So much for Iraq for the Iraqis

Sleipnir

It would appear that many Americans do not support Tito's views on Guantanamo Bay.
From today's independant.


"A group of former American judges, diplomats and military officers has called on the US Supreme Court to issue a ruling in relation to around 600 foreign inmates being detained at Guantanamo Bay. Hundreds of al Qaida and Taliban suspects have languished at the military prison on the island of Cuba, beyond the reach of legal process. The group is questioning the legality of their detention at the Cuban Base having being held now for a period of almost 2 years without trial. Former Appeals Court judge, John Gibbons, says justice denied is having the effect of tarnishing America's global reputation."


Now, does that sound like the 'justice' the U.S. administration keeps harping on about?

Tito

Originally posted by Sparks
Well, spank my bottom and call me alice. I've been well rebuffed by that comment there tito, and shall hereby revoke my right to ever have a political opinion ever again, and shall in fact never again vote, protest or do anything that might be seen as moral, all because when I was twelve, I didn't protest our beef deal with saddam.

The fact you did not protest about our beef deal with Saddam does not bother me but you were not twelve all your life and when Bill Clinton bombed innocent children in bus'es going to school in yugosalvia you and your great life saving friends were no where to be seen.Last year in Cuba six or more people were shot dead for opposing Castro's goveronment yet no one protested about that.This is why I believe you views are fundamentally inmoral because you are saying an Iraqi life outweighs that of a serb or that of a cuban and this is why I have no time for the anti war movement.

Tito

Originally posted by Kananga
It would appear that many Americans do not support Tito's views on Guantanamo Bay.
From today's independant.


"A group of former American judges, diplomats and military officers has called on the US Supreme Court to issue a ruling in relation to around 600 foreign inmates being detained at Guantanamo Bay. Hundreds of al Qaida and Taliban suspects have languished at the military prison on the island of Cuba, beyond the reach of legal process. The group is questioning the legality of their detention at the Cuban Base having being held now for a period of almost 2 years without trial. Former Appeals Court judge, John Gibbons, says justice denied is having the effect of tarnishing America's global reputation."


Now, does that sound like the 'justice' the U.S. administration keeps harping on about?

It would appear not everyone supports the anti war movement by the fact goveronment allowed US planes stop over.At the end of the day someone's nose is always out of joint but you brought my first point back up here again.The people who have called on the supreme court are judges,military officers etc spoilt brats in other words and not working class people.I would like to see how they would be treated in Jordan or Iran etc if arrested.
Midnight Express springs to mind

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Tito
The people who have called on the supreme court are judges,military officers etc spoilt brats in other words and not working class people.

What the Hell are you trying to say there? The anti-War movement is part of a middle class conspiracy? Anyone who’s not working class (whatever the Hell that means anymore) isn’t worth listening to? Or you’re a time traveller sent by Lenin to convince us that the last century didn’t happen and that the whole class struggle wasn’t just a load of rubbish invented by middle-class intellectuals with silly beards as a means to meet girls?

Sleipnir

Originally posted by Tito
It would appear not everyone supports the anti war movement by the fact goveronment allowed US planes stop over.At the end of the day someone's nose is always out of joint but you brought my first point back up here again.The people who have called on the supreme court are judges,military officers etc spoilt brats in other words and not working class people.I would like to see how they would be treated in Jordan or Iran etc if arrested.
Midnight Express springs to mind

I find it quite amazing that you call yourself a communist, and yet appear to unwaveringly support the greatest capitalist country in the world.

You never did reply to my facts about American oil imports from Iraq. Where you said America has never received a drop of oil from Iraq, and it was shown that, in fact, America imports half of what Iraq (the country with the 2nd largest reserves in the world) exports?
Would you like to offer a complete retraction of that part of your statement? And perhaps admit that you were wrong?
If you have a position on something, you must be in a position to defend it.

