Blair and Gaddafi- sleeping with the enemy?

It is all about the oil, isn't it? I can't believe that TB is on a world peace and forgiveness mission

Yes, it's all about oil, and shows how desperate Blair is becoming to hang on to his little empire that he is prepared to suck Gadaffi's cock. Any crdibility the man may have had (and there was precious little of that left) has now been drowned by the blood of all those murdered as a result of Gadaffi's sponsorship of terrorism around the world.

The Bush/Iraq thing is all about oil too, isn't it? TB is a disaster and always has been as far as I'm concerned; he's an arse licker and lately seems to be going the way of dubya -obsessively pursuing a course of action because he won't admit it's wrong, regardless of the consequences to the population he is damaging. Should I start to stockpile candles, paraffin and those canisters for the stove thingie that heats up your water for Pot noodles when you're at a festival!

Originally posted by Dee The Bush/Iraq thing is all about oil too, isn't it? TB is a disaster and always has been as far as I'm concerned; he's an arse licker and lately seems to be going the way of dubya -obsessively pursuing a course of action because he won't admit it's wrong, regardless of the consequences to the population he is damaging.Should I start to stockpile candles, paraffin and those canisters for the stove thingie that heats up your water for Pot noodles when you're at a festival!

don't forget the duct tape to seal your house in case of a gas attack

Am I the only one who's getting sick of people blaming oil for everything? The way I see it, that's not why the war in Iraq happened: they were finishing a job that should've been finished during Desert Storm in 1991. Why should this be any different?

Originally posted by Shelley Blair Am I the only one who's getting sick of people blaming oil for everything? The way I see it, that's not why the war in Iraq happened: they were finishing a job that should've been finished during Desert Storm in 1991. Why should this be any different?

So what do you think was the job that needed to be finished off from 1991? Don't you remember the footage of oil installations being destroyed by Saddam?? The control of the world's sources of energy is paramount--however much leaders try to distract us from that fact.

oil , and access to it, has been the deciding factor in every war since the 1st world war. a military without oil, is fucked basically.

the more pragmatic issues surrounding energy (keeping gas prices low to fuel the economy), has been at the centre of the us quest for dominance in the middle east for decades now.

the war to oust saddam was not about iraqi human rights, or stopping international terrorism. the u.s. government went out of its way to find excuses , first ordering reports into the link bwtween saddam and al queda (who actually hate each other), then fabricating documents about "60 min threats", etc. paul o neill released all classified documents after he was kicked out by bush, none give any reason for war. he was privvy to ALL the documentation bush et al got. he said he diddnt see anywhere a case for justifying war in iraq.

so the us go to war, and get saddam out of the way , and even if it wasnt strictly justified, ist it a good thing anyhow? well this argument seems to be the one of choice for the pro war movement (having moved on from terror, 60mi threats, and wmd). the answer is : not while the us government is directly, or indirectly governing.

at the moment, it is still strictly an occupation. as we see every night, there is widespread civil unrest in iraq. there must be 10 dead each day (thats just what i gather from watching the commercial news). this will go on for some time for many reasons. in the short term, the u.s. will hand over power to an "administration" of what are effectively puppets. who can say what happens after that.

an interesting example of what will happen after that is the case of afghinastan. recently "liberated" in the same way iraq was, afghinastan is far from a hotbead of liberal centerist democracy. hamed karzai lives in a fortress unable to govern, warlords are effectively running the country , heroin production (with obvious consequences to our society) has increased "10 fold" according to the british government, some say it has increased by an awful lot more. and lest we forget the people, beause like iraq, we are all concerned by what happens the people in afghinastan, their rights their daily lives.

well by varying accounts , the assorted warlords of the "northern alliance" - which had,and has ample us backing are controlling different parts of the country outside kabul. living under these scum is nothing short of life under the taliban. everyoone inside by 6oclock, women covered to the eyes, im sure youve seen pictures of life under the taliban when we all underwent copnditioning for that war. well, its pretty much the same, even worse in some cases.the u.n. hasnt the means to control the country in any respect.

this is after the "daisy cutters" and DU shells have gone off, fired at will. weapons of mass distruction, used by the u.s. governmnet, british government, and their murderers in uniform. this is after the "liberation"

cheney has his oil pipeline through afghinastan. control of the reigion may be had at the drop of a hat for the empire of the day.

the people of iraq, having been through decades of saddam have a lot to look forward to indeed! freedom. liberty. democracy. or do they?

and what about u.s. backed leaders in zaire and indonesia? im not into big long lists, but it would seem that these opressive "regiemes" , and we can count gadaffi in on this- are supported by the u.s./ british, due to their tough stance on terror. protecting the civilians of madrid, new york, and proberbally london, involves "moving on" as blair put it in a "new world post september11" but is it a new world? is this a new enemy?or an old friend who wont hand over the oil with so much gusto?

the previous excuses for support of dictators was the war on dictatorial communism. beating down the commies was the main game in geopolitics. if we need oil off a friendly dictator,or 20 , then we'll overlook his human rights abuses for the time being.

and now its the same, only with a new enemy.

theres a saying somewhere in west africa (im not sure exactly) that goes thus "when the elephants fight, the grass gets wrecked".

1 millionaire with a beard sits in a cave, trying to carve up the world into "us- the holy ones" and "them , the infadels" another sits in the whitehouse/whitehall , dividing and rulling in much the same fashion "us, the civilised world" versus "them, the terrorists".

so our leaders are fighting, as always, over oil, over land, over money, over thier intrests. in their eyes, we are all either terrorists or infadels. in their armies eyes we are all targets.