Printable View
You posted a link with comments from that simpleton Chuck Hagel and that fat ape Michael Moore...gee however could I disagree with those two :rolleyes:
A war for oil eh? Well according to this
http://a57.foxnews.com/media.foxbusi...sel_Taylor.jpg
We get a whopping 3.2% of our oil from Iraq....maaaaan why didn't we blow them up sooner? Also why didn't we blow up Canada? Pfffft that would be too easy I guess
There is a reason why the thread has turned to the Iraq war and it has nothing to do with me. Yourself and Miles and Lyle all took it down that dead end. As for Straw man arguments it really is not the case that I misrepresented your own arguments but rather that you have yourself resorted to creating such fallacies to defend an untenable position.
If like you attest the Iraq war was ENTIRELY about access to it's Oil reserves then what happened to the victims of genocide planned and carried out ? Were they not good enough reasons to question the lefts policy of turning a blind eye. Do you really think the wringing of hands or averting ones eyes while atrocities are carried out amounts to anything more than being an apologist for Murderous dictators like Saddam Hussein?
You are trying to make out that people who carry out acts of terror, whether in New York or Woolwich are seeking to avenge the deaths of innocent Muslims when in reality they are seeking to usher in a new regime of intolerance and barbarity in which more innocent people of all faiths and none are crushed under their medieval doctrines.
No Beanz all the Muslims do is "retaliate" the Westerners are the terrorists....the people who accept these people of different faiths into their communities and treat them in a neighborly fashion are the REAL bad people here and it's all because of their greed for oil, I mean search your soul, you know it to be true.
And the Jews, well honestly the Palestinians are just trying to reclaim what was rightfully theirs when they just up and decided to become "Palestinians" ;) when they realized they were getting a Jewish neighbor and well one Holocaust wasn't enough so they'll just have to try again....crafty Jews....am I right Kirkland, eh comrade?!?!?
however it's not going to lastQuote:
Originally Posted by El Kabong
List of countries by proven oil reserves - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Countries - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)
it's about securing 'future' oil reserves :rolleyes:
OOOOOOH well yes of course :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Howlin Mad Missy
Couldn't the war be because Saddam repeatedly violated UN multiple sanctions? Nah, nah it's TOTALLY due to oil to which I might add is extremely fucking expensive so why the fuck would that be if we went to war for oil? Why wouldn't the oil be dirt cheap right now? Riddle me that Missy
yet energy prices are going up hmmmQuote:
Originally Posted by El KabongOOOOOOH well yes of course :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Howlin Mad Missy
Couldn't the war be because Saddam repeatedly violated UN multiple sanctions? Nah, nah it's TOTALLY due to oil to which I might add is extremely fucking expensive so why the fuck would that be if we went to war for oil? Why wouldn't the oil be dirt cheap right now? Riddle me that Missy
and you mean like the kind of UN violation that means Under the UN Charter, "there are only two circumstances in which the use of force is permissible: in collective or individual self-defense against an actual or imminent armed attack; and when the Security Council has directed or authorized use of force to maintain or restore international peace and security. Neither of those circumstances now exist. Absent one of them, U.S. use of force against Iraq is unlawful."
and of course the weapons the governments lied about to 'justify' a war.
But it's ok you carry on with the thread hijack
#1 The UN is impotent, if that's their view on war then I guess 0 of their sanctions have any teeth. "We as the UN tell you to do x, y, and z and if you don't........well we just won't like you very much Saddam!" GAY, that's fucking gayQuote:
Originally Posted by Howlin Mad Missy
#2 I didn't hijack anything, miles and Kirkland are the ones saying "Well this attack was kind of justified because of the War on Terror" then they brought up the whole "illegal war" bullshit and now all the sissies want to join in on talking about Iraq...where I merely stated that A) Its a horrible attack B ) some bystander should have done SOMETHING and C) if those bastards stay in jail forever they'll only make more people radicalized and I proved that by linking a story which you apparently passed right on by.
#3 Have fun with your muzzies, your country has appeased the radical ones for far too long
#4 Where did the WMD's from Iraq go???
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=9df_1369675224
Syria anyone???
LiveLeak.com - Smoking Gun for Syria Gas Attack - We know who did it!
muzzies - racist, just thought I'd point that one out.
Islam isn't a race.....thought you should knowQuote:
Originally Posted by Howlin Mad Missy
It's the same if someone was hating on Jews calling Muslims 'muzzies'Quote:
Originally Posted by El KabongIslam isn't a race.....thought you should knowQuote:
Originally Posted by Howlin Mad Missy
Oh now I know what muzzies are :-X!
Had me stumped there for bit.
Oil is all about controlling the world price not supply. It is about barrels released and produced on demand as much as stockpiles.
The Middle east consortium via a few global companies (It had a real name,which I forget, but it was a number of countries who sought to join up to be in the controlling position of the world price).
