Are they going after Iran for there oil???

page: 1
1

log in

join

posted on Sep, 26 2012 @ 10:12 AM
link   
Are they going after Iran for there oil??? Similar to Iraq? Iran was trying to sell oil in other currency other than dollars. Maybe that's also why, since the you-es hates when that happens.

Seems that's the only reason they'll go after a country now a days, is if it's got a lot of profitable resources.






posted on Sep, 26 2012 @ 10:16 AM
link   
reply to post by r2d246
 


THEIR oil is worth a lot of money!!

If you look at anything going on that is major news, it usually involves a ton of money........

Always follow the money........There is supposedly a crap ton of oil there and I wouldn't be surprised in the slightest if that plays the major factor in "reasoning" behind it all......

Money, money, money......Pretty pathetic we have to kill fellow man in order to get money!!!

Sad times we live in...



posted on Sep, 26 2012 @ 10:17 AM
link   
Of course they are. Unfortunately, China gets a big percentage of their oil from Iran. And therefor and attack on Iran would most likely be met with swift force from China. Hence why nothing has jumped off yet.



posted on Sep, 26 2012 @ 10:23 AM
link   
Oh yeah, Iraq was all about the oil we could steal. You can tell by how low the gas prices here in the states, they practically give it away. /sarcasm. Whatever is going on, it isn't about giving cheap oil to the consumers; that is sure.



posted on Sep, 26 2012 @ 10:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by DarthMuerte
Oh yeah, Iraq was all about the oil we could steal. You can tell by how low the gas prices here in the states, they practically give it away. /sarcasm. Whatever is going on, it isn't about giving cheap oil to the consumers; that is sure.


Why would it be about that?

As a monetary system fails how do you not lose all that power that the dollar gives us??

You take control of natural resources, and then even if the economy fails we can sell our refined oil to other countries at it's current value.. Most profitable to sell to who ever becomes the next reserve currency. We'd basically be sort of evening out more with China, and they wouldn't mind so much who controls Iranian oil as long as it's still pumping. Who's to say that backroom deals with China/Russia are already done, and they only support Iran in name, but secretly they'd still be fine after an attack.

See?
edit on 9/26/2012 by Dustytoad because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 26 2012 @ 10:38 AM
link   
Short of launching nuclear weapons, Russia and China are a little sparce on power projection. That means that while they have large militaries, they do not have the capabilities to support a large force outside of their own borders for any significant amount of time. Part of that's because up until recently, they haven't direclty needed too, or any where they want to power project is usually directly connected with their borders.

Since any Iran fighting will be mostly air/sea, or in and around Israel/Syria/Lebanon. They would have alot of difficulty engaging the US in those areas. We have the ability for long term force projection...they don't.

They will talk a good talk, they might even support tacitly, or in a supporting roll, but it's unlikely (although not impossible) that they would actually join any US v Iran conflict.



posted on Sep, 26 2012 @ 10:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by SrWingCommander
Short of launching nuclear weapons, Russia and China are a little sparce on power projection. That means that while they have large militaries, they do not have the capabilities to support a large force outside of their own borders for any significant amount of time. Part of that's because up until recently, they haven't direclty needed too, or any where they want to power project is usually directly connected with their borders.

Since any Iran fighting will be mostly air/sea, or in and around Israel/Syria/Lebanon. They would have alot of difficulty engaging the US in those areas. We have the ability for long term force projection...they don't.

They will talk a good talk, they might even support tacitly, or in a supporting roll, but it's unlikely (although not impossible) that they would actually join any US v Iran conflict.


Both Nations (China and Russia) have long range missile capabilities, that could easily strike any target in the Middle East. Do we really want to take that risk? Over a nation that has not threatened us? That the only reason we are even contemplating fighting against is because another tiny little nation is egging us on to fight?



posted on Sep, 26 2012 @ 11:06 AM
link   
It's about the oil, the currency they trade it for and because Iran has always been the gateway between East and West. Iran trading their oil in anything other than petrodollars puts US currency at risk of devaluation. It's the reason NATO took over Libya because Gaddafhi was trading his oil for gold only.

Strategically, having possession of Iran would keep both the Soviets and Chinese at bay and ensure they cannot exert much influence throughout the Middle East and put trade in Africa at risk of US interference in the event of war with them.

