Don't forget that Iran has oil too!

It might be worth remembering WHY the Iranians hate America.
In 1953 the Shah took power in Iran with American help.  He continued to support American interests and screw his own people until he was disposed by the people in 1978 (when the country was returned to democracy(?))
As if 25 years of oppression wasn't enough, in 1980 America installed Saddam in Iraq and gave him a bunch of chemical weapons to go drop on Iran in an attempt to reclaim their lost prize.

All in all, I think the Iranians have quite a good case for hating America!

Don't forget that Iran has oil too!

in 1980 America installed Saddam in Iraq and gave him a bunch of chemical weapons to go drop on Iran in an attempt to reclaim their lost prize.



I'd recommend that you familiarize yourself with how Hussein rose to power in Iraq.  'Twas not a result of CIA wrangling but his own cunning.

The USA always saw Hussein as a dangerous person.  But in 1980 we did indeed support him in the Iran/Iraq war, as "payback" to Iran for the embassy invasion and kidnapping.  As they say in my neck of the woods, "payback is a b*tch".

Now... as far as I am concerned, I have no problem with Iran developing nukes.  Nukes are interesting.  Everybody who has them doesn't want anybody ELSE to have them.  Iran has the right to self-defense, so if they want to develop nukes, more power to them.

By the way... the USA has no need to invade ANY country for their oil.  We are already buying it!  Where do the conspiracy theorists think all that oil is coming from?  As evil as "The great Satan" America is to the Arabs, we are also ther biggest and most valued customer.

By the way... the USA has no need to invade ANY country for their oil.  We are already buying it!  Where do the conspiracy theorists think all that oil is coming from?  As evil as "The great Satan" America is to the Arabs, we are also ther biggest and most valued customer.


Clearly you're not familiar with how much the US pays for the oil in the countries it controls opposed to the countries where it has less control.  You think the US is going to pay full price for anything they get out of Iraq?  The US might be paying for it, but I doubt they're paying full retail. 

There's a long history of countries that have puppet governments set up to sell material to US interests for a lot less than they would normally pay for them.  Just one example would be Panama, which was created out of Columbian territories for the express purpose of building the Panama canal. 

Clearly you're not familiar with how much the US pays for the oil in the countries it controls opposed to the countries where it has less control.  You think the US is going to pay full price for anything they get out of Iraq?  The US might be paying for it, but I doubt they're paying full retail. 

There's a long history of countries that have puppet governments set up to sell material to US interests for a lot less than they would normally pay for them.  Just one example would be Panama, which was created out of Columbian territories for the express purpose of building the Panama canal. 


Hate to burst your bubble Chucky, but oil pricing is controlled through global traders and it is all globally priced.

There is no such thing as "preferential pricing".  Crude is based on world market prices based on the oil grade itself, delivered to a pumphead at the nearest sea port or major pipeline.  If there were any country selling for "lower prices", I can guarantee you that the arbitrageurs would already be buying and selling to eliminate the discount.  The arbitrgeurs are from all countries, nationalities, and political leanings...

That is why almost all oil trading that goes on today is done through exchanges and is indexed to exchange prices... to eliminate arbitrage risk... mainly for the SELLERS of crude.  Crude oil sold to US interests from Saudi Arabia is sold at no different price than it is from Iraq, Iran, or Venezuela, with the exception of price adjustments made based on the oil grade itself.

I'm thinking if oil is the main reason for the US to go to war, Canada, Mexico, the UK and Norway should be worried.
The US gets more oil from Canada than any other single source, Mexico, the UK and Norway are large suppliers as well...they may take us over...oh yeah they already have through the large corporations etc, Exxon (Esso here), Mobil, GM, Ford, Mac D's, Wal Mart have all invaded and own a very large chunk of everything.

Hate to burst your bubble Chucky, but oil pricing is controlled through global traders and it is all globally priced.

There is no such thing as "preferential pricing".  Crude is based on world market prices based on the oil grade itself, delivered to a pumphead at the nearest sea port or major pipeline.  If there were any country selling for "lower prices", I can guarantee you that the arbitrageurs would already be buying and selling to eliminate the discount.  The arbitrgeurs are from all countries, nationalities, and political leanings...

That is why almost all oil trading that goes on today is done through exchanges and is indexed to exchange prices... to eliminate arbitrage risk... mainly for the SELLERS of crude.  Crude oil sold to US interests from Saudi Arabia is sold at no different price than it is from Iraq, Iran, or Venezuela, with the exception of price adjustments made based on the oil grade itself.


really? so the whole "oil for food" thing didn't exist previousily?  The US isn't going to be asking for compensation for all the Haliburton contract work (ie. oil for reparing infrastructure we destroyed during invasion).  Just because oil is traded on the free market, doesn't mean they haven't worked out a way to exploit the oil fields to their own advantage. Controlling the country through a puppet government does have it's advantages. 

