leejo

Uh...no.

El_Gringo_Grande

I agree that this is important. It is one reason why the dynamics of the reagion are so hard for those in the west, especially the US, to understand. But at the birth of civilization there was no country called "Iraq" with the boarders and politics of today. The political country of Iraq happened late 19th early 20th century.

Yes, those things are correct but why did Britain even have any interest in the area called Iraq? Why where the boarders drawn the way they where?

It wasn't because Britain had a love of the local populace. It wasn't because Britain had to secure trade routes through the region. It wasn't a love of the land. I am no expert on Middle Eastern history but I do remember that a prime concern was the oil reserves in the region.

After a quick search.

The Turkish Petroleum Company was formed in 1912 and was composed of European countries and the goal was to seek concession from the Ottoman Empire to explore for oil in the region. The results of WWI changed this. Because the Ottoman empire was defeated it now was up to the League of Nations to determine who got the rights to the oil in the region. Britain got them.

A really interesting read is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Petroleum_Company . Many of the energy companies of today were interested in the TPC. Total, BP, Standard Oil being some of them.

I agree my statement was overbroad and the formation of Iraq as we know it today is much more complicated than oil. But still, Iraq as is defined by the boarders of today and much of its recent history, especially with regards to the west’s involvement, is defined by oil.

__________________
I’m not racists, I have republican friends. Radio show host.
- "The essence of tyranny is the denial of complexity". -Jacob Burkhardt
- "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds" - Emerson
- "People should not be afraid of it's government, government should be afraid of it's People." - Line from V for Vendetta
- If software were as unreliable as economic theory, there wouldn't be a plane made of anything other than paper that could get off the ground. Jim Fawcette

Zephyr

Steeler's arguments are, as far as I'm concerned, the real reason for everything we're doing in the Middle-East today. We've got to keep China out of there, if they get heavily involved with the oil supplies of that region things are going to get extremely hairy in the next 50 years.

Though this is a very vague example, picture this: 66% of the world's oil is in the Middle-East/Central Asia region, the remaining 33% is spread out roughly evenly between the America's and the Far East. In both the Americas and the Far East, demand for oil is rising significantly. Whoever controls the pivotal Middle-East/Central Asia region has an additional two thirds of the world's oil supply, bringing cheaper gas prices and, in our world dominanted by oil interests, a better economy.

The balance of power in the first half of the 21st century will depend on who controls Middle-East/Central Asia for their oil reserves. If oil isn't tied to the U.S. as strongly as it has historically been, our economy could go into a steady decline. Our gas prices really haven't been hiked as a result of terrorism or the Iraqi war, it's been primarily because demand is rising in the Far East, specifically in China, and more oil is needed than can be provided.

By controlling the Middle-East/Central Asia, or conversely intentionally letting it fall into utter chaos (?), the balance of power will either be shifted to the United States or left neutral. While obviously we would hope that the United States would end up in control in a peaceful situation, the Middle-East could, and just may, get out of control due to elements that simply don't want the U.S. in the region. These elements are the Arab and Persian populations that in reality should be the ones capitalizing on their own oil supplies.

So why did we really invade Iraq? Well there are many reasons and each one can be proved or disproved at anyone's leisure. However one that is frequently ignored is the idea that at the time of the invasion of Iraq, OPEC (Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries) may have been considering switching the pricing currency of oil from the U.S. Dollar to the Euro. Another interesting fact on these lines is that in 1999 Iraq switched it's oil-for-food program to only accept Euro payments, a slap in the face for the U.S. as it would now be forced to buy Euro's to pay for Iraq's oil. This was a bold move in the worldwide market for oil, as the vast majority of oil is sold through the U.S. Dollar. The Euro also began to be valued higher than the Dollar in 2003, meaning more money could be easily gained from the U.S. if OPEC and others were to switch to it. Iraq was beginning to look like a pioneer, and a wealthy one at that, as it was making additional money from no longer being tied to the U.S. Dollar. This is interestingly the exact timing we chose to invade Iraq.

By no longer being tied to the U.S. Dollar there could be also be much more independence from the United States's oil hegemony for OPEC, as well as significantly devalue the U.S. currency in the financial markets. If no longer tied to the U.S., OPEC and other oil producing countries would feel more free to tie themselves to any other currency. Oil prices in the U.S. would skyrocket to what has always been the AVERAGE world price (in 2003 anyway) of $5 a gallon. In particular, an appitizing currency in the near future to tie to would be that of China. The yuan has significant government regulation and will have the world's largest market for oil for decades to come. If the currency was allowed to appreciate rapidly, it could become as valuable as the dollar and euro are now. However, the currency is being kept artificially low mainly so that investment and development is cheap at this point. This won't have to continue forever though, as China will eventually feel it is time to let it's currency appreciate. With so much manpower, financial reserves, and tremendous international investment and rapid development from a undervalued currency, the yuan could become the next Euro and be a considerable threat to the United States's economy.

