NationStates Jolt Archive

October 15, 2007
Abizaid: ‘We’ve Treated The Arab World As A Collection Of Big Gas Stations’

During a round table discussion on “the Fight for Oil, Water and a Healthy Planet” at Stanford University on Saturday, Gen. John Abizaid (Ret.), the former CENTCOM Commander, said that “of course” the Iraq war is “about oil“:

“Of course it’s about oil, we can’t really deny that,” Abizaid said of the Iraq campaign early on in the talk.

“We’ve treated the Arab world as a collection of big gas stations,” the retired general said. “Our message to them is: Guys, keep your pumps open, prices low, be nice to the Israelis and you can do whatever you want out back. Osama and 9/11 is the distilled essence that represents everything going on out back.”
...
The Bush administration, however, still denies any connection between the war in Iraq and America’s geopolitical interest in Middle East oil. Just last month, after former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan wrote that “the Iraq War is largely about oil,” Defense Secretary Robert Gates rejected the notion, saying “I just don’t believe it’s true“.

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/10/15/abizaid-middle-east-gas-station/
Sources: Yahoo/Think Progress/OccNEWS So Yesterday another General (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13132933&postcount=23) speaks up: "The War is a nightmare with no end in sight"..

and now this one..

I wonder what General will come forward next

So Yesterday another General (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13132933&postcount=23) speak up "The War is a nightmare with no end in sight"..

and now this one..

I wonder what General will come forward next

Now it's time for the NS rightwinger mis-interpretive dance session.

This isn't news. I was sitting in IMEF during the whole build up. Except for the grunts and the die hard Republicans we knew what we were fighting for. Matter of fact we had been waiting for it since the ending of the first gulf war. I was hoping for new info.

So Yesterday another General (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13132933&postcount=23) speaks up: "The War is a nightmare with no end in sight"..

and now this one..

I wonder what General will come forward next

The White House is just going to wave their hand and hope he stops spreading truth over their bullshit.

The White House is just going to wave their hand and hope he stops spreading truth over their bullshit.
The White house has Jedi powers?

The White house has Jedi powers?

No sith Sherlock.

Now it's time for the NS rightwinger mis-interpretive dance session.
Quality.
This isn't news. I was sitting in IMEF during the whole build up. Except for the grunts and the die hard Republicans we knew what we were fighting for. Matter of fact we had been waiting for it since the ending of the first gulf war. I was hoping for new info.

What's IMEF?

I was hoping for new info.a General speaking the truth against the wished of Dear Leader.. Its news to me.

I was reading CNN.com a couple month ago and it said that the oil contracts got picked up by China and India. Yeah, Oil was a part of it, but not all of it.

I was reading CNN.com a couple month ago and it said that the oil contracts got picked up by China and Iraq. Yeah, Oil was a part of it, but not all of it.Iraq? Iraq?????

You gotta be kidding me. :D

WoW that was a fast correction.. congrats :D

Iraq? Iraq?????

You gotta be kidding me. :D

Later edited to India. Anyway, at least they are getting the revenues from it and spending it other things besides the grand palaces Saddam built.

Well one of the first things the CPA did after the invasion was roll back all state ownership, allow 100% foreign ownership and have a flat tax of only 15%, why do you think they did this?

Later edited to India. Anyway, at least they are getting the revenues from it and spending it other things besides the grand palaces Saddam built.Yeah.. The Citizens of Iraq should be thanking us for our generosity. :D

They are so much better with US than with Saddam.

Yeah.. The Citizens of Iraq should be thanking us for our generosity. :D

They are so much better with US than with Saddam.

I didn't say that. I simply said they are spending it on other things besides palaces.

Well one of the first things the CPA did after the invasion was roll back all state ownership, allow 100% foreign ownership and have a flat tax of only 15%, why do you think they did this?Somone needs to help some of our poor US corporation like Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Halliburton, Northrop Grumman,Exxon, Blackwater, Generalmotors, etc etc etc.. I mean how can they hope to survive without Billions in Corporate Welfare..
some Iraq Oilmoney can help these poor corps.

out of traditional American generosity? :D

I do believe we give out more foreign aid out than any other country in the world.

