No, its about money, money from oil ....
"
US and UK companies have been very concerned that their rivals might gain a major long-term advantage in the
global oil business. ?Iraq possesses huge reserves of oil and gas ? reserves I?d love Chevron to have access to,?
enthused Chevron CEO Kenneth T. Derr in a 1998 speech at the Commonwealth Club of San Francisco, in
which he pronounced his strong support for sanctions.(9) Sanctions have kept the rivals at bay, a clear advantage.
US-UK companies hope that the regime will eventually collapse, giving them a strong edge over their competitors
with a post-Saddam government. As the embargo weakens and Saddam holds on to power, however, stakes in
the rivalry rise, for US-UK companies might eventually be shouldered aside. Direct military intervention by the
US-UK offers a tempting but dangerous gamble that might put Exxon, Shell, BP and Chevron in immediate
control of the Iraqi oil boom, but at the risk of backlash from a regional political explosion.
In testimony to Congress in 1999, General Anthony C..Zinni, com mander in chief of the US Central Command,
testified that the Gulf Region, with its huge oil reserves, is a ?vital interest? of ?long standing? for the United States
and that the US ?must have free access to the region?s resources.?(10) ?Free access,? it seems, means both
military and economic control of these resources. This has been a major goal of US strategic doctrine ever since
the end of World War II. Prior to 1971, Britain (the former colonial power) policed the region and its oil riches.
Since then, the United States has deployed ever-larger military forces to assure ?free access? through
overwhelming armed might.(11)
http://mai.flora.org/forum/38671
As you can read ( if you elect to do so), this document is not from yesterday....
Not about Oil....
"
US and UK companies have been very concerned that their rivals might gain a major long-term advantage in the
global oil business. ?Iraq possesses huge reserves of oil and gas ? reserves I?d love Chevron to have access to,?
enthused Chevron CEO Kenneth T. Derr in a 1998 speech at the Commonwealth Club of San Francisco, in
which he pronounced his strong support for sanctions.(9) Sanctions have kept the rivals at bay, a clear advantage.
US-UK companies hope that the regime will eventually collapse, giving them a strong edge over their competitors
with a post-Saddam government. As the embargo weakens and Saddam holds on to power, however, stakes in
the rivalry rise, for US-UK companies might eventually be shouldered aside. Direct military intervention by the
US-UK offers a tempting but dangerous gamble that might put Exxon, Shell, BP and Chevron in immediate
control of the Iraqi oil boom, but at the risk of backlash from a regional political explosion.
In testimony to Congress in 1999, General Anthony C..Zinni, com mander in chief of the US Central Command,
testified that the Gulf Region, with its huge oil reserves, is a ?vital interest? of ?long standing? for the United States
and that the US ?must have free access to the region?s resources.?(10) ?Free access,? it seems, means both
military and economic control of these resources. This has been a major goal of US strategic doctrine ever since
the end of World War II. Prior to 1971, Britain (the former colonial power) policed the region and its oil riches.
Since then, the United States has deployed ever-larger military forces to assure ?free access? through
overwhelming armed might.(11)
http://mai.flora.org/forum/38671
As you can read ( if you elect to do so), this document is not from yesterday....
Not about Oil....
Comment