Anyway, onto your points on the inmates of Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

"The people who have called on the supreme court are judges,military officers etc spoilt brats in other words and not working class people"

So what you're saying is that the people of America might take more notice of the atrocities that are taking place in their own name if the guy cleaning tables at McDonalds and a bus driver stand up and say they disagree with the prisoners' treatment?

Let's go through the article again;

"The group is questioning the legality of their detention...."

So you're saying that a Former Appeals Court judge is not the right person who should be questioning the legality of the dententions.
You're saying someone who has no knowledge of U.S. or International law (or any legal experience at all) would be better?

"The people" can't call on Supreme Court, they use representatives such as judges to do this for them.

How the prisoners would be treated in another country is irrelevant.
They are being detained by "the land of the free" where "justice for all" is repeated by every schoolchild in America every morning.
Their rights under the Geneva Convention are being denied them and this is wrong, in any country.

Read this before you go back to being brainwashed.

"WASHINGTON - The more commercial television news you watch, the more wrong you are likely to be about key elements of the Iraq War and its aftermath, according to a major new study released in Washington on Thursday.

And the more you watch the Rupert Murdoch-owned Fox News channel, in particular, the more likely it is that your perceptions about the war are wrong, adds the report by the University of Maryland's Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA).

Based on several nationwide surveys it conducted with California-based Knowledge Networks since June, as well as the results of other polls, PIPA found that 48 percent of the public believe US troops found evidence of close pre-war links between Iraq and the al-Qaeda terrorist group; 22 percent thought troops found weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in Iraq; and 25 percent believed that world public opinion favored Washington's going to war with Iraq. All three are misperceptions.

The report, Misperceptions, the Media and the Iraq War, also found that the more misperceptions held by the respondent, the more likely it was that s/he both supported the war and depended on commercial television for news about it.

The study is likely to stoke a growing public and professional debate over why mainstream news media - especially the broadcast media - were not more skeptical about the Bush administration's pre-war claims, particularly regarding Saddam Hussein's WMD stockpiles and ties with al-Qaeda. "

Tito

Originally posted by The Corinthian
What the Hell are you trying to say there? The anti-War movement is part of a middle class conspiracy? Anyone who’s not working class (whatever the Hell that means anymore) isn’t worth listening to? Or you’re a time traveller sent by Lenin to convince us that the last century didn’t happen and that the whole class struggle wasn’t just a load of rubbish invented by middle-class intellectuals with silly beards as a means to meet girls?

Please let me explain in our society here we have four level of societies.The peasants of which there are many good with the few bad apples who claim as much as they can from the state.Then comes the working classs who pay face heavy tax's and are cannot receive any grants.Then the final two layers are middle class and Nobles who because they are from the same stock as the present minister face modest tax's per capita income and thus concludes the working class pay for everything and you receive no reward for living an honest life.
When we live in a fair society I will then gladly listen to middle class people and maybe then I will listen to the Thrills but not till that day

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Tito
Please let me explain in our society here we have four level of societies.The peasants of which there are many good with the few bad apples who claim as much as they can from the state.Then comes the working classs who pay face heavy tax's and are cannot receive any grants.Then the final two layers are middle class and Nobles who because they are from the same stock as the present minister face modest tax's per capita income and thus concludes the working class pay for everything and you receive no reward for living an honest life.
When we live in a fair society I will then gladly listen to middle class people and maybe then I will listen to the Thrills but not till that day

I’ll admit this is off topic, but I’m fascinated. Your ideology seems to be based upon a rigid clas, or perhaps more correctly cast, system of your invention. You identify peasants as effectively the long term unemployed. You then assume that the working class (I assume you mean anyone below middle management in occupation) is the sole contributor to an economy. Then you seem to lump together the middle and noble classes together (I can only assume that the latter are the idle rich) as some parasitic group that contributes nothing to society.

It sounds vaguely like the ideology of someone who once read a leaflet about class struggle but never bothered to find out what it was and has subsequently made up his own version. You seem grossly ill informed on the topic as well as the fundamentals of macroeconomics. Many of your terms are even incorrect.

