| Author | Message | | Guest | | Posted: Thu Jan 16, 2003 9:46 am Post subject: BLAIR: IRAQ WAR NOT ABOUT OIL |
| From http://www.mirror.co.uk
BLAIR: IRAQ WAR NOT ABOUT OIL
Jan 15 2003
By Naveed Raja
Tony Blair today insisted Iraq's vast oil reserves were not the real reason for an American-led war against the Arab state.
He said the threat from Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction meant Britain had no choice but to back George W Bush's stance.
He told MPs a second United Nations resolution "would be preferable" before war - but did not rule out backing unilateral American military action.
DEFIANT: Blair rejected oil "consiparcy theory"
Labour's Denis Skinner told Parliament during Prime Minister's Questions that a new Gulf War was about "America getting its hands on Iraqi oil".
He accused President Bush of "finishing the job his father failed to complete 12 years ago".
When Mr Blair tried to dismiss the left-winger's "conspiracy theory" he was heckled by some of his own MPs who shouted: "It's not a conspiracy theory".
Tory leader Iain Duncan Smith taunted Mr Blair over Cabinet divisions on Iraq saying ministers were split over the prospect of war.
He said: "You and your Cabinet must be clear and united in order to send the right message to Saddam Hussein, to British troops and to the British people."
Earlier Mr Blair was grilled by sceptical Labour MPs during a private meeting on Iraq.
He told a gathering of the Parliamentary Labour Party at Westminster that Saddam Hussein's regime had to be disarmed by any means possible - including force.
But his words did little to sway anxious Labour backbenchers. MP Glenda Jackson said she was not convinced by the argument for war.
"I have not been satisfied by what the Government's been saying on this issue all along," she said. "If no weapons of mass destruction are disclosed, what is the reason for going to war?"
Former defence minister Peter Kilfoyle added: "It was a typical PLP meeting and he got a good round of applause. But I'm never convinced by arguments on Iraq."
One MP said the meeting was split 50-50 over military action against Iraq.
Former culture secretary Chris Smith warned of "major disquiet" among MPs if war kicked off without a fresh UN resolution.
He said: "If America decides to jump the gun and take military action before the UN has either got the evidence or has taken a resolution and decided that this is what the world should do, if America does that, then I very much hope that Britain would side with the UN rather than the US.
"Because if the Americans decide to go ahead of a proper UN decision, then not only is there the potential for enormous humanitarian consequences, but also that would be so destabilising across the whole of the Middle East and it would really present major global problems.
"And I hope that in those circumstances that Britain would have the courage to say to the US, we don't think now is the time to do this."
Meanwhile General Wesley Clark, former Nato Supreme Allied Commander, said he thought America would attack in "mid to late February". | |  | | Guest | | | | Guest | | Posted: Mon Jan 20, 2003 5:31 am Post subject: Chirac warns US against unilateral attack on Iraq |
| http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L19183051
19 Jan 2003 18:30
Chirac warns US against unilateral attack on Iraq
PARIS, Jan 19 (Reuters) - French President Jacques Chirac said in an interview released on Sunday that any unilateral U.S. attack on Iraq without U.N. backing would isolate Washington from the international community."If the United States decide to intervene alone, we will have to say that that will happen outside of the international community," Chirac told the daily Le Figaro newspaper, due to publish the interview on Monday.He said any attack on Iraq would not be legitimate unless it was based on a decision by the U.N. Security Council and that could be taken only on the basis of a report by U.N. arms inspectors now searching Iraq.Chirac said France wanted Iraq disarmed of any weapons of mass destruction and urged Iraqi President Saddam Hussein to cooperate with U.N. arms inspectors.Washington has pressed the inspectors to be more aggressive in seeking evidence of Iraqi weapons programmes, but Chirac said it was not up to outsiders to decide whether the inspectors were able to do their jobs."One may doubt the (Iraqi) cooperation is sufficient and may wish it to be more active, which is what I do," he said. "But it's up to the inspectors to judge if they are able to carry out their mission, not up to this or that country."Chief U.N. arms inspector Hans Blix arrived in Baghdad on Sunday demanding that Iraq stop dragging its feet and volunteer evidence on weapons programmes to avoid the threat of war.FRANCE HOLDS U.N. VETOFrance, one of the five veto-wielding permanent members of the U.N. Security Council, has urged Washington throughout the Iraq crisis to work through the U.N. in dealing with Baghdad.Chirac argued war was not inevitable, saying: "It is always an admission of defeat, the worst possible solution."He declined to say whether he thought U.S. President George W. Bush would order a unilateral attack against Iraq."I have a lot of esteem for the American president. I'm sure he will consider all the consequences of such a gesture," Chirac said.Chirac said British Prime Minister Tony Blair's support for Washington's Iraq strategy did not strengthen European cooperation."But, well, everyone has his own characteristics," said Chirac. "By tradition, the English have always kept an eye out towards the wide open sea and their American cousins."Chirac said a war in Iraq "would have possibly very serious human consequences, political consequences that are hard to control, economic consequences and a considerable cost".He cited a war cost estimate of 100 billion dollars."When you think we are not able, for example, to provide necessary medicines to poor countries to fight against epidemics, you ask yourself if all this is reasonable," he said. | | | | Guest | | Posted: Mon Jan 20, 2003 2:45 pm Post subject: Scott Ritter on Zionist Extremists Perle and Wolfowitz |
| As WorldNetDaily reported yesterday, Ritter is calling for the ouster of President Bush for what he feels are unnecessary and murderous actions in the conflict with Iraq.
