Hi Teribus,

Your proclamations are interesting. Lets examine them.
You say, " 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"

This isn't true. It's an opinion. The team was functioning well enough to keep Sadam at bay.

"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."

This simply is not the case. They were working and the only pressure to have them removed came from the Bush Administration.


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.

He may have tried to pursue a nuclear program but he would not be successful. The inspection teams made that clear in their statements.
There were no means by which he could effectively do this.


"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."

This sounds like Bush propaganda. It did not come from the inspecttion teams.


" 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."

The "should theys" are a red herring. These "factoids" were dreamed up by propagandists for the war.

"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!"

This is unreasonable to suggest considering the poverty of Iraq and the incapability of their being able to acheive any kind of nuclear threat.

"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."

More propaganda by the Bush Administration.

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

The impoverishment of the country and the strength of world opinion against this happening. It's a red herring.

" 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."

It might be for North Korea or the former Soviet Union (even their nuclear capabilities were overstated). But for Iraq? Not in a decade let alone 45 minutes. It's another scare tactic by this Administration to align the public with support for the war.



"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?

The threats were made as a cultural response to the proposed war. They simply didn't have the means to carry them out.

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."

And he was right.

"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."

What difference would it make if he had said it earlier?


"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."

I think that Dr. Blix had more information later on. His position was not to operate under assumptions.



"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"."

It's not unreasonable that the more you explore the more you learn.
The materials that posed this threat were not then nor are they now significant to start a war over.

" 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."

And they have not successfully made their case for he availability
of attaining this material. Another red-herring.



"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)

This will not be used for the benefit of the Iraqi people. How do I know? Look at the US involvement in the Banana Republics of Central and South America. Look at the mess left in Afghanistan. It's no wonder that many Iraqis don't see it that way and refuse to designate America as the great liberator

"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:"

And it must be stated that the preceding Bush Administration helped him do it. He was suppored by the other Bush and Reagan in demonizing Iran.

"- Through his expansionist policies within the region that manifested itself in the disasterous war with Iran and his invasion and occupation of Kuwait."

Which aside from the occupation of Kuwait got a nod from the White House.

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%

You have just supplied the evidence. Where is the source for the accounting of 2%? Even so, if this is a normal "peg" it's an abnormal situation. They'll make their 15% all right.

"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.

Yes and the hospitals are full with civilian casualties (collateral damage) and many children who have cancer because the water was contaminated by the bombing of treatment plants. The schools are open to teach more propaganda by the conquerors of Iraq.


"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."

This will change when Haliburton has it's way.

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.

And yet these estimates can be met and will be. The truth of the situation is that Haliburton and associates are up to the challenge and stand to make a profit margin that exceeds the so-called 2%.

" 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."

This above statement still holds regardless of Iraq's emnity to Israel.   

"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."

Iraq may have been seen as a threat to Iran. The Reagan and Bush Administration hoped for that. But this isn't what we're getting from the comments of Jordan, Syria or Saudi Arabia. Their assessment of the threat of Iraq to them is different.



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

And this could keep corporate business going for a long time. There's gold in them thar hills.


"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?"

It is true that the pipeline may not be successful.

" The pipeline that once built and paid for is handed over to the Afghan Government?"

What Afghan government? At the moment it's a Bush-backed set of war lords who dominate the country.

" The "all-too-obvious truth" is that Iraqi oil is already on the market - has been for about a month now."

This is possible. It's been planned for a long time. The beneficiaries however are not the Iraqi people.

"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."

There is some evidence that some US Administrations have been associated with "Banana Republics". This might act as some kind of evidence.


"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"


The oil is being used for the current spate of SUV's in this country by people who claim to be "patriotic" Americans. It's not hiding at all. Haliburton is kind of a "fence".


" 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."

Now I see no evidence for this. This assumption is just that.



" 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."

Which part of the UN would be making money? The part that Bush would like to trash?

" 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."

The point being made here is that the employee is being recruited for political purposes.

" Yes the pipeline they give to the Afghan Government once it is built. The pipeline that benefits Afghanistan and the people of Afghanistan."

Where is the evidence for this assertion?

The pipeline that the Afghan Government has to protect and bear the cost of protecting.

What Afghan government?


" Some were actually planned and built before the Second World War - My God!! the conspiracy is far greater than even DG thought."

It's an interesting idea. It well might be true. Glad you brought it up.

"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."

Yes. Agreed.

"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."

This wasn't going to happen of course. But whether they did or not does not negate the expansionist program regarding the pipline.

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.

I suppose according to some sources. What are they by the way?

"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!!!"

I believe the Saudi government might be taking the Bush Administration for a ride. The point being made here is that the rank-and-file employee of an oil company has little to do with the workings of the hierarchy. It's not the employees that will benefit as much as the corporate CEO's. This is the current pattern of American economics under this Administration.



" 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."

This may not be true. Again, your source for this information would be appreciated. bin Laden has relatives in Saudi Arabia. Again, who knows what motivates the mind of members of the Saudi ruling class?
Not George Bush.

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

And yet the evidence that is proferred is equally unsupported by fact but mostly by assumptions. If we need to bring this discussion tto a conclusion we must examine the sources for this position.

I feel that anger will not accomplish a rational analysis of these questions and to dismiss with pejoratives another's argument is to lessen the weight of a rebuttal.

Frank Hamilton