I recommend you read a few books on economics; including the Wealth of Nations and Das Kapital, then you may be taken seriously at the grown-up table yourself.

bonkey

C'mon...I've asked once, and I don't intend to ask again. Play nice.

jc

Sparks

Originally posted by Tito
The fact you did not protest about our beef deal with Saddam does not bother me but you were not twelve all your life and when Bill Clinton bombed innocent children in bus'es going to school in yugosalvia you and your great life saving friends were no where to be seen.

Factually incorrect. Not only do you know where I was, you don't know what I thought about yugoslavia. And I happened to think it was wrong, FYI.

Where were you tito?

Hobbes

OMG on the BBC2 just now, they were talking to the business people about how the US are taking all the contracts.

One of the people they spoke to was an Iraqi official who is put in place by the US. The conversation was something like this (sic).

Reporter: Do you think when Iraq elects a government they will cancel or renegotiate the contracts?

Woman: No, they won't be changing the contracts.

Reporter: How do you know this?

Woman: Well they are contracts.

Reporter: So you are saying when Iraqi has a government they will not be allowed change the contracts they had no say on signing?

Woman: (Smiling) Yes that is correct.

Sleipnir

She didn't mention how long the contracts were for I suppose?
Not a year I'd imagine, more like 10. Or 50!

bonkey

Originally posted by Hobbes
Reporter: So you are saying when Iraqi has a government they will not be allowed change the contracts they had no say on signing?

The correct answer to this one is apparently "that depends on who made it in the first place".

If it was made by Saddam et al, then obviously it can be removed or replaced as needed. If it was made by the US since the deposing of SAddam, then it won't be touchable.

Isn't freedom strange like that...

jc

Tito

Originally posted by Kananga
I find it quite amazing that you call yourself a communist, and yet appear to unwaveringly support the greatest capitalist country in the world.

You never did reply to my facts about American oil imports from Iraq. Where you said America has never received a drop of oil from Iraq, and it was shown that, in fact, America imports half of what Iraq (the country with the 2nd largest reserves in the world) exports?
Would you like to offer a complete retraction of that part of your statement? And perhaps admit that you were wrong?
If you have a position on something, you must be in a position to defend it.

Anyway, onto your points on the inmates of Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

"The people who have called on the supreme court are judges,military officers etc spoilt brats in other words and not working class people"

So what you're saying is that the people of America might take more notice of the atrocities that are taking place in their own name if the guy cleaning tables at McDonalds and a bus driver stand up and say they disagree with the prisoners' treatment?

Let's go through the article again;

"The group is questioning the legality of their detention...."

So you're saying that a Former Appeals Court judge is not the right person who should be questioning the legality of the dententions.
You're saying someone who has no knowledge of U.S. or International law (or any legal experience at all) would be better?

"The people" can't call on Supreme Court, they use representatives such as judges to do this for them.

How the prisoners would be treated in another country is irrelevant.
They are being detained by "the land of the free" where "justice for all" is repeated by every schoolchild in America every morning.
Their rights under the Geneva Convention are being denied them and this is wrong, in any country.

Read this before you go back to being brainwashed.

"WASHINGTON - The more commercial television news you watch, the more wrong you are likely to be about key elements of the Iraq War and its aftermath, according to a major new study released in Washington on Thursday.

And the more you watch the Rupert Murdoch-owned Fox News channel, in particular, the more likely it is that your perceptions about the war are wrong, adds the report by the University of Maryland's Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA).

Based on several nationwide surveys it conducted with California-based Knowledge Networks since June, as well as the results of other polls, PIPA found that 48 percent of the public believe US troops found evidence of close pre-war links between Iraq and the al-Qaeda terrorist group; 22 percent thought troops found weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in Iraq; and 25 percent believed that world public opinion favored Washington's going to war with Iraq. All three are misperceptions.

The report, Misperceptions, the Media and the Iraq War, also found that the more misperceptions held by the respondent, the more likely it was that s/he both supported the war and depended on commercial television for news about it.