We (the US and Great Britain) having been desperate to resume our influence over Iran since the fall of the Shah, this plan has been over 30 years in the making. I don't expect them to use common sense and not attack, in fact I feel confident that they will but first they will have to fabricate some provocation via a false flag. It would have to be something sizable in order to sway public opinion in favor of war, perhaps an aircraft carrier such as the Enterprise which is due to be decommissioned soon anyway.



posted on Sep, 26 2012 @ 11:15 AM
link   
I find it somewhat humorous how people could live in a capitalistic society and not understand the very functionality of how it operates. The very idea of capitalism at its core is to acquire, produce, and distribute with the biggest profit margins possible. It's very very simple.Any time a leader or country dissuades from a capitalistic nature it must be destroyed. It is not how a particular leader or country has certain resources, but rather how they use them that determines it's relationship with the west. As long as a leader or country is willing to swing open the barn doors and allow private investors and speculators to capitalize off of the resources they are considered friendly. This very conflict on the horizon isn't necessarily about Iranian hostility, but more along the lines of how that particular leadership refuses to privatize it's resources. If the Iranian leadership were to take a stance of opening up it's oil production to the oil cartels and came to an agreement that as long as they were provided with monetary and military compensation to have the ability to control the population you would see a complete reversal of the current rhetoric being produced. Iran would all of a sudden be considered pro west.



posted on Sep, 26 2012 @ 11:31 AM
link   
oil would be just one of the reasons. iraq was not just about oil, one of the first things that were seized, were in iraqs museums.not sure what they were after, but it was important enough to send troops in just after the whole shock and awe. just like the reports that came out about afghanistans natural resources, but they are there to bring democracy. on a side note, with russia talking about there diamond reserves, do you think we will probally start hearing rhetoric about them also.?



posted on Sep, 26 2012 @ 11:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by DerekJR321

Originally posted by SrWingCommander
Short of launching nuclear weapons, Russia and China are a little sparce on power projection. That means that while they have large militaries, they do not have the capabilities to support a large force outside of their own borders for any significant amount of time. Part of that's because up until recently, they haven't direclty needed too, or any where they want to power project is usually directly connected with their borders.

Since any Iran fighting will be mostly air/sea, or in and around Israel/Syria/Lebanon. They would have alot of difficulty engaging the US in those areas. We have the ability for long term force projection...they don't.

They will talk a good talk, they might even support tacitly, or in a supporting roll, but it's unlikely (although not impossible) that they would actually join any US v Iran conflict.


Both Nations (China and Russia) have long range missile capabilities, that could easily strike any target in the Middle East. Do we really want to take that risk? Over a nation that has not threatened us? That the only reason we are even contemplating fighting against is because another tiny little nation is egging us on to fight?


First I was making a statement of their capabilities, I wasn't suggesting a course for or against attacking Iran. I think at this point it probably will happen, by design or accident, it's just to deep into this thing, and no one is going to back down now. Heck, we got both navies basicly squared off in the straits of Hormuz RIGHT NOW, the thing could easily start by accident.

That being said. Yes they do have long range missiles. They won't likely fire them. Unless they are suicidal they aren't going to launch them because they are all nuclear armed.

I suppose they could launch some medium range regional missiles with conventional warheads. The problem is everyone will ASSUME any missile launched from Russia could be nuclear. They know this and do not want to invite retaliation. Even if they do launch conventional armed missiles, every anti missile air defense system in the region that the US, Allies, and Isreal has will be in operation if/when hostilliteis commence. Most would be shot down,. THADD, Patriot PAC3, Standard SM2, Arrow and Iron Dome, all have the ability to shoot down short and medium range missiles, and a all but Iron Dome have a secondary capability against ICBMs.

It is a threat, but unless Russia wants to launch an all out nuclear strike on the West (with it's resulting counterstrikes) it's not something to become overly worried about (from an operational percpective, obviously having missiles in the air isn't ideal here ) at the moment.



posted on Sep, 26 2012 @ 11:35 AM
link   
reply to post by r2d246
 


No, Oil is not the primairy reason they have for controling Iran, Iraq...and all those other "troublemakers". Here, I said it.."they" go after these countries because they are troublemakers when it comes to a NWO. They happen to have oil which is ofcourse helpfull for a decision to end the "trouble".

