What is really going on in the middle east?

What is the motive of all of this? Why US is so eager to submit the whole of middle east under its command.

Is it not so that the US tries to stir situation where it wants? That is to control one of the richest oil territories on earth?

What would be the next step in the US led compaign of oil dominance? Iran?

Can we have some facts and figures on just how much friggin oil is stored in there?

I dont have facts about this , but i believe america is picking fights in the middle east because it NEEDS the oil and it has to resort to fantasies about WMDs to get into a country to secure access to its own financial stability and future.
without oil , tankers will stop , cars will stop , people wont be able to get to work , factories will stop , wall street will stop , economy will stop , america will stop.

There are so many ideas about alternative energies , but america is myopic ( maybe that should read MY OPEC ), and cant see beyond its own nose to safeguard its own future by funding the research now for a better energy solution , but they continue to let the OPEC nations strangle them with rising prices.
To america , oil = money = survival , an thats what i believe the real issue is.

Having said that , I also believe that when they ( the haters )touch Israel , it will be as though they are fighting God himself.

Originally posted by Freeman
What is the motive of all of this? Why US is so eager to submit the whole of middle east under its command.

After 911, when the US was attacked be radical islamist terorrists, the US needed to reorganize the geopolitical situation in the middle east, to rip up the 'root' causes of terrorism; replacing dictators and tyrannies with democratic governments that don't support, supply, and protect terrorist organizations.

That is to control one of the richest oil territories on earth?

Then why hasn't the US actually gotten control of iraqi oil? Why invade iraq, when saddam would probably give the US all of his oil as long as they let him have more military power?

What would be the next step in the US led compaign of oil dominance? Iran?

Or venezula or saudi arabia or any other gulf state. If the US was that desperate to get oil, why wouldn't it drill the Anwar, or loosen the restrictions on drilling in the Gulf of Mexico?

Can we have some facts and figures on just how much friggin oil is stored in there?

What difference would that make? There's a significant amount. It'd be easier and cheaper to rip up US regulations that limit oil drilling, if oil is what was wanted, but hey, there's definitly a lot in the mid east.

america is picking fights in the middle east because it NEEDS the oil

Then why embargo iranian oil? Why have trade restrictions on iraq, pre-war? And why is it that oil prices have gone up and oil supply have gone down since the US got involved in iraq?

War doesn't help oil trade, peace does. Oil mongers would be interested in peace. US oil companies woudl be able to outcompete and underhand any other oil company in teh world, in a situation where there is peace, not where they ahve to worry about terorists blowing up oil piplines and executing rig workers.

I don't really believe the oil theory (ie, oil was the main reason for invading Iraq), but, I don't think oil should be completely discounted either.. it should be viewed in combination with other factors...

Originally posted by Nygdan
Then why hasn't the US actually gotten control of iraqi oil? Why invade iraq, when saddam would probably give the US all of his oil as long as they let him have more military power?

Events have made obtaining the oil more difficult than expected. Iraq was supposed to be easier than it turned out, as many administration officials have admitted by now. But before invading Kuwait (a much more lucrative and reliabile source of oil) this may even have been possible.

Or venezula or saudi arabia or any other gulf state. If the US was that desperate to get oil, why wouldn't it drill the Anwar, or loosen the restrictions on drilling in the Gulf of Mexico?

Good point. But invading Iraq kills two birds with stone. You get forward positioning and the oil with the Iraq invasion, but most importantly (and this was my own non-holistic theory-of-choice for the Iraq war), vindication of the necon beliefs in the viability of unilateral interventionism and the irrationality of the Vietnam Syndrome. (If it works.) Plus, the need for facts and figures might just be relavant...

What difference would that make? There's a significant amount. It'd be easier and cheaper to rip up US regulations that limit oil drilling, if oil is what was wanted, but hey, there's definitly a lot in the mid east.

...because the grades of oil in the middle east might be more suitable to our refining capabilities, and the amounts might make Venezuela's reserves and the Anwar project seem trivial. But, more importantly, we are seeking new reserves. We have made the effort to drill ANWAR, we are worried about Venezuela, and we are examining sources of oil we previously did not because of political impossibility or risk... just look at our renewed interest in West Africa. Our oil search is not limited to one "theatre."

Then why embargo iranian oil? Why have trade restrictions on iraq, pre-war? And why is it that oil prices have gone up and oil supply have gone down since the US got involved in iraq?

War doesn't help oil trade, peace does. Oil mongers would be interested in peace. US oil companies woudl be able to outcompete and underhand any other oil company in teh world, in a situation where there is peace, not where they ahve to worry about terorists blowing up oil piplines and executing rig workers.

Profit! It's not about thirst for oil alone... embargo Iranian oil if it's too risky a source and they're nationalizing our industries, so they can't get a slice of the pie. As for Iraq, well, again, we chose Kuwait when push came to shove.