The study is likely to stoke a growing public and professional debate over why mainstream news media - especially the broadcast media - were not more skeptical about the Bush administration's pre-war claims, particularly regarding Saddam Hussein's WMD stockpiles and ties with al-Qaeda. "

Looking for closure on this issue I will try answer all query's here.
Yes I am communist,was Saddam communist?the answer is no aside from that he was a butcher who on the meeting in which he took power he sent 30 men to their death.Force was the only way for removal of such a tyrant and the logical way for this to occur was to have a country with major military options to carry it out,sadly America is a superpower and I would say only superpower,thus this is the best way of removal of Saddam.Also just because America is capitalist does not mean their are no communist's in America in fact Paul Robeson was one famous communist made a scapegoat during communost witch hunts.

In relation to facts you present I feel it is a bit like the No To Nice movement who tossed out alot of misleading information.In fact if you read the Sunday Independent sunday the 12th there was an article which stated 84% of Iraq is functioning normally and 68% of Iraq people want the Americans to stay,it also states RTE of giving a bad representation of the facts.

People lost lives in Iraq and it is sad I cant deny that but in the long term a nation can prosper and grow.A nation where people can live free from fear.

Now I hate to dissappoint you but I do have a telly at home and the only telly I see is if a friend of mine has one on when I visit their house and when I do we have better things to discuss than looking at telly.I listen to RTE radio one alright and I do have a pc.So I hope that issue is put to bed.

Finally to the other person who says my idealogy is weak I disagree with him totally.I have read many books and met many people that have shaped my idealogy.In fact I once met Ivan Stambolic.

Once again time runs out on me but its good to listen

Sleipnir

Now you have ignored all posts regarding Guantanemo Bay; I will assume that is because you are in an indefensible position and cannot argue against the points myself and other posters have stated.

I still see nothing on your "America has not taken a drop of oil from Iraq" remarks.
This really proved to me that you really know nothing about the conflict in Iraq. You're are quite misinformed about the whole thing.
How you could not have known that America gets oil from Iraq, at all, is beyond comprehension.

Nor do you mention anything about the fact the the U.S. (along with other western countries) supplied weapons to Iraq in the past.
Oil was the lynchpin of the war in Iraq (both times)
Saddam has been in power for the past two decades. During that period he has commited many atrocities. Why was it only in 2003 that it was decided to remove him?
Don't mention the "imminent threat of WMD's" because there aren't any.
So why the rush?
They didn't rush in to save the Iraqi's when it was shown that he had used chemical weapons on the Kurds (in the 70's or 80's?)
Why didn't they do it then?

The reason it wasn't done then was because it didn't really effect the West. Their oil was secure.

"In relation to facts you present I feel it is a bit like the No To Nice movement who tossed out alot of misleading information.In fact if you read the Sunday Independent sunday the 12th there was an article which stated 84% of Iraq is functioning normally and 68% of Iraq people want the Americans to stay,it also states RTE of giving a bad representation of the facts"

WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT THE NICE CAMPAIGN. Please try to stay on topic.
Are these women happy?
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=118177

"People lost lives in Iraq and it is sad I cant deny that but in the long term a nation can prosper and grow. A nation where people can live free from fear."

And controlled by the United States. Owned by the United States.

have a read of this and tell me America had no serious economic reasons for going to war.
Essay

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Tito
Yes I am communist,was Saddam communist?the answer is no aside from that he was a butcher who on the meeting in which he took power he sent 30 men to their death.

So what you’ve just said is that you are a communist and Saddam was not, outside of his ability to commit atrocities. I invite you to rephrase that statement, as what it is currently saying in English would not be terribly flattering to the ideology you claim to support.

Finally to the other person who says my idealogy is weak I disagree with him totally.I have read many books and met many people that have shaped my idealogy.In fact I once met Ivan Stambolic.

I once attended a dinner party with Gore Vidal, but it hardly makes me a writer. Or homosexual for that matter.