The middle-east has a complete different culture than the religion/ culture of the boys who came up with the NWO design. Therefore it is hard to accept and play along for some of those hard-line religious countries.

The world needs to be divided in sectors first. The middle east is probably the hardest nut to crack and have everybody in line with the "new" idea.

It is my belief that understanding the developments on a global scale a person should keep the goals of the NWO in mind. Keep your eyes on that ball and everything will make sense....somehow.

edit on 26/9/2012 by zatara because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 26 2012 @ 11:49 AM
link   
well .. if it was because of oil, their goal would be to destroy Irans infrastructure so that price of oil could go UP in the year or two. In that case US could pump their own oil more economically and Americas would become new middle east. US allready has its own terrorists and silly laws .. all that's missing is oil


I don't believe that they want to go to Iran because of oil.



posted on Sep, 26 2012 @ 12:21 PM
link   
I have stated my opinion before, but here we go again. Not so much the oil in my opinion, but going after there ability to become the # 1 economy in the world. With Iran on the cusp of having most of there nuclear power plants online they can start sourcing more oil for export. As it stands now 97% of Irans energy comes from oil and natural gas. That being said if they can now sell all there oil on the world market increase production they would be taking massive amounts of money from those afraid of losing it.

At the same time Iran has a research reactor thats main intent is creating nuclear isotopes for sale in the research market, as well they would like to become a main player on the nuclear fuel market all markets dominated by the big boys on the block.

So as I said you now have a country capable of changing the power and money structure of the world, adjusting oil prices to account for their max output, as well as dipping into markets previously under the control of a few. All these measure without illegal sanctions would make Iran an energy powerhouse, it would give Iran an economy unmatched in the world. All without a central bank profiting from there success.

So although I'm sure oil has something to do with it probably a big to do with it, but I think those in power fear there rise to power even more especially with the current world banking system bankrupting us all over, just think how a strong prosporous economy would make those evil Middle Easterners look to all of us high and mighty western economies sold to the lowest bidding banker??? We would realize much quicker how screwed we all have been and how taken to the cleaners we have all been by the structure in place.

So my opinion is they fear their success because it shows just how broken and corrupt our system has become, the people would wake up, maybe begin to see we need an overhaul. But then again this is just my opinion

SaneThinking



posted on Sep, 26 2012 @ 12:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by baburak
well .. if it was because of oil, their goal would be to destroy Irans infrastructure so that price of oil could go UP in the year or two. In that case US could pump their own oil more economically and Americas would become new middle east. US allready has its own terrorists and silly laws .. all that's missing is oil


I don't believe that they want to go to Iran because of oil.


It's not only because of oil.. But.

Have you ever played real time strategy games? The main objective is to destroy the enemies units and base. War games.. But there is another half to the game. Resources. You have to spend money aquireing resources, increasing your production as fast as possible to out perform your enemy even without better tactics/tech..

It's all part of the same game though. The issues are not seperate.

They want Iran anyway, but oil and who they sell it to makes them the Best Next target, unless we aren't done messing with Libya..

This game just happens to be called Global Empire, and high resource areas are strategic locations needed to be taken, held, and exploited, for the next move to be funded..

Life... Gah.



EDIT: I agree with the post above mine as well as standing by what I already said. Saudi Arabia probably wants Iran attacked ASAP.
edit on 9/26/2012 by Dustytoad because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 26 2012 @ 12:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by SrWingCommander

Originally posted by DerekJR321

Originally posted by SrWingCommander
Short of launching nuclear weapons, Russia and China are a little sparce on power projection. That means that while they have large militaries, they do not have the capabilities to support a large force outside of their own borders for any significant amount of time. Part of that's because up until recently, they haven't direclty needed too, or any where they want to power project is usually directly connected with their borders.

Since any Iran fighting will be mostly air/sea, or in and around Israel/Syria/Lebanon. They would have alot of difficulty engaging the US in those areas. We have the ability for long term force projection...they don't.

They will talk a good talk, they might even support tacitly, or in a supporting roll, but it's unlikely (although not impossible) that they would actually join any US v Iran conflict.


Both Nations (China and Russia) have long range missile capabilities, that could easily strike any target in the Middle East. Do we really want to take that risk? Over a nation that has not threatened us? That the only reason we are even contemplating fighting against is because another tiny little nation is egging us on to fight?