I didn't say that. I simply said they are spending it on other things besides palaces.

No, actually they are not, most of the money goes to paying back Saddam's debt, they have a right to declare it odious but Bremer changed it before the Interim government came in, now companies like KFC can claim compensation because their sales were effected when Saddam invaded Kuwait. The plain fact is, democracy was resisted at every turn in Iraq by Bush.

No, actually they are not, most of the money goes to paying back Saddam's debt, they have a right to declare it odious but Bremer changed it before the Interim government came in, now companies like KFC can claim compensation because their sales were effected when Saddam invaded Kuwait. The plain fact is, democracy was resisted at every turn in Iraq by Bush.

Which is something different that palaces. :p

I do believe we give out more foreign aid out than any other country in the world.
Actual figures are misleading, less than 10% of that actually goes to the people at a real grassroots level, most of it is propping up governments with arms etc, or creating economic hegemony.

Actual figures are misleading, less than 10% of that actually goes to the people at a real grassroots level, most of it is propping up governments with arms etc, or creating economic hegemony.

Source. (http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Debt/USAid.asp) with a healthy doze of criticism for all doner nations added in for your pleasure.

Which is something different that palaces. :p
Well at least under Saddam the state owned industry, now the Iraqis own nothing, basically the whole country has been sold to the highest bidder. Iraq was essentially a playing ground for the corporatist ideological fantasies of the neocons.

Well at least under Saddam the state owned industry, now the Iraqis own nothing, basically the whole country has been sold to the highest bidder. Iraq was essentially a playing ground for the corporatist ideological fantasies of the neocons.

Ooo I can just taste that socialist crap. The iraqi people can own property now, many have started business, and its a free market. A free market also means free trade, to an extent, and what has occured in Iraq is no different that what happens around the world to many nations.

Have a watch of this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qk-qBY-TiZg

Have a watch of this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qk-qBY-TiZg

No thanks. I'll listen to actual sources backed with facts. Not propaganda.

I do believe we give out more foreign aid ...true.
But Most of it is for Weapons, take Israel for example...

Ooo I can just taste that socialist crap. The iraqi people can own property now, many have started business, and its a free market. A free market also means free trade, to an extent, and what has occured in Iraq is no different that what happens around the world to many nations.

Are you kidding, after essentially 20 years of warfare and fascist repression, staggering debt and economic ruin, and in the middle of a civil war and the breakdown of infrastructure and the entire civil society, and you want to impose the free market? You honestly think Iraq can compete with the world after all that? The free market in Iraq is a recipe for foreign control of resources, the state companies cannot compete after being under sanction for so long and under so much debt.

Most of it goes to Israel... to build up their War machine.

A good portion yes. Not all of it, however. And, Israel also recycles some of that to other budgets.

No thanks. I'll listen to actual sources backed with facts. Not propaganda.

Actually all of it IS backed up with facts, you just refuse to acknowledge the truth. The Iraq war was essentially a capitalist war, it was fought to open up new markets of resources for exploitation.

Actually all of it IS backed up with facts, you just refuse to acknowledge the truth. The Iraq war was essentially a capitalist war, it was fought to open up new markets of resources for exploitation.

New markets huh? All I see is the United States spending trillions of dollars on a war that has got us nothing, and is one of the worst military failures in history. The goods there we could have gotten from anywhere else in the world, including Africa, I am sure they would have been an easier target, no?

No sith Sherlock.

You win the thread.

*hands over thread as trophy*.

New markets huh? All I see is the United States spending trillions of dollars on a war that has got us nothing, and is one of the worst military failures in history. The goods there we could have gotten from anywhere else in the world, including Africa, I am sure they would have been an easier target, no?

Again, please watch those videos I posted, the idea of the US tax dollars being wasted is an exaggeration, most of it is funded by Iraqi oil money etc.

Again, please watch those videos I posted, the idea of the US tax dollars being wasted is an exaggeration, most of it is funded by Iraqi oil money etc.