Maybe they would be able to compete, but it's not about profit alone, either... it's the combination of strategic interest and profit. Look at our reaction to China's recent bid
for Unocal... we cited the need for energy security as a rationale to exclude them from a free-market transaction most oil companies actually wanted them to carry out, for the sake of future Chinese business. Oil companies say, we could have competed! Government says, we need energy security, we can't be reliant on foreign companies for our oil! It's both these factors acting in conjunction with each other (and more, no doubt, which I've left out) which produce our foreign policy as it regards oil. It's not enough to obtain oil via the marketplace... it's about controlling the oil as well. In this regard the interests of the nation as seen by the government are different (perhaps longer term in scope) than the companies themselves.



[edit on 1-5-2006 by koji_K]

There's always the fact that the Project For A New American Century predicted all of this even before Bush got into office. The first on the list was Iraq. Then came Iran, with Syria looking a likely next candidate.

Most ominously, this PNAC document described four "Core Missions" for the
American military. The two central requirements are for American forces to
"fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars," and
to "perform the 'constabulary' duties associated with shaping the security
environment in critical regions." Note well that PNAC does not want America
to be prepared to fight simultaneous major wars. That is old school. In
order to bring this plan to fruition, the military must fight these wars
one way or the other to establish American dominance for all to see.

Here is a starter article that introduces the PNAC group and its aims.

And I rather think that the neo-cons believed it was going to be much easier to get the oil out. But they went in and asset-stripped Iraq to such an extent that the real agenda there became obvious and now the Iraqis just want the US out.

Rich23, thankyou for saving me the time to look up a link. I wish it weren't true, but it is. Back in 2003, I really, really wanted to believe that soldiers were fighting for the "American Way of Life", you know freedom and democracy. However, my doubts were supported when a general said yes to the AWoL being oil, yes he said oil on a national news show. Then, yes, it was admitted that the war was elective. Believing in Iraq is like believing in the Easter Bunny.

Originally posted by Nygdan

After 911, when the US was attacked be radical islamist terorrists, the US needed to reorganize the geopolitical situation in the middle east, to rip up the 'root' causes of terrorism; replacing dictators and tyrannies with democratic governments that don't support, supply, and protect terrorist organizations.

yes but you dont do that by pissing off 200 000 000 Arabs and 800 000 000 other muslims all over the world.

its a very bad idea to make 200 million people angry.

its doesn't make economic sense; nor political sense. you are then in a no win situation.

it is simply going to crate more hatred towards Americans and therefore more 9/11 type attacks.

thats something the US must avoid doing.

what needs to be done is hearts and minds have to won. some real and sincere efforts have to be made by Bush. otherwise we will witness more and more terrorism. sooner or later, terrorists will get hold of nukes and do washington or Tel Aviv.

we know that bin laden and his gang love invasions by US because he uses this to recruit more extremists who are thirsty for American and Jewish blood.

US acts of aggression provide fuel to Al Qaeda. They live and grow by the stupidity from Washington.




[edit on 2-5-2006 by mr conspiracy]

Originally posted by Nygdan
After 911, when the US was attacked be radical islamist terorrists, the US needed to reorganize the geopolitical situation in the middle east, to rip up the 'root' causes of terrorism; replacing dictators and tyrannies with democratic governments that don't support, supply, and protect terrorist organizations.

Except that doing so destabilizes the region. In the anarchy of a post-war nation, various factions rise up seeking power. Most often they turn on each other. Eventually they will seek to involve their neighbors. The conditions of a postwar nation engender a nihlistic view that there is little left worth living for, as well as engendering a need for some cause to wrap one's life around - creating the perfect breeding ground for murderous extremists. Tearing apart a nation causes terrorism

Then why hasn't the US actually gotten control of iraqi oil? Why invade iraq, when saddam would probably give the US all of his oil as long as they let him have more military power?

America does not control the oil of Iraq. Our petroleum industry is not nationalized. Private corporations control that oil. This gives them control over the supply. They can open and close the nozzles as their pocketbooks demand. The laws of supply and demand merge with the reality of monopolization - When you control all of the supply, you can charge whatever prices you want and there will still be demand.

Or venezula or saudi arabia or any other gulf state. If the US was that desperate to get oil, why wouldn't it drill the Anwar, or loosen the restrictions on drilling in the Gulf of Mexico?

For one, ANWR and the gulf have nowhere near the oil supply of the Persian Gulf nations. Additionally, the infrastructure is not there - Roads would need to be built to ANWR, drilling, building rigs in the gulf. All this takes years. On the other hand, teh oil vields of Iraq are already explored, there's already rigs and pumps there. Why not Saudi Arabia or Venezuela (or Nigeria, or even Russia)? Becuse Saddam was already the American boogeyman. For the last decade, American press and politicians had been painting this crippled tin-pot fool as a veritable Antichrist to the American people. Do you think there would have been as much support to overthrow Olusegun Obasanjo in Nigeria? 'course not.

