Apparently not. Looks more like an assumption. But saddam supporters have never been known care much about "truth." While terrorists are trying to blow up one's country, he's looking for an excuse to take the heat off them, again To busy to be worrying about what saddam's supporters are wondering. If you were truly interested in oil, here's some outrage and truth to ignore: http://www.mega.nu:8080/ampp/memri_iraq_oil_vouchers.html http://www.heritage.org/Research/Iraq/wm217.cfm
Maybe you should actually read the story, here is the link again for you - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/6272168.stm I didnt realise that the BBC were Saddam supporters http://www.heritage.org/Research/Iraq/wm217.cfm - What is this trying to prove, other than Iraq has lots of oil and it is valuable....
I didn't realize you are the BBC. Apparently the title and facts were beyond your ability to comprehend. Choose from one of these.
Why would the defence minister lie? Seems he told the truth and Howard (in the same boat has Bush) had to make it seem that he was in Iraq for a decent reason.
Speculation. I'd say it's a little different than an "oil voucher" or "oil for food." Those seem pretty descriptive, eh? Hard to say. Why not ask the person making the statement? I know when I fill up my car or truck at the gas/petrol station, it doesn't say "resource security" More speculation.
Speculation. Someone working in the government would speculate. The guy controlling the armed forces would speculate? I think your posts in this thread are looking more and more stupid GTech.
He does that more and more these days. Even though pretty much every man and his dog in the whole world knows that there were no WMD's he still insists of posting that thread of his where people were saying that there were, even though that proved to be wrong he still insists on posting it.
This is beyond belief. There have been no WMDs found in Iraq and Hamas did not kidnap Alan Johnston! How can you claim otherwise?
Wait for it mate, he'll post his thread where he shows all kinds of A-Holes saying "WMDs are there" when it is now a proven fact that there were none. He's already posted it at least once today I am sure that he will post it here in this thread for you. As if posting it means that there were WMD, when 99.999% of us all know that there were not.
Both are untrue. "Resource security" does not imply to me that the Aussies are stealing oil etc It implies to me that they are securing oil resources for the country of Iraq & preventing terrorist attacks on such supplies.
First let me state, I AM NOT PRO BUSH OR ANY OF THE SO CALLED ALLIES however, toopac has a point, the statement is about what is happening now and how the Aussies will go forward from here. Resource Security is IMHO about securing the te resource in the 'mess' left behind. That is why we or any other country cannot simply pull out.
It's a good job you stated that you are neutral because as soon as you disagree with any of these people they come up with the great defense of "You love Bush" or similar nonsense
References to oil 1. 2. 3. 4. I better post the link again incase you missed it.......http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/6272168.stm Can it be any more clear!!!!!
These crazy loons only read what they want to read, most people already know it's all about oil, plus don't forget the massive US Embassies being built out there to secure the US standing in a very strategic location in the Middle East. Temporary bases? LMFAO that's a joke. Most of the ass hats here are so dumbed down by FOX etc. that they so manifestly fail to see the full picture.
References to oil doesn't mean anything other than the man is talking about oil, doesn't mean he drinks it or anything. Securing oil fields for Iraq is bad? how does that mean the sole purpose for going into Iraq was to steal, take or make a profit from oil? Australia plans to maintain an undisrupted supply of oil without terrorists disrupting the supply? how does that mean the sole purpose for going into Iraq was to steal, take or make a profit from oil? Iraq is an important supplier so the oil needs to be secured, is that bad? how does that mean the sole purpose for going into Iraq was to steal, take or make a profit from oil? True people like you. It can't be any more clear if you read into it, add your own opinions & bias that you have, to anyone else it says exactly what it says.