I'm sorry, but I am not going to watch 9 videos. I must go to bed soon. Do you have a text version?

Well at least under Saddam the state owned industry, now the Iraqis own nothing, basically the whole country has been sold to the highest bidder. Iraq was essentially a playing ground for the corporatist ideological fantasies of the neocons.

Yes, and he allowed it to rust away because he was too busy building palaces and torturing people to death to focus on building up his nation. Saddam was a corrupt, incompetent murderer and nothing more and the country he ruled was nothing more than the playground of a group of some of the most vile people that have ever ruled.

Yes, and he allowed it to rust away...Last I checked this was because of wars which crippled the economy.


Under Saddam's reign Iraq was among the most secular of Islamistic states.

....and torturing people to death to focus on building up his nation.

You mean those peace loving and adorable Kurds?

http://www.boston.com/news/world/middleeast/articles/2007/10/16/turkey_seeks_ok_for_military_move_into_northern_iraq/

You mean those peace loving and adorable Kurds?

http://www.boston.com/news/world/middleeast/articles/2007/10/16/turkey_seeks_ok_for_military_move_into_northern_iraq/

Oh, NO! Some kurds are separatist rebels... and that totally shows that the Kurdish people are peace-hating! Why, that even proves, PROVES I say, that the Kurds DESERVED to be tortured to death!

:rolleyes:

Seriously man. If you're going to defend Saddam's war crimes you're going to have to do a lot better. Though I would recommend not trying.

Oh, NO! Some kurds are separatist

Yes, and some palestinians are seperatist also...

Kurds DESERVED to be tortured to death!

No one deserves to die by the hand of another human being. No one should be tortured either.

Seriously man. If you're going to defend Saddam's war crimes you're going to have to do a lot better. Though I would recommend not trying.

I'm not defending his war crimes, I'm also not in favour of the current situation in Iraq which is *much* worse for the general public.

I'm just saying that attacking Saddam based on his stance on kurds is a case of double standards: Turkey would eradicate kurds if it had the chance and oppresses them at their leisure as it is. Israel has similar thing going on against palestinians with complete disregard of the average palestinian. And in Iraq...the situation for the average Iraqi citizen has badly deteriorated for absolutely no valid reason - except for economic gain.

By "liberating" Iraq you've condemned a million more Iraqis to death...Is this the charity and morals you wish the world to consider benchmark? Fighting "evil" doesn't give anyone right to commit "greater evil".

Yes, and some palestinians are seperatist also...


Indeed.


No one deserves to die by the hand of another human being. No one should be tortured either.

Oh? Then why exactly is it that, when faced with a statement of fact that Saddam massacred the Kurds, you feel compelled to try to paint the Kurds in a bad light? Seems to me like you're trying to justify it.

I'm not defending his war crimes, I'm also not in favour of the current situation in Iraq which is *much* worse for the general public.

I'm not in favor of it either, but.

I'm just saying that attacking Saddam based on his stance on kurds is a case of double standards: Turkey would eradicate kurds if it had the chance and oppresses them at their leisure as it is.

Whether Turkey would, hypothetically, oppress Kurds is really irrelevant from the fact that Saddam DID. And it's not his "stance" on Kurds that people sorta kinda dislike Saddam for, it's really more to do with his choosing to massacre 180,000 of them. I don't see why pointing this out is a case of double standards at all.

Israel has similar thing going on against palestinians with complete disregard of the average palestinian. And in Iraq...the situation for the average Iraqi citizen has badly deteriorated for absolutely no valid reason - except for economic gain.

By "liberating" Iraq you've condemned a million more Iraqis to death...Is this the charity and morals you wish the world to consider benchmark? Fighting "evil" doesn't give anyone right to commit "greater evil".

I'm not going to argue the war. I've been against it from the beginning and I still am. I support complete and immediate withdrawal of US forces from Iraq.

Oh? Then why exactly is it that, when faced with a statement of fact that Saddam massacred the Kurds, you feel compelled to try to paint the Kurds in a bad light? Seems to me like you're trying to justify it.