The USA always saw Hussein as a dangerous person.  But in 1980 we did indeed support him in the Iran/Iraq war, as "payback" to Iran for the embassy invasion and kidnapping.  As they say in my neck of the woods, "payback is a b*tch".




The embassy invasion was payback for the CIA overthrowing Mussadec and imposing the Shah on Iran, training the Savak (secret police), and for keeping both in power with arms sales and advisors.  This was either the first or 2nd "successfull CIA covert action.  The other was the overthrow of Arbenz in Guatemala.  Sooner or later those chickens come home to roost.

Hate to burst your bubble Chucky, but oil pricing is controlled through global traders and it is all globally priced.



It all depends on the situation.  This is true when oil production is controlled by states, as is the case now in many places, but not when countries sell concessions to private firms to develop and exploit the oil.  I expect that the Iraqi puppet government will sell a concession to Halliburton or one of the seven sisters.  They will get the oil at cut rate prices, and sell it on the free market at huge profits.

really? so the whole "oil for food" thing didn't exist previousily?  The US isn't going to be asking for compensation for all the Haliburton contract work (ie. oil for reparing infrastructure we destroyed during invasion).  Just because oil is traded on the free market, doesn't mean they haven't worked out a way to exploit the oil fields to their own advantage. Controlling the country through a puppet government does have it's advantages. 


"Oil for food" was sold at market prices per the global oil trading indices. It was not constructed to sell oil at cut-rate prices.  However, (from what I have read in the news, mind you) it appears that Sadaam and his cronies diverted the monies received into their own pockets instead of into the charitable accounts that they were supposed to go to.

I'd recommend that you familiarize yourself with how Hussein rose to power in Iraq.  'Twas not a result of CIA wrangling but his own cunning.



 
  Oh, but there's so much more...




The USA always saw Hussein as a dangerous person.  But in 1980 we did indeed support him in the Iran/Iraq war, as "payback" to Iran for the embassy invasion and kidnapping.  As they say in my neck of the woods, "payback is a b*tch".




  ...and it's not just that...

  And, unfortunately, payback is not merely a b*tch...it's the cost of countless lives, American and otherwise...

  History becomes unimportant; many conservatives, for example, I've encountered during the post-9/11 phase seem incapable of understanding the idea of an historical cycle or process. Irony abounds, and actually bookends the most immediate prologue to this  Iraqi Adventure. From Schwarzkopf to Schwarzkopf. Trying to explain to conservatives that the policies and principles we claim to be defending are actually what got us into this mess is a bit difficult.

  Seriously: I'll start with Mossadegh and try to explain to you how our meddling for petroleum brought us this cycle of violence and duplicity. Hell, there's even a slightly-less-than-apocryphal quote from the aftermath of World War II in which the Americans and British reached an agreement between themselves: The Saud to the US, Iraq to Britain, and they'll work together on Iran. (All to stop the commies, to boot ....)

  By the time I get to Khomeni, I've lost you. It becomes especially difficult to explain to you how Iraq ties into the situation.

  And all of it symptomatic of the Cold War.

It all depends on the situation.  This is true when oil production is controlled by states, as is the case now in many places, but not when countries sell concessions to private firms to develop and exploit the oil.  I expect that the Iraqi puppet government will sell a concession to Halliburton or one of the seven sisters.  They will get the oil at cut rate prices, and sell it on the free market at huge profits.


Halliburton is neither an oil company nor an energy company.  It is a SERVICES company.

That means that Halliburton does not drill for oil or trade oil for its own account.  It does, however, provide drilling and exploration technology, engineering, logistics, and other support services to other companies who are in the oil business.

And there are only 4 sisters:  BP, ChevronTexaco, ExxonMobil, and Royal Dutch Shell.  Note that only two of the "sisters" are American companies (ChevTex and ExxMob).

  Oh, but there's so much more...

  ...and it's not just that...

  And, unfortunately, payback is not merely a b*tch...it's the cost of countless lives, American and otherwise...

  History becomes unimportant; many conservatives, for example, I've encountered during the post-9/11 phase seem incapable of understanding the idea of an historical cycle or process. Irony abounds, and actually bookends the most immediate prologue to this  Iraqi Adventure. From Schwarzkopf to Schwarzkopf. Trying to explain to conservatives that the policies and principles we claim to be defending are actually what got us into this mess is a bit difficult.

