The war for the oil only

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

JellyBaby

Diamond Member
Apr 21, 2000
9,159
1
81
Originally posted by: Pacfanweb
I'm OK with going to war over the oil. Doesn't bother me in the least. I think Saudi Arabia and Iraq would make great 51st and 52nd states.
I know you're probably being fecesious but in case you're not, I wonder if you'll have that same opinion when the Army drafts you or someone who love to go fight a War in the Sand...?
 

AnitaPeterson

Diamond Member
Apr 24, 2001
5,942
388
126
Joking and trivializing the issue at hand would not make it go away - or less true, for that matter - regardless of how much you try.

The aspects that cannot be denied are as follows:

1. Iraq has the second largest oil reserves in the Gulf region after Saudi Arabia.
2. Afghanistan IS useful as an alternative pipeline "host" for the Caspian region.
3. At the same time that US is talking about toppling Saddam Hussein, Russia is making most serious threats against Georgia, quoting "dangers from Chechen terrorists acting on Georgian territory" - a formula that reminds us of similar ones launched a year ago, almost to the day.
4. A simple search on the CIA website, using "Georgia" as a keyword, reveals
this document, dealing with, among others, the oil in the Caspian region, and the interests of other states in the area
5. Saddam Hussein received American support for as long as he was useful to American interests. Even after the Gulf war, he was maintained in power, because the Ba'ath party (of which he is a leader) is a secular organism, keeping Islam fundamentalism at bay. (Note: In Iraq, unlike Saudi Arabia, women can have regular jobs)
6. The U.S. tried for as long as possible to keep a useful regime in Iran, just as it did in other countries of the world, especially in oil-producing places - the Shah was still praised in "Time" magazine when the revolution was well under way in Tehran.
7. What the U.S. does, in matters of foreign policy, does only for what the government - or the lobbies, which pretty much dictate what the government should do - considers best at the moment. This has nothing to do with the noble ideas which are waved before the crowds ("humanity", "freedom", "liberty", "democracy" and so on)
8. The technologies used in American automobiles - and the related advertising industry and other branches of the Big Business - are far from being energy-efficient, thus maintaining a high consumption of oil-related products. This compensates for the low gas prices in the United States, and keeps the oil industry at the top of the food chain. In the end, consumers pay about the same (!) but this practice needlessly pollutes the environment. Diesel technology in Europe is, acording to auto industry insiders themselves, about ten years ahead of what is available in North America.
9. Even if Saddam Hussein (note: the leader of a sovereign country) accumulates weapons of mass destruction, he does nothing that other countries like Israel and China, have not done before him. As long as he does not use them for offensive purposes but keeps them as "deterrents", he should be allowed to do as he pleases - at least according to the same theories which claim any American can keep a shotgun under his pillow. Gun control opponents and people who advocated the MAD doctrine during the Cold War should agree with this - if they are really honest.

10. Yes, it IS the oil.
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,414
8,356
126
Originally posted by: AnitaPeterson
7. What the U.S. does, in matters of foreign policy, does only for what the government - or the lobbies, which pretty much dictate what the government should do - considers best at the moment. This has nothing to do with the noble ideas which are waved before the crowds ("humanity", "freedom", "liberty", "democracy" and so on)
US foreign policy has always been that way. remember "manifest destiny?" it was realist policy couched in nice terms that feel right to the regular public. the "monroe doctrine" of us not allowing europeans to interfere in our hemisphere? (nevermind it was enforced by the brits for years). maybe wilson actually believed his points. maybe.
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,414
8,356
126
Originally posted by: AnitaPeterson8. The technologies used in American automobiles - and the related advertising industry and other branches of the Big Business - are far from being energy-efficient, thus maintaining a high consumption of oil-related products. This compensates for the low gas prices in the United States, and keeps the oil industry at the top of the food chain. In the end, consumers pay about the same (!) but this practice needlessly pollutes the environment. Diesel technology in Europe is, acording to auto industry insiders themselves, about ten years ahead of what is available in North America.
you have no clue how many times the auto makers have pissed off the oil companies by going to better technologies. the last really big one was fuel injectors, which, notably, honda was the last to put on all their cars. of course, direct injection promises more of the same.
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,414
8,356
126
Originally posted by: AnitaPeterson
5. Saddam Hussein received American support for as long as he was useful to American interests. Even after the Gulf war, he was maintained in power, because the Ba'ath party (of which he is a leader) is a secular organism, keeping Islam fundamentalism at bay. (Note: In Iraq, unlike Saudi Arabia, women can have regular jobs)
6. The U.S. tried for as long as possible to keep a useful regime in Iran, just as it did in other countries of the world, especially in oil-producing places - the Shah was still praised in "Time" magazine when the revolution was well under way in Tehran.
in the islamic world democracy != french or even US standards of human rights, generally.