First I was making a statement of their capabilities, I wasn't suggesting a course for or against attacking Iran. I think at this point it probably will happen, by design or accident, it's just to deep into this thing, and no one is going to back down now. Heck, we got both navies basicly squared off in the straits of Hormuz RIGHT NOW, the thing could easily start by accident.

That being said. Yes they do have long range missiles. They won't likely fire them. Unless they are suicidal they aren't going to launch them because they are all nuclear armed.

I suppose they could launch some medium range regional missiles with conventional warheads. The problem is everyone will ASSUME any missile launched from Russia could be nuclear. They know this and do not want to invite retaliation. Even if they do launch conventional armed missiles, every anti missile air defense system in the region that the US, Allies, and Isreal has will be in operation if/when hostilliteis commence. Most would be shot down,. THADD, Patriot PAC3, Standard SM2, Arrow and Iron Dome, all have the ability to shoot down short and medium range missiles, and a all but Iron Dome have a secondary capability against ICBMs.

It is a threat, but unless Russia wants to launch an all out nuclear strike on the West (with it's resulting counterstrikes) it's not something to become overly worried about (from an operational percpective, obviously having missiles in the air isn't ideal here ) at the moment.


No I know. My post wasn't intended to be nasty or confrontational. Sometimes it's hard to tell ones infliction in type.

I too don't think China or Russia would fire missiles. It would take a whole LOT for that to happen. Everything will be economical. I certainly don't think anything would end up in a nuclear confrontation. I think the only nation crazy enough to even consider using nukes would be US and Israel. But that is just my opinion based on reports I heard during the early states of the Iraq war. I believe there was discussion of using tactical TASM's against cave complexes. Who knows. Things are getting really heated over there, and I am afraid that one wrong move might just spark WW3.



posted on Sep, 26 2012 @ 01:57 PM
link   
reply to post by DerekJR321
 


Well my opinoin on that is this.

US policy is if you use chemical, bilogoical, or nuclear on us, we will respond in kind. Whether the US attacks or not (ie the IDF goes alone) if the Iraninan's use NBC we would likely respond with small scale nuclear weapons on those facilities and bases where the Iranian NBC exists.

Israel will do the same, especially if they feel they are going out genocide style...ie Sampson Option.

If those happen, then Russia might get the itchy trigger finger on their nukes.

I don't think either of those situations will occur. BUT I do agree that we are getting involved in this enough that a simple accident could cause a conflict. We have both the NATO, US navies steeming right around Hormuz and the Iranian navy. Could get ugly by accident.



posted on Sep, 26 2012 @ 06:34 PM
link   
reply to post by r2d246
 


I have not read the thread and I do not have time to do so but let me say duh! The war in Afganistan had to do with their lithium and rare earth metal deposits. Now those contracts that went to Haliburton will need fuel for the ships that transport all those rare earth metals.................

What do I know. I keep my eyes open and my ear to the ground.



posted on Sep, 27 2012 @ 12:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by DarthMuerte
Oh yeah, Iraq was all about the oil we could steal. You can tell by how low the gas prices here in the states, they practically give it away. /sarcasm. Whatever is going on, it isn't about giving cheap oil to the consumers; that is sure.


they didn't steal it to lower your gas prices that's for sure. If anything they'll raise your gas prices, but they still need a supply.



posted on Sep, 27 2012 @ 12:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by zatara
reply to post by r2d246
 


No, Oil is not the primairy reason they have for controling Iran, Iraq...and all those other "troublemakers". Here, I said it.."they" go after these countries because they are troublemakers when it comes to a NWO. They happen to have oil which is ofcourse helpfull for a decision to end the "trouble".

The middle-east has a complete different culture than the religion/ culture of the boys who came up with the NWO design. Therefore it is hard to accept and play along for some of those hard-line religious countries.

The world needs to be divided in sectors first. The middle east is probably the hardest nut to crack and have everybody in line with the "new" idea.

It is my belief that understanding the developments on a global scale a person should keep the goals of the NWO in mind. Keep your eyes on that ball and everything will make sense....somehow.

edit on 26/9/2012 by zatara because: (no reason given)


"trouble makers..." ahhhh? haa that's funny!

Who's yo daddy, who's your trouble maker??





new topics
top topics
 
1

log in

join