  Seriously: I'll start with Mossadegh and try to explain to you how our meddling for petroleum brought us this cycle of violence and duplicity. Hell, there's even a slightly-less-than-apocryphal quote from the aftermath of World War II in which the Americans and British reached an agreement between themselves: The Saud to the US, Iraq to Britain, and they'll work together on Iran. (All to stop the commies, to boot ....)

  By the time I get to Khomeni, I've lost you. It becomes especially difficult to explain to you how Iraq ties into the situation.

  And all of it symptomatic of the Cold War.




Davester...

The US meddled in Iran not for its oil, but for its strategic positioning and location as regarded the old Soviet Union.  The Shah was propped up by the US to keep Russian influences out of the area.  Of course, our geniusses in Washington did not see the whole Islamic thing coming on and so the game was lost in Iran anyway.

I do not argue for one minute that the US meddled (to put it lightly) in Iran.  I just made the point that in 1980, they got "payback" for the embassy kidnapping situation.

My opinion on the whole region?  We should tell Israel to sink or swim on its own, pull any military or financial aid from ANY country in that region, and let them all fight it out for themselves.  Our meddling in the area has, from a strategic standpoint, been fruitless.

We have nothing to fear about any theoretical oil embargo from the region.  The moment that the oil flow stops, the one source of money for those countries would stop.  And we know that's not gonna happen for very long.

Davester...

The US meddled in Iran not for its oil, but for its strategic positioning and location as regarded the old Soviet Union.  The Shah was propped up by the US to keep Russian influences out of the area.  Of course, our geniusses in Washington did not see the whole Islamic thing coming on and so the game was lost in Iran anyway.

I do not argue for one minute that the US meddled (to put it lightly) in Iran.  I just made the point that in 1980, they got "payback" for the embassy kidnapping situation.

My opinion on the whole region?  We should tell Israel to sink or swim on its own, pull any military or financial aid from ANY country in that region, and let them all fight it out for themselves.  Our meddling in the area has, from a strategic standpoint, been fruitless.

We have nothing to fear about any theoretical oil embargo from the region.  The moment that the oil flow stops, the one source of money for those countries would stop.  And we know that's not gonna happen for very long.

Yes, but in 1953 we meddled in Iran.  We deposed the people's chosen leader and imposed the Shah on an unwilling populace.  Would the Russians have leveraged world domination via Iran if we had left that country alone?  Maybe, maybe not.  One thing is for sure, by subverting the will of the people, we sowed the seeds for our misery.

I have no problems with an invasion of Iran, but I think we should chase the WMD's that were smuggled into Syria first.  I think Syria should be the next country after Iraq.

I have no problems with an invasion of Iran, but I think we should chase the WMD's that were smuggled into Syria first.  I think Syria should be the next country after Iraq.

OK, but if you wanna keep up with this invasion sh*t, you'll have to reinstate the draft.

OK, but if you wanna keep up with this invasion sh*t, you'll have to reinstate the draft.



No need to invade Iran.  If they want to play with the big boys and deploy nukes, we could just put them on the receiving end of same.  Much cheaper than an invasion.  We just send one Ohio-class submarine that's probably already in the area anyway.

Just for the record:  I think that all of this talk that countries (like Iran) who are developing nukes do not have the "right" to do so is poppycock.  The right to self-defense is innate.  If they want to develop nukes so be it, ubless we are going to enter into a global treaty where ALL COUNTRIES renounce nukes and destroy all nuke stockpiles.

No need to invade Iran.  If they want to play with the big boys and deploy nukes, we could just put them on the receiving end of same.  Much cheaper than an invasion.  We just send one Ohio-class submarine that's probably already in the area anyway.




   Heh heh...the Cold War in a sentence or two...




Just for the record:  I think that all of this talk that countries (like Iran) who are developing nukes do not have the "right" to do so is poppycock.  The right to self-defense is innate.  If they want to develop nukes so be it, ubless we are going to enter into a global treaty where ALL COUNTRIES renounce nukes and destroy all nuke stockpiles.


   Yeah, I'm inclined to agree.   Regardless, I'll admit that this is better than I expected. I think painting the picture that the Bush administration has some sort of hard-on for direct action against Iran is a bit of a stretch. There is absolutely nothing to gain and much to be lost by doing so, and the only way I could see them (or anybody) justifying the effort would be if they were about to obtain a nuclear capability, and even then...