"I would be in favor of the impeachment of President Bush for high crimes and misdemeanors," the 41-year old former Marine told WND. "Murder is a high crime and misdemeanor, and I can't think of any better definition than murder when he talks about American service members and putting them in a war which is not only illegal but is based on a foundation of lies."
"When you go to war you open up a Pandora's box, the results of which cannot be predicted," he said. "Therefore, there better be a darned good reason to go to war. It's got to be worth the sacrifice that you're asking others to make."
WorldNetDaily recently interviewed Ritter via telephone as he drove from his New York home to appear on Fox News. Throughout the interview, he contended that media have consistently missed his primary concern regarding the proposed military strike against Iraq.
Ritter said the issue is the abrogation of the rule of law, which he views as setting the U.S. up for a particularly nasty potential scenario – U.S. troops cornered in Iraq, subject to chemical attack, which then prompts the use of nuclear weapons by the U.S.
"The Bush administration has put forward a nuclear policy planning document which clearly states a scenario in which nuclear weapons can be used pre-emptively and that scenario is tens of thousands of troops in a hostile land, threatened by the potential of chemical and biological weapons," he said. "And clearly, Iraq could evolve into such a situation.
"What's wrong with diplomacy, what's wrong with inspectors, what's wrong with the rule of law?" he asked.
WorldNetDaily asked Ritter whether he agreed with the contention that Bush's foreign policy constituted a violation of the United Nations and Nuremberg charters.
Ritter reiterated that the U.S. is a signatory to the U.N. Charter, which "stipulates that war is rejected as a means to resolve disputes and conflicts," although he allowed that there are exceptions, as "when the collective, the U.N. Security Council, finds a situation exists that threatens international peace. Then under chapter seven of the charter, it can be resolved by use of force."
Still, Ritter does not find the current situation in Iraq to meet this criteria, and therefore views the idea of a pre-emptive strike as unconstitutional and a violation of American law.
"It has no grounds in legality," he said.
"This is a constitutional issue," he continued. "I think there can be no doubt his policy is a violation of the Constitution, except that constitutional lawyers will say that judicial system will not get involved in matters of national security … There are interpretation issues – what are the limits of executive authority? … I think that it's not so much the legality of his actions. I view it as being unconstitutional … I'm sure many will say the president has these authorities regarding national security."
Ritter also said that impeachment and indictment were legitimate issues.
"What I would find to be grounds of impeachment is the president lying to the American people," he said. "I believe the president has lied to the American people. I believe the vice president has lied to the American people.
"And if we go to war where American service members are killed, I think the president should be held accountable for this judicially," Ritter stated.
"I would be in favor of the impeachment of President Bush for high crimes and misdemeanors," said Ritter. "Murder is a high crime and misdemeanor, and I can't think of any better definition than murder when he talks about American service members and putting them in a war which is not only illegal but is based on a foundation of lies."
WND also asked Ritter about comments he made in an interview with William Pitt, appearing in the book "War on Iraq: What Team Bush doesn't want you to know."
In that interview, Ritter said that "Donald Rumsfeld was politically dead. No one thought of Donald Rumsfeld as having any potential. Paul Wolfowitz was seen as a raving lunatic of the far right. Richard Perle is not called 'The Prince of Darkness' without cause."