I'm saying that disagreeing with the treatment of Kurds by Saddam doesn't give us the right to accept similar treatment elsewhere - I don't see people protesting against the Turkey for their treatment of Kurds or demand an immediate attack because, well shucks, Israel cut power off from and killed a bunch of palestinian civilians.

For some reason people do accept - or at best are capable of ignoring - torture, oppression, mass murder and executions based on how the situation is painted in the media and the "democratically" elected people in power.

Whether Turkey would, hypothetically, oppress Kurds is really irrelevant from the fact that Saddam DID. And it's not his "stance" on Kurds that people sorta kinda dislike Saddam for, it's really more to do with his choosing to massacre 180,000 of them. I don't see why pointing this out is a case of double standards at all.

See, this is double standards: Either you admit there was an ulterior motive for attacking Iraq or you admit that certain countries and people are allowed to oppress and kill other people for an arbitrary reason (see eg. Darfur).

Didn't Bush also protest against recognition of the Armenian genocide by the Turks because Turkey is such a good pal of USA?

My gripe is that human rights are "upheld" elsewhere only when there's an element of gain in doing so.

I personally think that letting Saddam keep the peace in Iraq by whatever means available would have been an OK thing to do because displacing him has caused an immense humanitarian crisis completely off the scale for an average Iraqi person - Or in other words the attack hasn't caused improvement of human rights: The infrastructure is destroyed, invaluable items of cultural heritage are stolen and destroyed, violence just targets larger proportion of Iraqis and the Kurds in Iraq now have to watch out for Turkish response which they're pretty much free to do with the backing of USA.

I do believe we give out more foreign aid out than any other country in the world.

Only in amount. As a percentage of GNP/GDP the US is one of the most miserly. In addition, a lot of it is for dubious reasons and regimes. Israel, Uzbekistan and Pakistan come to mind.


The goods there we could have gotten from anywhere else in the world.

...yet the only place you can secure a client state in the strategically important gulf region is in the strategically important gulf region.....

No one deserves to die by the hand of another human being. No one should be tortured either.

Uh, i THINK he was being sarcastic when he said the Kurds deserved to be tortured to death, i.e., they don't.

I'm saying that disagreeing with the treatment of Kurds by Saddam doesn't give us the right to accept similar treatment elsewhere - I don't see people protesting against the Turkey for their treatment of Kurds or demand an immediate attack because, well shucks, Israel cut power off from and killed a bunch of palestinian civilians.

This is all very nice but quite irrelevant. Whether Turkey is criticized has nothing to do with whether Saddam is.

For some reason people do accept - or at best are capable of ignoring - torture, oppression, mass murder and executions based on how the situation is painted in the media and the "democratically" elected people in power.

True enough.

See, this is double standards: Either you admit there was an ulterior motive for attacking Iraq or you admit that certain countries and people are allowed to oppress and kill other people for an arbitrary reason (see eg. Darfur).

Of course there was an ulterior motive; what does this have to do with anything I've said?


My gripe is that human rights are "upheld" elsewhere only when there's an element of gain in doing so.


Fine, nice gripe. What does that have to do with the Kurds not being "adorable" (and thus apparently it's OK to commit genocide against them)?


I personally think that letting Saddam keep the peace in Iraq by whatever means available would have been an OK thing to do

I don't consider 180,000 massacred civilians "peace" or "OK."

because displacing him has caused an immense humanitarian crisis completely off the scale for an average Iraqi person - Or in other words the attack hasn't caused improvement of human rights: The infrastructure is destroyed, invaluable items of cultural heritage are stolen and destroyed, violence just targets larger proportion of Iraqis and the Kurds in Iraq now have to watch out for Turkish response which they're pretty much free to do with the backing of USA.

You know, maybe we shouldn't have interfered with Hitler's attempts to bring peace and order to the world. Doing so caused a huge amount of loss of life, infrastructure, invaluable items of cultural heritage and it begat violence for years to come.

The White house has Jedi powers?

Bush wishes.