I made an observation based upon your misuse of terms and rather original interpretation of class struggle. You can refute this by describing where you’re coming from socially and economically, with the use of references to relevant sources. Feel free to start another thread on the subject. As I said; I’m fascinated to know more...

Originally posted by bonkey
The correct answer to this one is apparently "that depends on who made it in the first place".

If it was made by Saddam et al, then obviously it can be removed or replaced as needed. If it was made by the US since the deposing of SAddam, then it won't be touchable.

Isn't freedom strange like that...

jc

Wouldn't it be interesting if there was a loophole whereby they could tax non Iraqi corporations profits by lets say a liberal amount (100%)...
They could call it a reconstruction levy

mm

shotamoose

Originally posted by Hobbes
OMG on the BBC2 just now, they were talking to the business people about how the US are taking all the contracts.

One of the people they spoke to was an Iraqi official who is put in place by the US. The conversation was something like this (sic).

Reporter: Do you think when Iraq elects a government they will cancel or renegotiate the contracts?

Woman: No, they won't be changing the contracts.

Reporter: How do you know this?

Woman: Well they are contracts.

Reporter: So you are saying when Iraqi has a government they will not be allowed change the contracts they had no say on signing?

Woman: (Smiling) Yes that is correct.

I notice the World Bank is thinking of loaning Iraq around £1bn this year. Presumably if and when Iraq gets its own democratic government it will have to honour this loan, despite it having no say in the original decision.

Tito

Originally posted by Kananga
Now you have ignored all posts regarding Guantanemo Bay; I will assume that is because you are in an indefensible position and cannot argue against the points myself and other posters have stated.

Oh yes!I know very little about Iraq?Strange that your point is based around Guantanemo Bay.Last I checked Guantanemo Bay was not part of Iraq?


I still see nothing on your "America has not taken a drop of oil from Iraq" remarks.
This really proved to me that you really know nothing about the conflict in Iraq. You're are quite misinformed about the whole thing.
How you could not have known that America gets oil from Iraq, at all, is beyond comprehension.

The fact I am merely stating is before the war when the Anti War movement took to the streets it was all about America going after oil.What I tried to point out is production has not increased and America receieves oil in larger quanitites from many different countries eg Suadi.I did not type this in the right manner maybe!please excuse me


Nor do you mention anything about the fact the the U.S. (along with other western countries) supplied weapons to Iraq in the past.
Oil was the lynchpin of the war in Iraq (both times)
Saddam has been in power for the past two decades. During that period he has commited many atrocities. Why was it only in 2003 that it was decided to remove him?
Don't mention the "imminent threat of WMD's" because there aren't any.
So why the rush?
They didn't rush in to save the Iraqi's when it was shown that he had used chemical weapons on the Kurds (in the 70's or 80's?)
Why didn't they do it then?

As I have stated in last message I wanted to see the removal of Saddam and the best way of seen this achieved is to have the biggest power in the world remove him.I think it is a bit harsh on your behalf to attack America on suppling Iraq years ago,it was a Regan not Bush that did that mostly.So Bush is correcting a wrong



The reason it wasn't done then was because it didn't really effect the West. Their oil was secure.

"In relation to facts you present I feel it is a bit like the No To Nice movement who tossed out alot of misleading information.In fact if you read the Sunday Independent sunday the 12th there was an article which stated 84% of Iraq is functioning normally and 68% of Iraq people want the Americans to stay,it also states RTE of giving a bad representation of the facts"

WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT THE NICE CAMPAIGN. Please try to stay on topic.
Are these women happy?
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=118177

I said you have misleading information and made reference to Nice campaign and I find it quite hard to stomach this when you harp on about Guantanemo Bay

"People lost lives in Iraq and it is sad I cant deny that but in the long term a nation can prosper and grow. A nation where people can live free from fear."