What difference would that make? There's a significant amount. It'd be easier and cheaper to rip up US regulations that limit oil drilling, if oil is what was wanted, but hey, there's definitly a lot in the mid east.

Yes, but then there wouldn't be any war profiteering to be had, now would there?

Then why embargo iranian oil? Why have trade restrictions on iraq, pre-war? And why is it that oil prices have gone up and oil supply have gone down since the US got involved in iraq?

We embargo Iranian oil because we don't want them to have money. To America, Iran with American money is more dangerous than America without Iranian oil. Why are prices for oil going up while supply goes down? Well as I just said, there is currently a monopolization of Iraqi oil by American companies. You don't think they're in the business to give you a full tank of gas for a nickel, do you? 'Course not. They control the supply and will slow production to a trickle until the point it's no longer profitable.

War doesn't help oil trade, peace does. Oil mongers would be interested in peace. US oil companies woudl be able to outcompete and underhand any other oil company in teh world, in a situation where there is peace, not where they ahve to worry about terorists blowing up oil piplines and executing rig workers.

But peace means the oil companies have to deal with foreign powers to secure their supply. War means they can bid the American government for control, at much, much better rates.

We embargo Iranian oil because we don't want them to have money. To America, Iran with American money is more dangerous than America without Iranian oil. Why are prices for oil going up while supply goes down? Well as I just said, there is currently a monopolization of Iraqi oil by American companies. You don't think they're in the business to give you a full tank of gas for a nickel, do you? 'Course not. They control the supply and will slow production to a trickle until the point it's no longer profitable.

afaik, the us is not trying to push for a un resolution to embargo iranian oil.
even if the us did, it would never get thru bcoz china is one of the biggest importers of iranian oil and they have the veto card...china needs iranian oil.

"To America, Iran with American money is more dangerous than America without Iranian oil."

america doesnt not buy iranian oil...there are no us oil companies in iran due to the govt ban...and also iran plans to sell their oil in euro not usd...

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox

Originally posted by Nygdan
After 911, when the US was attacked be radical islamist terorrists, the US needed to reorganize the geopolitical situation in the middle east, to rip up the 'root' causes of terrorism; replacing dictators and tyrannies with democratic governments that don't support, supply, and protect terrorist organizations.

Except that doing so destabilizes the region.

Napoleon's invasion of germany destabilized the region. The American Revolution destabilized the region. Garibaldi's risorgimento destablized the region. Today, they are all liberal democratic republics, and THATS with kings being installed after some of those revolutions.

conditions of a postwar nation engender a nihlistic view that there is little left worth living for,

The people of iran and iraq DO, in fact, have little to live for, post invasion, except for involvement in a democratic movement to stablize their society. Force the interests, force the results, force the sitaution.

as well as engendering a need for some cause to wrap one's life around - creating the perfect breeding ground for murderous extremists. Tearing apart a nation causes terrorism

Then let there be terrorism, in iran, and in iraq. Not a well supplied international cabal of terrorist networks, trained in iraq, funded in Iran. Ahmedinejad says that he has 40,000 suicide bombers ready to go. They won't have a state to give them passports. They won't have a nation to seek rest in. They won't have a government to watch after their families. They'll have to wade through the Tigris and Euphrates to blow themselves up at a wall in the middle of occupied Palestine.

America does not control the oil of Iraq. Our petroleum industry is not nationalized. Private corporations control that oil. This gives them control over the supply. They can open and close the nozzles as their pocketbooks demand. The laws of supply and demand merge with the reality of monopolization - When you control all of the supply, you can charge whatever prices you want and there will still be demand.

Again, why was military invasion, the disruption of the oil industry, and the constant reality of attacks on the oil infrastructure, the most likely way for 'evil oil magnates' to go about getting this control? Hussein was the US ally, so long as the US equipped him. The west gave him VX, and he attacked Iran, rather than focusing on Israel. The man is practically demonstrably corruptible. If evil industrial puppet-masters in the US wanted Iraqi oil, they'd buy it with 'fake' greenbacks, or give him more cattle prods to brutalize his own people with. Hell, they'd've backed him invading the overly liberal Kuwait, in order to further centralize their control through their proxy.

So, NO, it doesn't stand to reason that the US invaded Iraq to 'get that oil'. The US WAS paranoid about a region filled with dictatorships that had thrown an attack that killed nearly 3,000 of its own citizens, nearly broke the back of its economy, and demolished one of its landmark buildings. The US reacted to 911 by seeking to address what everyone else is calling the 'root causes of terrorism',state support and tyranny. In order to address that, the US is re-organizing the middle east into a new order.