as for the shah, we removed power from him and swung support to the ayatollah after some state dept officials met him in paris and thought about what a nice guy he was.


EDIT: changed of to or, makes more sense now
 

burnedout

Diamond Member
Oct 12, 1999
6,249
2
0
Bush blamed Bin Laden but has never offered any proof
saying it?s a "secret". Isn't that strange?
Hmmmmm..... USS Cole, US Embassy Bombings, WTC Bombing '93, Khobar Towers, film of Bin Laden's admissions relative to WTC 9/11 attack, eyewitness accounts of hijackers with ties to Bin Laden......... Shall I go on?

Haliburton gave Cheney $34,000,000,000 as a farewell
gift when he left Haliburton. Isn't that strange?
Thirty Four Billion? Wow. Then why isn't he listed in the recently released Forbes 400 list? I mean after all, Bill Gates at forty-three billion and Warren Buffett at thirty-six billion were listed? Why isn't our VP? What gives? Oh wait, he hid the dough.

9. Even if Saddam Hussein (note: the leader of a sovereign country) accumulates weapons of mass destruction, he does nothing that other countries like Israel and China, have not done before him. As long as he does not use them for offensive purposes but keeps them as "deterrents", he should be allowed to do as he pleases - at least according to the same theories which claim any American can keep a shotgun under his pillow. Gun control opponents and people who advocated the MAD doctrine during the Cold War should agree with this - if they are really honest.
**coughKuwait1990-91cough**, **coughoilrig fires set by Saddam's band of merry mencough**, **coughgassing kurdscough**.
 

BaliBabyDoc

Lifer
Jan 20, 2001
10,737
0
0
I've been amazed at what people SERIOUSLY think on this forum . . . then again I'm using the term "think" in the broadest possible manner.

Why bother linking to government documents? Few people here read anything that can't be digested in FoxNews-size morsels. What do they call it "around the world in 80 seconds"? The Middle East is rampant with countries led by closed minds questionably elected that make judgments about what is not only right for their citizens but everyone else in the world. For the slow wits . . . yes replace Middle East with Western Hemisphere.

I swore off FoxNews b/c it doesn't come close to providing enough accurate information to make a decision but sometimes I just can't resist their slant. Anyway, I've further regressed to the 700 Club. Now that's good television. But Pat said something interesting this morning . . . trust me it doesn't happen often. He said we should commit all necessary resources to support a lawful, democratic Afghanistan before imposing our will on Iraq (paraphrase). Please don't quote me but Robertson sounds pretty reasonable.

Good word of the day for W:
UN speech almost believable. Now let Colin Powell do his job and keep Dick, the Don, and other rabid war dogs on a leash.
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,414
8,356
126
Originally posted by: burnedout

Haliburton gave Cheney $34,000,000,000 as a farewell
gift when he left Haliburton. Isn't that strange?
Thirty Four Billion? Wow. Then why isn't he listed in the recently released Forbes 400 list? I mean after all, Bill Gates at forty-three billion and Warren Buffett at thirty-six billion were listed? Why isn't our VP? What gives? Oh wait, he hid the dough.
he hid it in the enron building! no one would evar look there for money! i'll bet its taped into the inside of an AC duct! but now there all sorts of people in there looking for lost money so dick has to sneak in and pretend to be an exec so he can get it.

or was that a martin lawrence movie?
 

