Ted Koppel on Iraq

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sun Dec 25, 2005 6:23 pm

I watched Meet the Press today. Ted Koppel, now retired newsman, is finally allowed to say what he believes. It makes sense, even if you completely disregard the War on Terror like he did.

MR. RUSSERT: What do you see?

MR. KOPPEL: What's intriguing to me, Tim, is we're still talking about the war as though it were in a vacuum, and we're still talking about victory and what is to be achieved as though it were in a vacuum. And the one thing that we are not talking about, because it somehow seems indelicate or unpolitic or even inappropriate, is the simple fact of the matter that, while we did not go to war because of Iraq's oil, we did, in fact, go to war because it is absolutely essential to the national interest, not only of this country but also of the Europeans and of the Japanese, that the Persian Gulf remains stable. We have--when I say "we" I mean U.S. administrations going back to the Eisenhower administration--have been intervening in the Persian Gulf in one form or another--we overthrew the Iranian prime minister, Mossadeq--that is, the CIA did--precisely because we felt he was too close to the Communist Party at that time and we were afraid what that would mean if Iran became a Communist state.

As long as we had the shah of Iran there, he was our surrogate. In fact, you may remember the Nixon policy was that the shah would be our surrogate in the Persian Gulf. When the shah was overthrown, we shifted our chips onto the Saudi board, and then it became the House of Saud that became our representative. The Saudis are, indeed, troubled. The royal family of Saudi Arabia is in deep trouble. Therefore, we need to have a stable Iraq in order to guarantee a stable Persian Gulf, and the name of that game is oil. Nobody talks about that.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Mon Dec 26, 2005 7:18 am

Combine that with BTS' idea about surrounding & containing Iran, and I think we have a pretty good idea of why we attacked/invaded/freed/occupied/enslaved/democratized Iraq.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Mon Dec 26, 2005 5:46 pm

jimmyjude wrote: Mostly just the messenger.

I don't think that I would listen to Goebbels either.

But if you like the liberal media bias more power to you "sweetie".Okay. I guess not everyone can decide for themselves. Too busy, I guess. It's good you've found someone you can trust to do it for you. :-6

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Mon Dec 26, 2005 8:14 pm

Far Rider wrote: So is it about oil persay or is it about democracy?

Seems to me, stabilizing the countries as best we can is in the best interest all around.

So I disagree that the objective was and is Oil in and of itself. But rather the stabilization of the globe to continue our interests and the interests of all peoples in general... oil happens to be one factor in the equation that is true.

Koppel makes it seem senister, when I do not believe it to be.

Perspective?I think it's all tangled inextricably now. If we didn't need oil AND the extremists weren't hellbent on killing us, we'd let them destroy each other as they're doing in Africa.

Koppel stated it quite matter-of-fact. He actually made it seem sensible that we were there to stabilize the region, without ever mentioning the murderers. It wasn't until I read the transcript that I realize what he actually said.

milkyway · Post by **milkyway** » Wed Dec 28, 2005 9:57 am

"If we didn't need oil AND the extremists weren't hellbent on killing us, we'd let them destroy each other as they're doing in Africa."

I agree with what is above from another member. It is all about oil and with two oilmen in the White House, they made sure of that. We need to become independent of oil except for lubrication purposes. If we only needed oil for lubrication purposes, heck, we might even be able to supply all our own oil ! That to me, is the entire essence of Bush's elective war in Iraq, other than benefiting Israel of course. Bush should have paid attention to the course of events in Afghanistan, not Iraq; Saddam would have kept the lid on terror there and that is for darn sure. I like Don Imus' solution: put Saddam back in charge and you will see the foreign terrorists disappear in one big hurry.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Wed Dec 28, 2005 10:24 am

milkyway wrote: "If we didn't need oil AND the extremists weren't hellbent on killing us, we'd let them destroy each other as they're doing in Africa."

I agree with what is above from another member. It is all about oil and with two oilmen in the White House, they made sure of that. We need to become independent of oil except for lubrication purposes. If we only needed oil for lubrication purposes, heck, we might even be able to supply all our own oil ! That to me, is the entire essence of Bush's elective war in Iraq, other than benefiting Israel of course. Bush should have paid attention to the course of events in Afghanistan, not Iraq; Saddam would have kept the lid on terror there and that is for darn sure. I like Don Imus' solution: put Saddam back in charge and you will see the foreign terrorists disappear in one big hurry.Then you don't agree with me. I specifically mentioned BOTH oil AND the extremists.

Not to be self-centered or nuttin', but if we do as Imus says, what do you think happens to us?

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Wed Dec 28, 2005 10:25 am

Pardon my ill manners.

Welcome to ForumGarden! :-6