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]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [casi] oil


You make a good case against oil being the principal reason for this war. However, I am
less convinced that the reason has anything at all to do with any 'threat' - perceived or

> Its about strategic policy, and
> Hussein has been deemed a strategic threat since he invaded Kuwait. Of
> course the sense of threat is heightened because of its geostrategic
> location in the oil rich Persain Gulf, but this precisely my point, as
> much as US oil companies would probably like to be offerred
> concessions by Baghdad in the event of sanctions finishing, theyre
> prevented from doing so because Hussein is persona non grata as far as
> the perception of US national security is concerned.

It is clear that even in 1991 Iraq was not a real threat at all. Prosecuting the war with
Iran was only possible with direct and indirect help from the US. Iraq didn't dare to
invade Kuwait without asking US permission first. Israel bombed Iraq's little reactor with
impunity. Iraq didn't even try to fight the US in the first Gulf War. Iraq's air defences at
the time were described as derisory by Tony Blair.

Even with WMD, Iraq would not be a real threat. The aim always was for defence - just
as with the US, UK, Israel etc.

The notion of passing stuff to terrorists has very little credibility. With that sort of logic,
Israel would be much more likely to do this in order to blacken the image of

Any threat posed by Iraq now after the war and sanctions is of course miniscule.

So why? ...

1)      the destruction of Iraq rather than just getting Iraq out of Kuwait which was
simple either politically or militarily? Clearly you do not destroy something you intend to
take over.

2)      the desire to keep the devastating sanctions despite their genocidal effects?

3)      the TOTAL avoidance of diplomacy in US/UK dealings with Iraq since their
overwhelming victory?

4)      the absence of any inducements to Iraq? No mention of lifting sanctions in the
current resolution!

It is easy to come up with all sorts of conspiracy theories eg the US needs an enemy to
justify ever increasing defence/war expenditure.

My own view about the US/UK tends towards:

1)      enormous military power, only a few individuals making the decisions and the
lack of any real accountability to the electorate (and this includes making information
available) eg the operations of the 661 committee, the use of DU, Gulf War syndrome,
estimates of casualty figures from bombings and Desert Fox, access for the media,
casualties from sanctions etc

2)      incompetent, dishonest, proud & nasty individuals in power and advising

Mark Parkinson

Sent via the discussion list of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.
To unsubscribe, visit
To contact the list manager, email
All postings are archived on CASI's website:

[Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq Homepage]