The invasion of Iraq is really just a desperate attempt to make oil producing nations kowtow to the United States and secure the U.S.'s economic future. The U.S. economy and dollar simply can't afford to lose oil hegemony at this point in time and would rather set an example of the hell it can bring to those who dare to alter their currency alignment (Iraq). It really doesn't matter if we "win" or "lose" in the battle for Iraq, or even get a barrel of it's oil, what matters is that we scare OPEC into compliance with the U.S. and ensure our control over the oil trading currency in the Middle-East/Central Asia region.

Thoughts? Criticisms? I'd like to see what people think of this idea.
-Zephyr

__________________
You were once like the newbie who needed a hand from above and TacticalGamer gave you it.

You owe the newbie who comes after you that same outstretched hand from above on your honor as a Tactical Gamer.

Tactics at TG come from trust and friendship, not meticulous detail and rigid discipline.

Everyone should be assumed mature until proven otherwise.

We are no clan.
We are not a single game.
We are mature, intelligent, and cooperative individuals.
We are TacticalGamer, a community above and beyond its name.

TheFatKidDeath

Valid and rational points. Certainly a more intelligent analysis than the smoke and mirrors of establishing "freedom" throughout the Middle East.

Good read:
http://www.amconmag.com/2006/2006_07_17/cover.html

TheFatKidDeath

Talk about speaking out of both sides of one's mouth:

http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/busin...greenspan.html

__________________
|TG-9th| TheFatKidDeath
"Born to Party, Forced to Work."
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/55640 - Check me out on The Onion
http://www.theonion.com/content/vide...ssfully_avoids - I'm on the local news!

Kerostasis

I don't quite follow your comment: What did he say that you think is duplicitous?

__________________

FatCobra

Why can't establishing freedom be rational and intelligent? Do you think that you are absolutely right, and anyone that disagrees with you is a idiot, aka the opposite of "intelligent"? Whats the point of this thread? Lets say you are 100% right in what you believe in your own little world, will it change anything? No. Will anyone else change their minds? No. Will it make you feel any better? No

For people who believe Bush and the whole U.S. Government are a bunch of blubbering idiots, you sure make them seem like the smartest people in the world when it comes to all of these conspiracy theories. Seriously, the next time anyone thinks about posting a long story about some conspiracy, read it over and actually think about what you are typing, instead of just hitting the post button.

Kerostasis

Notice that most of this thread is over a year old, and was just resurrected with the Greenspan link. There's some stuff I'd like to contest in older posts too, but there's no telling whether the authors of those comments even still believe them by now.

__________________

FatCobra

Lol really? I actually did not know it was over a year old. I'm sure they all still believe in what they say, since if they didn't they would have nothing to complain about and would have nothing else to do on the forums.

Zephyr

If you think this forum is a refuge for complainers and hate-mongers, you need to seriously get your own head out of wherever it is and start reading the content of the posts rather than the ad hominem subtleties that always permeate political conversation.

I actually was just looking over my post in this thread and literally freaked out when I saw it because I cannot even remember writing it. I would probably say now that I disagree with my own analysis because I didn't take into consideration a vast number of other figures that have been brought to my attention in the last year. I think that oil most certainly has something to do with our invasion, but I no longer think it was the principle point by which we decided to go into Iraq.

In particular, I now think that it truly was much more of a neo-conservative outlook on foreign policy coupled with a restless populace that sought to do something to remedy their own fear of these new terrorists that aimed to destroy us. I think that the Bush administration literally just threw the reins to the neo-conservatives and, because both groups have always been incompetent, no doubt exists on that subject anymore, they botched up everything in Iraq.

Oil trade was a side effect, a beneficial one that no doubt certainly was included on the calculus of war, but to call it the principle reason for action is to negate a tremendous deal of other factors.

-Zephyr

__________________
You were once like the newbie who needed a hand from above and TacticalGamer gave you it.

You owe the newbie who comes after you that same outstretched hand from above on your honor as a Tactical Gamer.

Tactics at TG come from trust and friendship, not meticulous detail and rigid discipline.

Everyone should be assumed mature until proven otherwise.

We are no clan.
We are not a single game.
We are mature, intelligent, and cooperative individuals.
We are TacticalGamer, a community above and beyond its name.

leejo

Hook a brother up. Is that an ad hominem subtlety or an ad hominem not-so-subtlety? May I paraphrase?

