Hi Frank,

1. UNSCOM/IAEA Inspections 1991 -1998

During the period stated above this effort was largely successful, but not completely successful according to those in charge of those inspection teams. Extremely effective deception and interference schemes were used against this inspection programme again that was the opinion of those in charge of those inspection teams. At no time throughout this period was Iraq ever in full compliance with UN Security Council Resolutions. The purpose of those resolutions was to establish beyond doubt that Iraq had disarmed, abandoned the programmes directed at acquiring and developing WMD, returned foreign nationals abducted during the occupation of Kuwait and to ensure Iraqi compliance with regard to the improvement of human rights within Iraq. The aim of the resolutions was not merely to contain Saddam Hussein, to anyone who says that that end is sufficient, I would say that that is a shamefull compromise, that rather lamely provides an excuse for UN lack of resolve.

2. UN Sanctions

So the UN sanctions were working, were they? Apart from oil exports through the "Food-for-oil" programme, throughout the period 1991 to 2002 Iraq exported oil illegally through Syria, Jordan and Turkey. The Iraqi regime set up hundreds of companies in countries throughout the world whose sole purpose was to buy items proscribed under the UN sanctions and resolutions. Please show me evidence that the Bush Administration was pressing for the sanctions to be lifted while Iraq remained in non-compliance of UN Resolutions - remember that Bush came to office two years after the UN inspection teams had been withdrawn, Bill Clinton was in office for the bulk of the time.

3. Iraq's Nuclear Programme

I note that you do not rule out the possibility that Iraq, under Saddam Hussein, with no inspection regime and with sanctions lifted, could reconstitute this programme. It is your stated opinion that he would not be successful. Sort of like living in a house with a homicidal maniac with a gun and taking the view, that he might have a gun but he will never get any amunition. You as a private citizen are free to take that view, those specifically charged with the responsibility of the safety and security of your nation are not.

You honestly believe that with sanctions lifted Iraq, under Saddam Hussein, would not have the means to fund such a programme? They did before, in the face of world opinion and numerous non-proliferation treaties and controls.

Evaluation of Iraq's ability to acquire nuclear weapons, "home grown" or otherwise, was by UK Joint Intelligence Committee. They provide best case and worst case, the political powers that be have to decide where in between those cases they use as their basis for formulation of foreign policy. Post 911, it would be foolish in the extreme to weigh anything other than worst case - that is being responsible.

No one ever said that Iraq could mount a nuclear attack within 45 minutes. The 45 minutes referred to attack with chemical or biological weapons, taken in the light of the content of the UNSCOM Report of January 1999, the assessment that Iraq had that capability was perfectly credible - unless, of course you are saying that that report consisted of lies. That is why Dr. Hans Blix waited the 10 months to come out with his statement, had he said so in September 2002, it would have tantamount to an admission that that report, which he helped to compile, was incorrect. As Dr. Hans Blix's position was not to operate under assumptions, why should the President of the United States and the Prime Minister of Britain operate under the assumption that a UN Report was incorrect. They, unlike Dr. Blix, have the specific responsibility for the security of their nations, and have to act on what information they have at any given time. Damn near everyone on this earth can be an expert given 20 x 20 hindsight.

It is entirely your opinion that, "The materials that posed this threat were not then nor are they now significant to start a war over." Our nations leaders, particularly post 911, could not, and can not afford that luxury.

With regard to the current stance of the UK Intelligence services on attempts by Iraq to acquire material for their nuclear programme. All that is clear at the moment is that one piece of evidence has been discredited, they have stated that they still believe attempts were made and have evidence to support that contention. Call that a red-herring if you will, it does not alter the fact that it cannot be totally dismissed or ignored.

4. Iraq's Oil

Your refernce to US involvement in the Banana Republics of Central and Soiuth America, and to Afghanistan - now they are red-herrings and have nothing whatsoever to do with Iraq, its oil and what will happen to the income derived from the sale of that oil.

The contention put forward was that America saw Iraq as a ripe plum just waiting to be plucked - of course it isn't and never was viewed as such. I merely pointed out the amount of effort that has to be put in, in terms of time and money, to restore Iraq to it's pre-1990 levels of production. Your contention that oil revenue will not be used for the benefit of the Iraqi people at present is totally unfounded opinion, please do not present that as a fact or basis for any arguement.

Germany, under the terms of a full scale military occupation, with all the freedom of action that implies, took five years hard and concerted effort to rebuild. Why do you, and others, expect that the problems facing the rebuilding of Afghanistan and Iraq are any less and should be capable of being accomplished overnight - such a view-point is as ridiculous as it is unrealistic.

