Quote:
Originally posted by herbcrawler
Plus the news coming out that the US are planning to stay there for many years after the seemingly inevitable war
|
In the OPEC meeting I mentioned, one high-ranking official who was interviewed between sittings let slip that the period that was passing the lips of some US gov officials regarding their preferred/planned length of 'stay' was 8 years.
It's good to see that the UN are planning to 'relieve' control of Iraq from the US military after only months (from the end of the conflict).
It will(?) be interesting to see just how much control the US is 'visibly willing' to give up once they have their feet under the table.
The UN have also publically declared that they seek no direct control over Iraq's oil resources.
When Annan/UN says it, I believe it.
It's a shame that messrs Bush and Blair don't have the same level of credibility.
But then those two shonky dealers have no-one to blame for their lack of credibility but themselves.
Btw, Marko, do you have any online sources where Bush dismisses an interest in the oil?
I'm not doubting you, just interested to see the comments he's made in context.
---
I also of the opinion that oil is not the driving force behind events.
Given that Isreal is becoming increasingly marginalised by its steadfast allegiance to the US, the US desparately needs another foothold in the region in order to dliute the opposition building against them in that part of the world.
While oil is probably less urgent to the US than (pro-US) stability in the region at this point in time, the opportunity to secure some of Iraq's vast oil resources for US companies goes along way to guilding the lily.