tex Posted April 11, 2003 Share Posted April 11, 2003 Q: What do you think led to the current war. What's the oil link? A: Look at what's in Iraq and what's undeveloped. Iraq represents a major insurance package against any kind of political overhaul in Saudi Arabia or problems elsewhere in the Middle East. Look at the policy that people like Rumsfeld and others were recommending in the 1990s leading up to this war and they certainly cited the threat of Saddam Hussein to regional oil supplies as a cause for war. Certainly if the Bechtel pipeline had been built, the course of Iraqi-U.S. relations would have been much different. The failure of that pipeline set into motion a much different course for those relations. Q: So having control of Iraqi oil is still a key issue? A: It's the sole reason why the Persian Gulf region and Iraq have been a United States national security concern for so long. It's not geography. Q: Do you expect to see the Aqaba pipeline revived? A: Maybe, maybe not. I've seen reports now of Israel looking to build a pipeline from Iraq to the Golan Heights. It's not the same project as Bechtel's Aqaba pipeline idea. Bechtel asked the Commerce Department to keep the Aqaba pipeline registered as an active project for years, but it's probably less necessary now for the U.S. and Bechtel. The pipelines to Saudi Arabia and Turkey give an alternative route for oil to the Persian Gulf, and Bechtel gets into Iraq as a contractor to rebuild Iraq after the war. Right now, according to an article in the Wall Street Journal, Bechtel is one of the two finalists for the Iraq reconstruction job, along with Parson's group, which has Halliburton as a secondary contractor. Halliburton is Vice President Cheney's former company [Note: Cheney is still receiving payments from Halliburton]. That was reported in the Wall Street Journal today (April 2). They're both on the short list. Halliburton sort of stepped back for obvious reasons but they're still in there with Parsons. Q: Aside from the unseemly picture of two well connected companies getting an inside track for all that post-war business in Iraq, why do you find the Bechtel involvement in this situation so troubling? A: Schultz worked at Bechtel. So did (Reagan Defense Secretary) Caspar Weinberger. There were a lot of Bechtel people in the government in the '80s at the same time that the Iraqi's were gassing the Iranis. The same people are now formulating the plans for a coming U.S. occupation of Iraq, and in turn, the same people will be given the spoils of war--whether it's Parsons and Halliburton or Bechtel. It's all kind of circular back to the 1980s, you know -- completing unfinished business--getting American companies back in there after their being shut out since 1991 and the first Gulf War. Bechtel was also listed by Iraq in its report to the U.N. weapons inspectors as one of the companies that helped supply Saddam with equipment and knowledge for making chemical weapons. Bechtel in the 1980s was prime contractor on PC 1 and 2, two petrochemical plants constructed in Iraq which had dual-use capacity. So I guess the bottom line is that the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld squad are now holding Saddam Hussein accountable for chemical weapons of mass destruction--the same weapons which these same officials ignored in pursuit of the Aqaba pipeline project. And now we are going to reward the pipeline promoter with massive contracts for reconstruction resulting from this policy. Q: This all seems like a kind of mini-Pentagon Papers, laying out the early roots of this war. A: It's not as much of a blue-print as was the Pentagon Papers, but these memos and documents do show how business gets done in Washington, how it was conducted in the 1980s and how it's probably being conducted now behind closed doors under secret bidding processes. And it shows how the origins of American conflict with Iraq involve control of and access to oil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted April 11, 2003 Share Posted April 11, 2003 ??????? Who was having this conversation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tex Posted April 11, 2003 Author Share Posted April 11, 2003 Q: David Lindorff A: Jim Valette Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted April 11, 2003 Share Posted April 11, 2003 Sorry man, I dont know who they are. Can you give some background and insight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tex Posted April 11, 2003 Author Share Posted April 11, 2003 Don't know much about them. There is more at the linked site. http://www.counterpunch.org/lindorff04092003.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted April 11, 2003 Share Posted April 11, 2003 Well that certainly explains alot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tex Posted April 11, 2003 Author Share Posted April 11, 2003 It really does. I'm guessing the diplomatic cables just declassified by the National Archives and the internal communications of Bechtel sited by the article actually do exist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codeorama Posted April 11, 2003 Share Posted April 11, 2003 It's all about oil..........:laugh: :laugh: Sorry Kilmer... I had to do that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.