Arabia.


"The U.S. Military is now in the Iraqi Oil Business:
Iraqi oil deals up for grabs ... The US military has invited bids for two contracts - worth up to $1bn (£611m)"

The contracts let are limited to repair of possible war damage that is the "all-too-obvious truth".


"Afhganistan: The pipeline planned (in 1998!) is going ahead." - Another "all-too-obvious truth" from Axis of Oil. Is it really? I take it Axis is referring to the TAP pipeline (Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan) - the pipeline that is dependent on India's participation for success? The pipeline project that is unacceptable to the Indian Government because they do want to become reliant on energy that is supplied by a pipeline that runs through Pakistan? An energy source that they (India) can dispense with due to signed memoranda of intent for alternative supplies via a subsea pipeline from Iran (planned since 1994)? The pipeline that is so desperately needed by the Afghan Government to enable that country to distribute and export it's oil and gas? The pipeline that is becoming increasingly unattractive to Turkmenistan due to cheaper transportation rates through Russian pipelines and better prices on offer from the West? The pipeline that once built and paid for is handed over to the Afghan Government?

"Iraq: The oil is about to go on the market." - Again not the "all-too-obvious truth". The "all-too-obvious truth" is that Iraqi oil is already on the market - has been for about a month now.

"Iran, Syria and other oilcountries may soon be attacked and robbed of their oil - using more lies and more terror if they are required." This is the "all-too-obvious truth"? If so there is little or no evidence of it.


"The oil is being stolen." Really? - where are they hiding it? who is "fencing" it for them? Utterly ludicrous - thats the "all-too-obvious truth" - My arse it is. As I pointed out in another thread on this subject, UN administered fund or no, the Iraqi people will see more benefits from the sale of this oil than ever they did under Saddam Hussein.   Another "all-too-obvious truth" is that under a UN administered fund, not only would the companies undertaking essential work in Iraq be making money, so would the UN via their not insignificant administration charges.

"Hamid Karzai, the U.S. puppet leader of Afghanistan, used to work for the oil company Unocal." - WOW!!!!! amazing, earth shaking revelation!!! - The significance of which is what - exactly? Or are you advocating that all heads of state should be recruited from the totally unemployed - like our Royal family - good case for a constitutional monarchy.

"Unocal was the main oil company involved in the Centgas plan to build an oil pipeline through Afghanistan." Yes the pipeline they give to the Afghan Government once it is built. The pipeline that benefits Afghanistan and the people of Afghanistan. The pipeline that the Afghan Government has to protect and bear the cost of protecting.

"The plans were made in the 1990's - long before the September 11 attacks." - WOW!!!!! amazing, earth shaking revelation!!! - The significance of which is what - exactly? Why omit all the pipelines that were planned and built to allow the transportation of middle-east oil to the Mediterranean - also long before the September 11 attacks - Some were actually planned and built before the Second World War - My God!! the conspiracy is far greater than even DG thought.

"The U.S. government agreed at that time that the Taleban would have to be removed from power before the oil pipeline could be built." Fairly reasonable condition really, considering the Taleban's track record with regard to Afghanistan's oil & gas industry and infrastructure.

"The attacks of September 11 enabled the start of the oilwars, the removal of the Taleban, and the building of the pipeline." - Oh!! so that was what it was all about - I bet they would have been down-right pissed-off if, in answer to their original request the Taleban had handed over Osama bin Laden and his boys. The pipeline, IF BUILT, and that seems more and more doubtful, benefits Turkmenistan, Afghanistan and Pakistan long-term. Unical's benefit is only short-term.

"Bush has close oil-business ties to the Saudi royal family," - That "all-too-obvious truth" can equally be applied to anyone with a pension plan or shares in any oil company!!!   Another "all-too-obvious truth" stated by Axis is that the Saudi royal family, "...had close ties to Osama bin Laden." - HAD being the operative word as the "all-too-obvious truth" of the matter is that they (Saudi Royal Family) were the ones who stripped Osama bin Laden of his Saudi citizenship and who threw him into exile.

My opinion has not changed one iota, michaelr - the contentions made by Axis of Oil are a complete and utter load of bollocks.