For one, ANWR and the gulf have nowhere near the oil supply of the Persian Gulf nations.

It still has a tremendous supply of oil, if there were these crazy oil sucking madmen launching wars halfway across the world for billions of dolllars, don't you think that they'd screw over some caribou or build a pipeline??? Whats it matter if it'd take 'years'? Its years since the end of the conventional phase of the iraq war and there's still not a steady supply of iraqi oil, AND the US might pull out of the region entirely, in which case shell or exxon ain't going to be able to pump any fields.


Additionally, the infrastructure is not there - Roads would need to be built to ANWR, drilling, building rigs in the gulf. All this takes years. On the other hand, teh oil vields of Iraq are already explored, there's already rigs and pumps there. Why not Saudi Arabia or Venezuela (or Nigeria, or even Russia)? Becuse Saddam was already the American boogeyman. For the last decade, American press and politicians had been painting this crippled tin-pot fool
He was a regional power, able to invade the Gulf Itself, and was only stopped because of Coalition intervention, that is to say, onyl stopped when the sole superpowre on the planet and its alliance stepped in. Thats not a 'tin-pot' dictator.

Do you think there would have been as much support to overthrow Olusegun Obasanjo in Nigeria?

How many islamist terrorists are trained and funded out of Nigeria? How many nigerians were crashing jetliners into buildings in the US?????

We embargo Iranian oil because we don't want them to have money.

Right, we're acting against the interests of an apolitical cold corporate flow of global oil.

Why are prices for oil going up while supply goes down?

Because of the fundamental operation of the market. The less product there is, the more you can charge for it. Combine that with a very high demand for the product, and you will see price increases.

But peace means the oil companies have to deal with foreign powers to secure their supply.

Who cares? The oil flows, they are the BTO's in the markey, they get rich.

War means they can bid the American government for control, at much, much better rates.

Assuming, of course, that there is any oil flowing, because the infrastructure hasn't been destroyed by the very nation you are attacking, that you can get people in that country to operate the fields, that you can prevent partisans from shutting down production, that you can safely accumulate the oil, load it onto ships, and get it out of the region, all the while assuming that the US even stays in the region unitl things settle down, and if they leave, then the Oil Companies are screwed.

Peace is good for business, especially the oil business. Having an entire region of the world up in flames makes it more expensive and less profitable to extract and sell the stuff. If Oil Companies ran the US, there wouldn't've been an iraq war, and Saddam would've been given anything he wanted so long as he opened up the country to exploitation.

its a very bad idea to make 200 million people angry.

Not when they're weak, powerless, poor, and unable to attack you en mass.

it is simply going to crate more hatred towards Americans and therefore more 9/11 type attacks.

Unlikely, since 911 required a great deal of planning and support from nations like afghanistan, and that Iran is one of the major funders of terrorism in the middle east. Cut off the heads individually, and you get nowhere, sever the root of the beast, the money, and it will die. People are malleable. They can be influenced. They have to be influenced in order to be persuaded to blow themselves up by some guy that isn't going to blow himself up, that requires an organization, and an organization requires money. In this case, a large part of it is Iranian money.

what needs to be done is hearts and minds have to won.

When you have someone by the throat, you can control the heart and mind by cutting off the oxygen supply. THe US is hated, pre-911, post-911, in the middle east, and across the world. The US doesn't have the ability to engage in thoughtful discussion with entire populations of people in order to persuade them not to attack it. And, honestly, do you really think that some other president would be able to have sweet-talked the middle east into not attacking it? Maybe if they bribed them with flayed yehudi skin, then it might work.

US acts of aggression provide fuel to Al Qaeda.

Thats why the acts of aggression need to be so destructive and violent that they destroy anyone seeking to replicate al-qaida.

sooner or later, terrorists will get hold of nukes and do washington or Tel Aviv.

And then pretty much every city in the middle east will be nuked in return and we can all chalk it up to experience.

Originally posted by mr conspiracy
its a very bad idea to make 200 million people angry.

its doesn't make economic sense; nor political sense. you are then in a no win situation.

Nor does it make any sense to make angry nearly 300 million Americans, huh?
Just ask the Taliban or the jackal on the run and in hiding Osama Bin Laden or for that matter, Saddam...






seekerof

The main issue here concerns stopping certain oil transactions from being bought in anything but dollars. Fighting and securing oil for one's allies, such as Israel as well as controlling the oil to control future competitors from rising and being able to challenge the US. The US is also planning on breaking down the middle east into smaller states so that the nations in the region can't challenge western hegemony.

[edit on 5-5-2006 by NeoQuest]