BaliBabyDoc

Lifer
Jan 20, 2001
10,737
0
0
We care about Kurds when it's convenient. When Turkey is beating them down the silence is deafening. When Iran did it, we wailed about human rights. When Iraq was laying into Kurds and Iranians we publicly said "Bad Iraq" while continuing logistical aid against Iran. Now Iraq is a public and private pariah.
Kurdish football 1998
Indeed, many analysts in the Caucasus and the West have even suggested that Russia and Iran might be interested in playing up the Kurdish problem in order to make the Turkish pipeline route less attractive to Western investors.

And such commentators are quite likely to see the timing of the current Kurdish upsurge as anything but accidental: only a few months before an international consortium is to make some significant decisions on the location of future pipelines in this region.


Hmm, what's this about a pipeline?

Damn Canadians
Since the Turkish military coup in the early 1980s, the Turkish government has intensified its war against the Kurdish population. During that time as many as 50,000 people have been killed, two thousand Kurdish villages have been demolished, and some three million people have been displaced. There are currently about fifteen thousand political prisoners, including intellectuals, politicians, unionists, teachers and journalists, languishing in Turkish jails, where ill treatment and torture of prisoners is commonplace.
It would be foolish to contend that US interests (and world peace) can be accomplished by supporting only the good people. But either we are horrible judges of character or we really don't care about human rights.

Arms Salesman to the World of Despots
The civil war in Turkey represents in fact the single largest use of US weapons anywhere in the world by non-US forces according to Bill Hartung of the World Policy Institute. In 1992 and 1993 the Pentagon quietly sent an enormous amount of military equipment to the Turkish army at no cost. Military assistance has included the use of American soldiers. In 1998 a US team was sent to train the Turkish Mountain Commandos, a unit whose chief function is to fight Kurdish guerrillas. In 1998 a US company was negotiating to sell 10.000 electro-shock weapons to the Turkish Police despite its documented record of practicing electro-shock torture.

Yeah we fight for liberty, justice, and the American way just like Indonesia/East Timor.
 

CaptainGoodnight

Golden Member
Oct 13, 2000
1,427
30
91
Oil and the Dollar:
While an important say in the commercial control of oil production - most of the major world oil companies for example are American owned - certainly helps the United States to maintain its economic power, and is thus a factor in the dominance of the dollar, it is not the fundamental explanation of the means by which the dollar gained and retains its role as world currency.

The dollar achieved its pre-eminence before oil became the principle fuel on the planet. In fact no currency's strength is especially founded on the control of raw materials.

Japan for example controls practically no raw materials, but the yen, despite the recent stagnation of the Japanese economy, remains a strong currency. Conversely the former USSR had huge quantities of oil under its command but this did not prevent its economic collapse, let alone enable the rouble to become a world currency5. It was not control of the coal or cotton supply that launched the pound sterling as the principal currency of the 19th century.

It is rather the preponderance of a country's economy in terms of world production and trade, and its relative political and military weight that explains why particular currencies have become the standard monetary reference for world capitalism.

The pound sterling achieved its ascendancy because Britain was the first modern capitalist country. The greater productivity of its industries enabled its products to displace those of the rest of the world in terms of price and quantity, because elsewhere capitalist production was only beginning to take hold. The whole world sold raw materials to Britain. And Britain - as the famous expression had it - was "the workshop of the world". Britain's military, particularly naval, strength, and its accumulation of colonial possessions reinforced the supremacy of the pound and the position of London as the world's financial centre.

After the devastation of Europe in the Second World War, the United States, stimulated by a phenomenal growth in arms production, achieved a crushing economic supremacy on the world arena. By 1950 the USA accounted for half of total world production! The Marshall Plan of 1947 supplied the European economies with the dollars they desperately needed to reconstruct by buying American goods. Dollar supremacy was institutionalised at the world level by the Bretton Woods agreement, and the creation of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund under the aegis of the US.

By 1968, the reconstruction period had come to an end, and the European and Japanese economies had improved their economic position relative to the US. But even the relative weakening of the US economy, although it led to the effective devaluation of the dollar, did not mean the immediate end of its prime position. Far from it. The US had many means to use the new conditions to its advantage. The decoupling of the dollar from gold by Washington in 1971, allowed the US to maintain the power of the dollar and the competitive position of American production, by exchange rate manipulation which also helped cheapen its growing foreign debt (a method that Britain had used in the 30s to preserve sterling's role even after the eclipse of its economy by that of the US). At the beginning of the 80s the raising of interest rates, and the deregulation of the movement of capital, with the consequent mushrooming of financial speculation, helped offload the effects of the crisis onto other countries. Behind these measures the military supremacy of the United States, which became unassailable after the collapse of the Soviet Union, ensures that King Dollar retains his throne.