   Yet, rogue nations with pugnacious leadership like Iran and North Korea haven't exactly done much to earn the world's confidence yet, so it's no mystery why NOBODY trusts them with a nuclear capability. They won't confirm nor deny that they have one, but you also have petulent little sh*ts like Kim Jong Il threatening to turn Australia and the US into a sea of fire. If I was screaming and frothing about wanting to kill you, I sincerely doubt you'd be willing to trust me close to you with a machete.

Anyone else think it is funny that Iran suddenly came with an agreement with the EU right after Bush won reelection?  Of course they wouldn't do it with the US, they don't want to give Bush that much credit, but they did.

Here is an opinion, go over Iran and North Korea at night and but a big red dot on the nuclear plants and let them know we can blow it up any time we feel like. 

--My opinion, Iran doesn't need to be invaded, just bombed if they continue.  Talks can go on with North Korea, but we should cut off the aid to a country that uses it nuke program to get aid.  Syria needs to be invaded.  And personally I am sick and tired of this Mr. Rogers style of fighting that Bush is doing, we know where the terrorists are in Iraq, bomb those areas President Bush.  Stop letting the enemy use our men for target practice for their AK-47's and Rocket Propelled Grenades (RPG's)

No need to invade Iran.  If they want to play with the big boys and deploy nukes, we could just put them on the receiving end of same.  Much cheaper than an invasion. 

Oh boy!  Let's nuke 'em.... then you know what?  Bend over and kiss our @sses goodbye!  By the graces of diplomacy and MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) no country has been nuked since Nagasaki.  If we let the atomic war genie out of the bottle, humanity is toast!
http://humanmind.homestead.com/~site/clipart/miscellaneous/Grim_Reaper.GIF

Anyone else think it is funny that Iran suddenly came with an agreement with the EU right after Bush won reelection?  Of course they wouldn't do it with the US, they don't want to give Bush that much credit, but they did.

Here is an opinion, go over Iran and North Korea at night and but a big red dot on the nuclear plants and let them know we can blow it up any time we feel like. 

--My opinion, Iran doesn't need to be invaded, just bombed if they continue.  Talks can go on with North Korea, but we should cut off the aid to a country that uses it nuke program to get aid.  Syria needs to be invaded.  And personally I am sick and tired of this Mr. Rogers style of fighting that Bush is doing, we know where the terrorists are in Iraq, bomb those areas President Bush.  Stop letting the enemy use our men for target practice for their AK-47's and Rocket Propelled Grenades (RPG's)


I wonder, why is it that you neocons always turn first to the military option?  Don't you see that 9 times out of 10 it leads to more trouble, worse conditions, and bigger problems than the ones it "solves"?

Here is an opinion, go over Iran and North Korea at night and but a big red dot on the nuclear plants and let them know we can blow it up any time we feel like. 



 

  I like the Big Red Dot scenario, GW, and I admire your restraint...

  This reminds me of a time when someone suggested that, at the close of WWII, the U.S. simply performed a conspicuous and conveniently-timed "nuclear test" in the waters of the WestPac, perhaps Japan would've surrendered and the war ended without the resulting civillian loss-of-life in and around Hiroshima and Nagasaki...

  Eh...mebbe, mebbe not...

As if 25 years of oppression wasn't enough, in 1980 America installed Saddam in Iraq and gave him a bunch of chemical weapons to go drop on Iran in an attempt to reclaim their lost prize.


Excuse me, can you prove that?  The last I heard, Saddam installed himself after taking over the Ba'th party (and killing all of his opponents in their parlaiment).

And considering he is supposed to be our buddy-buddy, why did he attack one of our ships, the USS Stark?

Of course, another irony is that the USS Stark is one of the "Dead Admiral" series of missle cruisers.  It was originally designed to be sold to Iran, but we ended up keeping it after their Islamic Revolution.

Once again, I am going to give my classic response.  Nobody has yet to ever explain this to me.

If the US is only in the Middle East for oil, why do we support Israel?

If we only care about oil, why do we so strongly support the only nation in the region without oil?

If we only care about oil, why were we involved in Afganistan in the 1980's, Haiti (several times), Somalia, Viet Nam, Korea, Yugoslavia, El Salvador, or any other place we have gottn into a conflict in the last 50 years?

Oh I am sure, those vast oil and resources of Haiti are why we keep going back there.  And don't forget the massive wealth of Grenada.  And AMerican Capitolists were just salivating to turn Somalia into another marketplace to sell McDonalds, open Wall-Mart stores, and bottle Coca-Cola.

