The following is an archived copy of a message sent to a Discussion List run by the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.
Views expressed in this archived message are those of the author, not of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.
[Main archive index/search] [List information] [Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq Homepage]
[ Presenting plain-text part of multi-format email ] In a message dated 21/01/03 02:40:07 GMT Standard Time, pvk66@starpower.net writes: > [casi] oil > Date:21/01/03 02:40:07 GMT Standard Time > From:<A HREF="mailto:pvk66@starpower.net">pvk66@starpower.net</A> > To:<A HREF="mailto:casi-discuss@lists.casi.org.uk">casi-discuss@lists.casi.org.uk</A> > Sent from the Internet I hesitate to get involved in this discussion but it seems to me that a major element is not being raised. I don't think it can be denied that there are people in power in US who are motivated by control of Iraqi oil. There may be people who are genuinely concerned with Iraq as a threat to world peace or, even more unlikely, as a participant in international terrorism but these are not, in my submission, the motivating forces. I think, it ought to be remebered that there are three world leaders driving for war, Bush, Blair, and Sharon. I think it is relevant that both Bush and Blair have large numbers of citizens who oppose the war, who are unconvinced by the legality of war or by the arguments put forward. Of course, it doesn't help that Bush, the major protagonist, is widely regarded, to quote The Observer, as the Global Village Idiot. For Israel, there is no significant opposition to Bush's war on Iraq. Why not? Of the three, I submit, it is only really arguable that Bush would be motivated by oil. What about Sharon? He clearly isn't influenced by WMDs. If Israel believed Iraq had them, they would have taken them out. Of course, Israel would prefer US controlled the Arab countries rather than the Arabs. I submit it should never be forgotten that to many Zionists, the Promised Land runs from the Nile to the Euphrates. Sharon talks about peace but has made it abundantly clear to most of us that he is interested only in getting rid of the Palestinian people, incorporating the rest of the Occupied Territories into Israel and going on. The more chaos there is in the Arab Territories which now occupy the Promised Land, including Iraq, the better. And Blair? The hardest of the three to analyse. He makes sympathetic noises about Palestine but always compromises them by demands that the Palestinians should meet conditions they have already agreed to. He does seem to try to move the peace process forward but when Bush refuses he carries on without criticising Bush. I have heard him condemn Arafat for not accepting Barak's unacceptable offer at Camp David, an extraordinary thing for a not entirely stupid man to do. But he is not entirely stupid and unless he now believes his own propaganda, he can't be impressed with Iraq as a threat to peace or as being involved in terrorism. Why would he support the Zionist position? Chris > > > > _______________________________________________ Sent via the discussion list of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq. To unsubscribe, visit http://lists.casi.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/casi-discuss To contact the list manager, email casi-discuss-admin@lists.casi.org.uk All postings are archived on CASI's website: http://www.casi.org.uk