Ritter characterized the leaders as "sniping from the fringes," and said "suddenly they're running the show," adding that for this reason, these are "extremely dangerous times."
WND asked Ritter whether he viewed these people as having taken this turn since taking office, or always having been that way.
"Well, they were always this way," he said. "Wolfowitz was always a very dangerous man. He is a walking affront to the Constitution of the U.S. He is a walking affront to international law. The same with Richard Perle . He was openly boastful how President Bush has no other choice but go to war because he's committed too much political capital."
Ritter concluded, "If Richard Perle thinks [that's] a reason to go to war then he might as well remove the American flag from outside his building and put on a swastika and call himself what he is, which is a Nazi. This is the rule of law, not about going to war for political convenience of any single individual."
WorldNetDaily then asked Ritter why, if these political figures were always this way, he voted them into power by voting for President Bush. The former U.N. inspector argued that he didn't vote for them, just for Bush, adding that Gore was a "known commodity – a liar," and that he had actually initially supported Sen. John McCain. | | | | Guest | | Posted: Mon Jan 20, 2003 7:40 pm Post subject: |
| | Quote: | Americans are against unilateral war in Iraq
|
So very right. We expect others to do their part in disarming Saddam. | | | | Guest | | Posted: Mon Jan 20, 2003 8:43 pm Post subject: |
| Dont worry about it, Ill expect when it comes to any movement on the ground youll get enough Kurds to go in front of your guys first.
Modern warfare a la USA , you gotta love it aint yer. | | | | Guest-98a3 | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Wed Jan 22, 2003 1:29 pm Post subject: Re: BLAIR: IRAQ WAR NOT ABOUT OIL |
| | Anonymous wrote: | From http://www.mirror.co.uk
BLAIR: IRAQ WAR NOT ABOUT OIL
Jan 15 2003
By Naveed Raja
Tony Blair today insisted Iraq's vast oil reserves were not the real reason for an American-led war against the Arab state.
He said the threat from Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction meant Britain had no choice but to back George W Bush's stance.
He told MPs a second United Nations resolution "would be preferable" before war - but did not rule out backing unilateral American military action.
DEFIANT: Blair rejected oil "consiparcy theory"
Labour's Denis Skinner told Parliament during Prime Minister's Questions that a new Gulf War was about "America getting its hands on Iraqi oil".
He accused President Bush of "finishing the job his father failed to complete 12 years ago".
When Mr Blair tried to dismiss the left-winger's "conspiracy theory" he was heckled by some of his own MPs who shouted: "It's not a conspiracy theory".
Tory leader Iain Duncan Smith taunted Mr Blair over Cabinet divisions on Iraq saying ministers were split over the prospect of war.
He said: "You and your Cabinet must be clear and united in order to send the right message to Saddam Hussein, to British troops and to the British people."
Earlier Mr Blair was grilled by sceptical Labour MPs during a private meeting on Iraq.
He told a gathering of the Parliamentary Labour Party at Westminster that Saddam Hussein's regime had to be disarmed by any means possible - including force.
But his words did little to sway anxious Labour backbenchers. MP Glenda Jackson said she was not convinced by the argument for war.
"I have not been satisfied by what the Government's been saying on this issue all along," she said. "If no weapons of mass destruction are disclosed, what is the reason for going to war?"
Former defence minister Peter Kilfoyle added: "It was a typical PLP meeting and he got a good round of applause. But I'm never convinced by arguments on Iraq."
One MP said the meeting was split 50-50 over military action against Iraq.
Former culture secretary Chris Smith warned of "major disquiet" among MPs if war kicked off without a fresh UN resolution.
He said: "If America decides to jump the gun and take military action before the UN has either got the evidence or has taken a resolution and decided that this is what the world should do, if America does that, then I very much hope that Britain would side with the UN rather than the US.
"Because if the Americans decide to go ahead of a proper UN decision, then not only is there the potential for enormous humanitarian consequences, but also that would be so destabilising across the whole of the Middle East and it would really present major global problems.
"And I hope that in those circumstances that Britain would have the courage to say to the US, we don't think now is the time to do this."
Meanwhile General Wesley Clark, former Nato Supreme Allied Commander, said he thought America would attack in "mid to late February". |
Robert Fisk: Looming War is about OIL:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2003/01/20/robert-fisk-looming-war-is-about-oil.php | | | | | ©2002-2009 WarWithoutEnd.co.uk |