And controlled by the United States. Owned by the United States.

have a read of this and tell me America had no serious economic reasons for going to war.
Essay

The removal of Saddam was the only reason I back America.It is also a fact France and Russia were against war was for economic reasons.
I do not believe America went to war for economic reasons and that is reflected in the fact 68% of Iraq people still want them there.
Please stop providing links to your flashy anti-war sites.
Thank you

Sleipnir

So you didn't even read it?
You're trying to stay with your blinkered views.
You have no desire to learn or to question your own views and for that reason, have no place attempting to debate with people who research and question what they see and hear.

Your 'beliefs' about why America went to war are irrelevant. This isn't about beliefs, it's about facts; what happened and why?
Not some airy-fairy
"I believe America went to war because Mickey Mouse told them to. That's my belief"
You can believe whatever you want.

Flashy anti-war sites? Are you serious? What a ridiculous attitude you really have.
If you have no to desire to be inform yourself that's up to you. But don't expect any of us to listen to your unverifiable twaddle.

QUIT POSTING ABOUT SUBJECTS YOU KNOW NOTHING ABOUT!

.Also, please edit where you have what I said in quotes above. You added your own comments to my posting within the quote marks. It looks like I said those ridiculous things. You should know not to edit when you 'quote' people

<EDIT> This is that last time I will reply to your posts. I'm not interested in getting into a flaming war with one such as yourself.
I simply will not read your posts and will only reply to those who have something of importance/relevance to say

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Tito
It is also a fact France and Russia were against war was for economic reasons.

How is it a fact? Please back that up with evidence (not hearsay).

I do not believe America went to war for economic reasons and that is reflected in the fact 68% of Iraq people still want them there.

How is this reflected by that statistic? Seriously, how do you logically connect one to the other? Correlation does not imply causation.

Please stop providing links to your flashy anti-war sites.

His links may potentially lead to poor evidence, but it’s a Hell of a lot more evidence than you appear to be providing.

bonkey

Originally posted by Kananga
Also, please edit where you have what I said in quotes above. You added your own comments to my posting within the quote marks. It looks like I said those ridiculous things.

Allow me to echo this sentiment. I'm sure it was an honest mistake, but now that its been pointed out, please correct the offending post.

jc

Sleipnir

Hi Bonkey,

I'm sure it was not intentional also but as Tito has not replied could I ask you to please edit or delete the offending post?
I'm away for two weeks and don't wish to be mis-represented by the post during that time.

Cheers,

SS

Victor

Originally posted by Tito
I hate to disappoint you once more but shackling and blindfolding human beings is no where nearly as bad as watching Iraqi soldiers mutilating dead America's so I really think before you lecture about what happens at Guantanamo bay.

I'm sorry but treating any living person in a bad way is always worse than mutilating someone already dead, bad as that may be.

Victor

Originally posted by jesus_thats_gre
Surely you have to agree that for any economy to grow or this case actually start, you need a telecommunications infrastructure. Obviously they are not going to start laying miles and miles of fibre because it will probably be sabotaged or stolen, so a cellular network makes alot of sense.

Actually Iraq has had tons of fibre since the 1980s (handy for running a military commend sytem with no interference or bugging), and it's buried to prevent damage. The American actually had to send in special force to remove some in 1991. The system has actually improved since then. "Last mile" may be another matter, as Mogadishu will demonstrate (all the copper was nicked and sold as scrap).

The Saint

Has anyone else heard about this or am I just late?


Published on Monday, August 25, 2003 by Ha'aretz (Israel)
US Checking Possibility of Pumping Oil from Northern Iraq to Haifa, via Jordan by Amiram Cohen

The United States has asked Israel to check the possibility of pumping oil from Iraq to the oil refineries in Haifa. The request came in a telegram last week from a senior Pentagon official to a top Foreign Ministry official in Jerusalem.

The Prime Minister's Office, which views the pipeline to Haifa as a "bonus" the U.S. could give to Israel in return for its unequivocal support for the American-led campaign in Iraq, had asked the Americans for the official telegram.