The role of oil in the dollar's prime position is therefore relatively insignificant. Even if it is true that in the 'first oil crisis' of 1971-2, the US, through its influence over OPEC oil pricing, managed to transfer enormous funds to its own pockets from those of the European and Japanese powers via Saudi Arabia, such manipulations are hardly the main instruments of dollar supremacy.
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Yup, it is all about the oil. At least afganistan anyway.
For about the past 20 years many people, companies and goverments have talked about a pipeline thru afganistan. It has not been possible because the lack the politcal stability and for that reason it is still not possible today. Afganistan does not even have decent roads and you are talking about putting a pipeline in.
Right now the US is putting $200 million toward roads in afganistan. Maybe it is really all about the roads, and not all about the pipelines.
 

tcsenter

Lifer
Sep 7, 2001
18,338
253
126
repeating "isn't that strange" totally kills the readability and chops it up into almost incomprehensible sound bites.
God I got to the fifth "Isn't that strange" and wanted to jab my eyes out with a rusty fork.
 

JellyBaby

Diamond Member
Apr 21, 2000
9,159
1
81
Conspiracy theories give people who feel weak a sense of power. That's why they are so rampant.
Just as oversimplifications allow the intellectually challenged to feel like they have a handle on issues they can't fully understand?
 

CaptainGoodnight

Golden Member
Oct 13, 2000
1,427
30
91
Originally posted by: JellyBaby
Conspiracy theories give people who feel weak a sense of power. That's why they are so rampant.
Just as oversimplifications allow the intellectually challenged to feel like they have a handle on issues they can't fully understand?

Its not a oversimplification if it's a fact.
 

Hamburgerpimp

Diamond Member
Aug 15, 2000
7,464
1
76
Conspiracy theories give people who feel weak a sense of power. That's why they are so rampant.

Theories? What's real and what's not. I suppose you think CNN is truly reporting the news.
 
Aug 10, 2001
10,424
2
0
Originally posted by: Hamburgerpimp
Conspiracy theories give people who feel weak a sense of power. That's why they are so rampant.

Theories? What's real and what's not. I suppose you think CNN is truly reporting the news.
Thank you for proving my point.
 
Aug 10, 2001
10,424
2
0
If the AP, Reuters, BBC, CNN, etc. don't report the news accurately, then who does?

More people read http://www.whatreallyhappened.com each week than Newsweek.com
Nevermind.
rolleye.gif
 

outriding

Diamond Member
Feb 20, 2002
3,051
2,096
136
what is probably going to happen is the tax payers are going to have to pay for the war. then the oil companies are going to get all the profit for the oil.

that is what you get for getting 2 oil men in the white house
 

Wheezer

Diamond Member
Nov 2, 1999
6,731
1
81
First I do not doubt that there *may* be some truth to all this. But instead of blaming the goverment take a look at yourselves.

Think about it where do you buy your gas? I myself do not patronize any gas station that gets thier oil from the mid-east.

You can read more here now if you are *that* concerned about all this then
stop patronizing these companies. If everyone does this then we will put a BIG dent in thier financial stability, and there wiill be no reason for us to go to war over oil. I try like hell to not go to any company that imports mid-east oil even if I have to pay a few cents more...to me it's worth it.
 

PistachioByAzul

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
5,132
0
71
So, I'm wondering, can anyone offer anything that proves any of these points false rather than just calling it a conspiracy theory?

If the AP, Reuters, BBC, CNN, etc. don't report the news accurately, then who does?

No one. Who do you think owns and sponsors media groups? News gets filtered.
 

outriding

Diamond Member
Feb 20, 2002
3,051
2,096
136
So, I'm wondering, can anyone offer anything that proves any of these points false rather than just calling it a conspiracy theory?

I have heard this for 2 days now on NPR

They might have it on the BBC