Talk:SourceWatch main page/archive

The main page says: "As the United States moves closer to a unilateral declaration    of war with Iraq..."

This is in itself disinformation. The war has been going on for the last twelve years. The UN-approved "no fly zone" and interdiction of oil tankers are acts of war, whatever one may think of the USA, the current situation, or USA foreign policy in general.

Furthermore "unilateral" is also disinformation. No matter how wrong the USA may be in this, there are at least 30 allies as of this writing (19 MAR 03, eve of invasion).

The United Nations as a unit, and France, Germany, and Belgium, as post-WWII allies of the USA do not concur. This does not make the USA soon to be invasion "unilateral". The USA may be wrong or right, but not "unilateral"


 * The term "coalition of the willing" seems applicable to any situation, even if the USA has just forced a puny nation dependent on a military base along for the ride. So the term "coalition forces" can be used just as the British used to say "British Empire forces".  "unilateral" = "coalition" and implies that even if one has brought a country (like Spain) along, then one is doing so based on pressure on its elites and not the support of its populace (which is outraged over the loss of a journalist due to seemingly ignorant or malicious attack on the Palestine Hotel during the invasion, see free press)

What was here before (unedited): So how important is oil? We've seen (or carried) signs at protest marches saying things like "how many lives per gallon?" But why would the US go to all the trouble of engineering a war over Iraqi oil? Consider: 1)Venusuela has more oil than Iraq; 2) Siberia has vast untapped oil reserves that are now accessible since the removal of the Taliban and the installation of a Western-friendly regime in Afghanistan; 3) Kuwait pumps oil at the beck and call of the US out of the same fields that are in Iraq (so the oil is essentially at the disposal of the US anyway). So what makes a war in Iraq so attractive to an American administration?

The strategic importance of Iraq is not in its oil but its supplies of fresh water. There are two rivers that supply nearly all the fresh water to the Arabian penninsula: the Euphrates and the Tigris. Both of these rivers are sourced in Iraq. When Saudi Arabia runs out of money (which, if the Saudi royal family continues to spend in their current fashion, will be sooner, not later), they will no longer find friends in Washington. But they will find Washington in control of their fresh water. An American-friendly regime in Iraq will find military resources at their disposal for the construction of dams at the sources of the Euphrates and Tigris rivers: expect these dams to be announced as part of a massive public works scheme to "kickstart" the post-Saddam Iraqi economy. The stated purposes for these dams will more than likely be electricity generation: even Washington cannot be quite so bare-faced as to not hide their true motives.


 * This is not really true. The Saudis get their fresh water by desalinating and pumping seawater inland, which works find if you havelots of natural gas to burn off tt can't be exported (as they do).  Water is an energy problem, in general.

Not that there isn't another oil angle here, the Caspian Sea oil. This great oil reserve is still pretty much untapped, and in the future it could become very important. When it does, America will have to compete with Russia for it. Obviously, then, being able to use Iraq as an American military base would have its uses. But the idea that America wants to steal Iraq's oil is so obvious to all that not even America would dare touch it and bring down world opinion on its head. More likely they will seek to be in charge of spending it on Iraqi's "behalf" after they win the war.

How about a new heading on the main page: religious groups? --Erik 16:51 18 Apr 2003 (EDT)


 * Didn't even notice I had sysop rights. Added. --Erik 17:01 18 Apr 2003 (EDT)