"If you're bone-headed enough to think this forum is a .....then get your head out of your donkey and read the content instead of the personal jabs."

Awesome sandbox post.

USN_Squid

When I hear "no war for oil" or "no blood for oil" I assume they must think that Bush, Cheney, Elvis, et al will profit by controlling oil supplies. I don't know how exactly, it's never been shown with any credible evidence, but that's beside the point. I think there were plenty of good reasons for this war in addition to removing a madman who could sabotage the worlds economy, which as I said in my year old post is a perfectly good reason to go to war.

As with all NY Times articles you have to read the last 3 paragraphs of a story to get any real information:

Fatkid's link:
"My view is that Saddam, looking over his 30-year history, very clearly was giving evidence of moving towards controlling the Straits of Hormuz, where there are 17, 18, 19 million barrels a day" passing through," Greenspan said.

Even a small disruption could drive oil prices as high as $120 a barrel and would mean "chaos" to the global economy, Greenspan told the newspaper.

Given that, "I'm saying taking Saddam out was essential," he said. But he added he was not implying the war was an oil grab, the Post said.

Greenspan '08!!!

__________________

SmokingTarpan

Leejo... If you were gay, and I were gay, and you didn't have a wife, and we lived in Vermont... I'd totally civil union you.

__________________

[squadl]
"I am the prettiest african-american, vietnamese..cong..person." -SugarNCamo

AMosely

I don't see anything truly groundbreaking or revealing about Greenspan's comments thus far. I never have believed that oil was a leading motivator for the war (and stand by my previous posts), but it most certainly was a factor in a couple of ways - and a critical factor behind the economic reasons for the war.

Firstly and most obvious, it was intended that oil revenues be critical to the rebuilding of Iraqi infrastructure and economic stability. So far that really has not panned out well (along with most all of the Rumsfeld war 'plan'). The breakdown of infrastructure, personnel and security has crippled this operation.

Secondly, and somewhat more importantly is the strategic hope of stabilizing Iraq and aligning it with Western ideals in a similar way to Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and UAE. This in turn would most certainly have a positive effect on the oil market and how it serves western interests. This hope is not completely dead and may never be, but with the ongoing exodus of Iraqi citizens leaving only militants in its wake the situation does not look very promising in the near term.

It's been pointed out before that the catalyst and primary motivator of the Iraq war was the perceived threat from Saddam combined with the sudden reality of the 9/11 attacks. But there was a second operational motivator hidden behind this, at least in my analysis. The empire building model used by the U.S., World Bank and private contracting/consulting agencies (KBR/Haliburton, Bechtel) of the late 20th century is the economic conveyor behind the Iraq war. This model of 'indentured servitude' on an international level is the gravity that makes the chess pieces move in the empire building business. Iraq is an economic garden of eden to the powers of the empire game - it was intended that following the overthrow of Saddam the country would be ripe for international loans on an enourmous scale. It could use those loans to pay U.S. contractors billions of dollars to rebuild and grow its infrastructure, from garbage trucks to oil pumping and distribution. The potential oil revenues were all the World Bank needed as any kind of collateral for the loans.

If you doubt this theory, read up on the late 20th century history of Saudi Arabia as well as the testimony of men like John Perkins (of MAIN, a former Bechtel competitor). It is a lesson in modern western empire building, and it also is the leading reason why Bin Laden despises western policy (nope, it's not our 'freedoms').

Interestingly, though, this plan has suffered along with the military plans in Iraq. Haliburton and Bechtel were initially awarded tremendous contracts in the early years of the war, and the World Bank did issue roughly $1 billion in loans to Iraq beginning in 2005. More recently, the pace has slowed because of the disintegration on the ground. Haliburton and Bechtel have scaled back because of security concerns and failed projects. Economic proponents of the Iraq war still hold on to the hope that stability can be attained so that economic growth (and the ensuing cultural alignment and international servitude) can continue. If you're looking for a yardstick on Iraqi stability, keep an eye on the World Bank's Iraq trust fund - as the loans go up, the contractors go back in. Right now you'll see that the loans are way down from what there were just two years ago - down around third-world levels. This is not a harbinger of good things to come.

So, no, it's not all about oil at all. Oil is/was a factor of the economic logic behind the war (as Greenspan has re-stated), but even that is matched in reasoning with the so-called 'war on terror.' I know I've offered a lengthy explanation of this, but there you have it.

Kerostasis

Very insightful, Mosely. I can go with that.

My only question is this: Do you consider it a "bad thing" for the country to undergo massive infrastructure building financed by outside loans? Is that better or worse than simply not having any infrastructure to speak of?

__________________