The new pipeline would take oil from the Kirkuk area, where some 40 percent of Iraqi oil is produced, and transport it via Mosul, and then across Jordan to Israel. The U.S. telegram included a request for a cost estimate for repairing the Mosul-Haifa pipeline that was in use prior to 1948. During the War of Independence, the Iraqis stopped the flow of oil to Haifa and the pipeline fell into disrepair over the years.

The National Infrastructure Ministry has recently conducted research indicating that construction of a 42-inch diameter pipeline between Kirkuk and Haifa would cost about $400,000 per kilometer. The old Mosul-Haifa pipeline was only 8 inches in diameter.

National Infrastructure Minister Yosef Paritzky said yesterday that the port of Haifa is an attractive destination for Iraqi oil and that he plans to discuss this matter with the U.S. secretary of energy during his planned visit to Washington next month. Paritzky added that the plan depends on Jordan's consent and that Jordan would receive a transit fee for allowing the oil to piped through its territory. The minister noted, however, that "due to pan-Arab concerns, it will be hard for the Jordanians to agree to the flow of Iraqi oil via Jordan and Israel."

Sources in Jerusalem confirmed yesterday that the Americans are looking into the possibility of laying a new pipeline via Jordan and Israel. (There is also a pipeline running via Syria that has not been used in some three decades.)

Iraqi oil is now being transported via Turkey to a small Mediterranean port near the Syrian border. The transit fee collected by Turkey is an important source of revenue for the country. This line has been damaged by sabotage twice in recent weeks and is presently out of service.

In response to rumors about the possible Kirkuk-Mosul-Haifa pipeline, Turkey has warned Israel that it would regard this development as a serious blow to Turkish-Israeli relations.

Sources in Jerusalem suggest that the American hints about the alternative pipeline are part of an attempt to apply pressure on Turkey.

Iraq is one of the world's largest oil producers, with the potential of reaching about 2.5 million barrels a day. Oil exports were halted after the Gulf War in 1991 and then were allowed again on a limited basis (1.5 million barrels per day) to finance the import of food and medicines. Iraq is currently exporting several hundred thousand barrels of oil per day.

During his visit to Washington in about two weeks, Paritzky also plans to discuss the possibility of U.S. and international assistance for joint Israeli-Palestinian projects in the areas of energy and infrastructure, natural gas, desalination and electricity.

© Copyright 2003 Ha'aretz (israeli newspaper)

I cant imagine this going down too well in the Arab world and it does kind of consolidate suspicions about the war profiteering

Hobbes

Date on that report is old, and it is unlikely it is going to happen.

Turkey pipeline is being attacked in Iraq, so you can imagine one going to Israel is going to be like.

Apart from that it is looking more and more US is getting Israel to attack its next country on it's "Axis of Evil" score card.

If Syria is hit you can see this turning into a world war, with a certain country ready with 200-300 nukes primed at thier neighbours.

bonkey

Originally posted by Hobbes
Date on that report is old

Which just goes to show that the US never had any long-term plans to gain control of the Iraqi oil-fields......

jc

Victor

Actually I wouldn't read too much into the Ha'aretz article. AFAIK Saudi Arabia already has a pipeline through Israel, so it isn't unprecented.

It should also be noted that Israel and Turkey have defence cooperation agreements.

mr_angry

Originally posted by Victor
Actually I wouldn't read too much into the Ha'aretz article. ARAIK Saudi Arabia already has a pipeline through Israel, so it isn't unprecented.

It should also be noted that Israel and Turkey have defence cooperation agreements.

Its one thing having an existing agreement between 2 soverign countries, but having an invading force, supposedly representing the "free" world, deliberately switching the route from a nation which has done absolutely nothing untoward during the conflit, and to their best buddies instead? That kind of stinks. Of course, it hasn't happened yet, but this kind of plan would have to go through a massive feasability study, perhaps leading to a delay like we might be seeing at the moment.

bonkey

Originally posted by Victor
Actually I wouldn't read too much into the Ha'aretz article.

Because its Ha'aretz, or for some other reason?

A google (at the time) turned up several other papers such as (IIRC) www.guardian.co.uk which were also running the story.

jc