Once again, I am going to give my classic response.  Nobody has yet to ever explain this to me.

If the US is only in the Middle East for oil, why do we support Israel?

If we only care about oil, why do we so strongly support the only nation in the region without oil?

If we only care about oil, why were we involved in Afganistan in the 1980's, Haiti (several times), Somalia, Viet Nam, Korea, Yugoslavia, El Salvador, or any other place we have gottn into a conflict in the last 50 years?

Oh I am sure, those vast oil and resources of Haiti are why we keep going back there.  And don't forget the massive wealth of Grenada.  And AMerican Capitolists were just salivating to turn Somalia into another marketplace to sell McDonalds, open Wall-Mart stores, and bottle Coca-Cola.


Mush, I'll try, but you seem to want simple answers, and there aren't any.  First, you need to recognize thast foreign policy is not just about international relations.  Domestic politics are just as important - maybe more important - in the formulation of foreign policy.  There are large concentrations of Jewish voters in swing states, many of whom are ardent supporters of Isael, antagonize them at your peril.  Nor is it only oil in the context of where the oil is. 

The other places you mention were during the cold war.  '80s Afganistan was a Soviet puppet state, so supporting the Mujahadeen was like the USSR supporting Ho and the Viet Cong.  Korea, Yugoslavia, El salvador and Graneda likewise, as opposing the Sandinistas.  Chaos in Haiti means (black, uneducated) boat people drqwning or reaching Miami.  It was an expanded version of the domino theory.  One can argue that this "real politic" approach to foreign policy is in our national interest, but I would suggest that  making enemies never is.  I would suggest that we, as a nation, need to respect the self determination of other soveraign states, and treat them based on the values we claim to espouse.  As you know, I have willingly reached out to most of those on this board with whom I disagree on important issues, and mostly tries to respect thier opinions.  Honest, respectful debate is always a good thing.  Colleagues are better than enemies, and friends are better still.  To me, this should be the guiding principle of our foreign policy, not the arrogant "my way or the highway"  attitude we now see enshrined in the  White House for another (potentially disasterous) 4 years.

I'm not sure I answered you question as convincingly as you would like, but I look forward to your reaction.

Mush, I'll try, but you seem to want simple answers, and there aren't any.

...

I'm not sure I answered you question as convincingly as you would like, but I look forward to your reaction.


Actually, that is pretty close to how I see things as well.  :)

I mostly throw those out to dispute those that only see the world in a simple way.  Saying "We got involved because of oil" is so simplistic, it is totally unrealistic.  When I make a statement like that, I am actually challenging those who see the world in such a narrow viewpoint to see other things that are involved.

I know why we got involved in most of the conflicts in the latter part of the 20th century.  In one form or another, most are involved to a degree to the "Cold War".  In much the same way that the Soviet Union got involved.  Rather then involving the world in a global war, both sides fought a "war via proxy", helping one side or another in minor conflicts, each trying to advance their own goals.  It also led to some strange bedfellows, as in El Salvador, Iran, Afganistan (on both sides), and Cuba.

The Middle East is a great example of this.  While most of the nations there were trained and equiped by the Soviet Union (Syria, Jordan, Egypt, Pre-Shah Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia), we trained and equiped the main adversary (Israel) and a few others (Iran, Saudi Arabia).

One great outcome is that it showed how effective the different doctrines were when pitted against each other.  In each case where Soviet DOctrine troops faced American Doctrine troops (any fight against Israel), those that followed American Doctrine won easily.  In most where Soviet Doctrine faced Soviet Doctrine (Iran-Iraq war, Afganistan), it resilted in a long stalemate that turned into a war of attrition.  This helped us refine our doctrines without having to fight, which showed in the 1990 Gulf War.

And before anybody jumps up, by "Doctrine", I mean how the troops are trained, and how the equipment is deployed.  For example, Soviet Doctrine favors a massive artillary barrage, followed by rapid advances by infantry and tanks.  If there is no breakthrough, the troops prepare defensive positions and hold fast against the expected counterattack.  Air power is largely used to deal with the other nations air power, and has little impact on the land battle itself.

American Doctrine is a combination of "Combined Arms" and the old German Blitzkreig.  Before the battle is even fought, air power is used to achieve "Air Superiorty".  Then Air, Artillary, Armour (Tanks), and Infantry all work together to make a breakthrough and exploit it as much as possible.  Air power is used 3 ways, to soften up the direction of march (B-52), to maintain air superiority (F-16), and to directly support the troops on the ground (F-15 and helicopters).