Axis of Oil stated that Iraq was the worlds second biggest source of oil - that is not true, it never has been, at full production pre-1990 levels it accounted for less that one seventeenth of the worlds oil needs. So the point Axis of Oil was wishing to make was and still remains a load of bollocks. Your reply regarding what Halliburton may or may not do - they will not make Iraq the worlds second biggest source of oil.

And if, or maybe, about it Iraq today is currently exporting oil. FACT.


5. Who Crippled Iraq?

Saddam Hussein - plain and simple, muddy the waters as much as you like, nothing will alter that truth.

Iran was demonised in the minds of the American people long before the advent of the Iran-Iraq war. Saddam's war on Iraq had no dimension that related to US-Iran, or US-Iraq relations. It was a purely opportunist, offensive action on the part of the Ba'athist regime in Iraq to gain control of the Shat-al-arab waterway and the south-western oilfields of Iran at a time when Saddam Hussein believed Iran was weak enough for such plans to succeed.

6. Oil Related Contracts

Please refer me to any industry publication or company press release that shows any company or corporation pushed for war.

The two contracts awarded so far relate purely to repair of oilfield infrastructure, pipelines and facilities damaged during hostilities. Such damage has fortunately been very slight, mainly due to actions by Iraqi civilian oil workers subverting the plans of the Ba'athists to destroy those facilities. So far, subsequent to the ending of hostilities Saddam's sympathisers have attacked two pipelines, the damage caused was slight and the lines returned to operational staus very quickly. If as you, and Axis of Oil, contend, that the revenue resulting from exploitation of Iraqi oil is only going to go into the pockets of US corporations, those attacks would not have taken place - to attack them would have been counter-productive to their arguement that the oil was being stolen. Saddam's sympathisers know that Iraq's oil will benefit the entire population of Iraq - that is why those pipelines were attacked - no other reason.

That work is based on cost plus 2% as defined in letters between Waxman and the Army and Waxman and the GAO.

7. Iraqi Infrastructure

No water treatment plant in Iraq has been bombed since the cessation of hostilities of "Desert Storm". FACT.

Also fact Iraq's schools and hospitals are now open and operating. What is not being taught in Iraq's schools today is the slavish adoration of Saddam Hussein and the bountiful benefits to be enjoyed living under the wonderful Ba'ath regime. Your contention that the coalition forces in Iraq today influence and control what is taught throughout the country is ludicrous.

The required up-front inward investment of 7 billion US$ and potentially 5 years work has nothing to do with the contracts that have been let. As previously stated they relate to a fairly specific area. The investment relates to up-grading and modernising existing infrastructure to increase current production to pre-1990 level - it has nothing to do with existing Halliburton contracts.

8. Iraq - Israel and relations with neighbouring states

As long as Saddam Hussein remained in power in Iraq hopes for any peaceful settlement in the middle east would be slight. That comes from a desire to successfully eliminate the state of Israel that dates back to 1948. Saddam Hussein fled Iraq to Egypt, he was an ardent supporter of Gamal Abdul Nasser and Pan-Arabism, he continued down that path on his return to Iraq and his successful coup within the Ba'ath organisation which brought him to power.

You will not hear one word of complaint from Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria or Iran that this man and his regime have gone. They may express concern over who or what will replace him and that is both natural and understandable - but none regret his passing.

9. Afghan Pipeline

Axis of oil said this pipeline project was underway - bollocks it is not and it is highly unlikely that it will proceed. If there is no pipeline then it can hardly be regarded as expansionism on the part of anyone.

10. US Intentions

"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."

I'll stand by that, I have seen nothing that would indicate that the US has any intention whatsoever of attacking Iran, Syria or any other oil producing country.

Your response - "There is some evidence that some US Administrations have been associated with "Banana Republics". This might act as some kind of evidence." A total red-herring and completely irrelevant - you seem all too prepared to accept very dubious and far fetched assumptions on certain things and yet decry and condemn others for doing likewise on far better grounded intelligence and evaluation of that intelligence.

11. CEO's

Chief Executive Officers, of companies, corporations, etc. Responsible and accountable to their respective Boards of Directors for the running of their companies and business health of those companies. The Boards of Directors in turn are responsible and accountable to the shareholders of those comapnies - Who are the shareholders - Banks (Who have their own boards and shareholders), Insurance companies (Who have their own boards and shareholders) private investors (people like you and me). By law at least once a year they have to present themselves and account for their actions to all shareholders. FACT

They are not all powerful and can, and have, been brought down by their shareholders for whom they work.

12. Osama bin Laden

Has been stripped of his Saudi citizenship. FACT

Was exiled by the Government (Saudi Royal family). FACT




"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.


Even in the light of your excellent post - My opinion has not changed one iota. What was written by Axis of Oil is nonsensical rubbish.