"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen."

Tuesday, 19 April 2011

Secret Memos: Iraq War/Oil Stitch-up

So...what's new? It's just more proof that Blair & Co were the most despicable, self-serving, traitorous b@st@rds we always said they were.
The Foreign Office invited BP in on 6 November 2002 to talk about opportunities in Iraq "post regime change". Its minutes state: "Iraq is the big oil prospect. BP is desperate to get in there and anxious that political deals should not deny them the opportunity."

After another meeting, this one in October 2002, the Foreign Office's Middle East director at the time, Edward Chaplin, noted: "Shell and BP could not afford not to have a stake in [Iraq] for the sake of their long-term future... We were determined to get a fair slice of the action for UK companies in a post-Saddam Iraq."

Whereas BP was insisting in public that it had "no strategic interest" in Iraq, in private it told the Foreign Office that Iraq was "more important than anything we've seen for a long time"...

...Five months before the March 2003 invasion, Baroness Symons, then the Trade Minister, told BP that the Government believed British energy firms should be given a share of Iraq's enormous oil and gas reserves as a reward for Tony Blair's military commitment to US plans for regime change.

The papers show that Lady Symons agreed to lobby the Bush administration on BP's behalf because the oil giant feared it was being "locked out" of deals that Washington was quietly striking with US, French and Russian governments and their energy firms.

Minutes of a meeting with BP, Shell and BG (formerly British Gas) on 31 October 2002 read: "Baroness Symons agreed that it would be difficult to justify British companies losing out in Iraq in that way if the UK had itself been a conspicuous supporter of the US government throughout the crisis."
Divying up the oil reserves seems to be the only post-invasion planning they did and, needless to say, none of these documents were submitted to the Iraq Inquiry.  Blair used our troops as his Private Army and British blood is still being spilled for corporate interests.

Tony Blair, 6 February 2003: "Let me just deal with the oil thing because... the oil conspiracy theory is honestly one of the most absurd when you analyse it. The fact is that, if the oil that Iraq has were our concern, I mean we could probably cut a deal with Saddam tomorrow in relation to the oil. It's not the oil that is the issue, it is the weapons..."

PS Talking about wars, don't forget this: EU awaits UN sanction for EU ground troops to Libya. "I would appreciate it if the EU could take the initiative on the delivery of humanitarian aid," the Nato secretary-general, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, said last week. "Nato has no intention to play a leading role." Yet they still deny that the EU has an army.


  1. Where Libya is concerned GV, don't forget the Barcelona Declaration!


    Wheels within wheels here......

    On Iraq, point taken re Blair - as you say what's new?

  2. It's pretty obvious they do. I'm sure Qaddafi will be goaded into attacking them, so they can justify further action.

  3. Indeed, Mr W. Bigwigs within the EC frequently refer to North Africa as 'the Southern Mediterranean' already. Plus they've had various contact points/offices/job centres set up for a cple of years now.

    It's time politicians were held to account.

  4. Hi Trestin. They're just arguing about the small details - you know, like 'can troops return fire if fired upon?' That sort of 'small' thing. They're so damned unscrupulous. It's got mission creep written all over it.


Related Posts with Thumbnails