They nearly got control at one point and were a mere vote away from a monopoly on it, its only that they fell apart in disagreement and lost some voters over our Israeli friends doing something or another at the time, that they fucked themselves up.
Usa saw this and have worked very nicely on a number of levels to halt them ever going up the same path and forming into another. A foothold over there is very useful.
That is not racist. It is a shortened term for muslims. If I meet someone called Robert, and I call him Robbie, does that mean I wish he was dead or that I hate him?Quote:
Originally Posted by Howlin Mad Missy
Stupid fucking world is so politically correct now they are frightened to offend anyone. They're just words people, get the fuck over it already.
and Paki is?Quote:
Originally Posted by bzkfnThat is not racist. It is a shortened term for muslims. If I meet someone called Robert, and I call him Robbie, does that mean I wish he was dead or that I hate him?Quote:
Originally Posted by Howlin Mad Missy
Stupid fucking world is so politically correct now they are frightened to offend anyone. They're just words people, get the fuck over it already.
I couldnt find the thing I had read just yet on it; but this spells out why America is in the region in no uncertain terms.Quote:
Originally Posted by Andre
American intervention in the Middle East
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...-clear.svg.png
This article has no lead section. Please help by adding an introductory section to this article. For more information, see the layout guide, and Wikipedia's lead section guidelines. (May 2011) This article provides an overview of American interventions in the Middle East executed between 1941 and before the Iranian Revolution in 1978-1979.
Contents
- 1 Background
- 2 Israel
- 3 Syria: 1949
- 4 Mosaddeq and the Shah
- 5 Egypt 1956: The Suez Crisis
- 6 The Six Day War and Black September
- 7 Afghanistan and Pakistan
- 8 See also
- 9 References
- 10 External links
Background
The United States’ relationship with the Middle East prior to the Second World War was minimal. Moreover, in comparison to European powers such as Britain and France which had managed to colonize almost all of the Middle East region after defeating the Ottoman Empire in 1918, the United States was ‘popular and respected throughout the Middle East’.[1] Indeed, ‘Americans were seen as good people, untainted by the selfishness and duplicity associated with the Europeans’.[2] American missionaries had brought modern medicine and set up educational institutions all over the Middle East. Moreover, the US had provided the Middle East with highly skilled petroleum engineers.[3] Thus, there were some connections made between the United States and the Middle East before the Second World War. Other examples of cooperations between the US and the Middle East are the Red Line Agreement signed in 1928 and the Anglo-American Petroleum Agreement signed in 1944. Both of these agreements were legally binding and reflected an American interest in control of Middle Eastern energy resources, namely oil, and moreover reflected an American ‘security imperative to prevent the (re)emergence of a powerful regional rival’.[4] The Red Line Agreement had been ‘part of a network of agreements made in the 1920s to restrict supply of petroleum and ensure that the major [mostly American] companies…could control oil prices on world markets’.[5] The Red Line agreement governed the development of Middle East oil for the next two decades. The Anglo-American Petroleum Agreement of 1944 was based on negotiations between the United States and Britain over the control of Middle Eastern oil. Below is shown what the American President Franklin D. Roosevelt had in mind for to a British Ambassador in 1944:
Persian oil …is yours. We share the oil of Iraq and Kuwait. As for Saudi Arabian oil, it’s ours.[6]
On August 8, 1944, the Anglo-American Petroleum Agreement was signed, dividing Middle Eastern oil between the United States and Britain. Consequently, political scholar Fred H Lawson remarks, that ‘by mid-1944, U.S. officials had buttressed their country’s position on the peninsula by concluding an Anglo-American Petroleum Agreement that protected “all valid concession contracts and lawfully acquired rights” belonging to the signatories and established a principle of “equal opportunity” in those areas where no concession had yet been assigned.’[7] Furthermore, political scholar Irvine Anderson summarises American interests in the Middle East in the late 19th century and the early 20th century noting that, ‘the most significant event of the period was the transition of the United States from the position of net exporter to one of net importer of petroleum.’[8]
By the end of the Second World War, the United States had come to consider the Middle East region as ‘the most strategically important area of the world’.[9] and ‘…one of the greatest material prizes in world history’.[9] For that reason, it was not until around the period of the Second World War that America became directly involved in the Middle East region. At this time the region was going through great social, economic and political changes and as a result, internally the Middle East region was in turmoil. Politically, the Middle East was experiencing an upsurge in the popularity of nationalistic politics and an increase in the number of nationalistic political groups across the region, which was causing great trouble for the English and French colonial powers.
History scholar Jack Watson explains that ‘Europeans could not hold these lands indefinitely in the face of Arab nationalism’.[10] Watson then continues, stating that ‘by the end of 1946 Palestine was the last remaining mandate, but it posed a major problem’. .[11] In truth, this nationalistic political trend clashed with American interests in the Middle East region, which were, as Middle East scholar Louise Fawcett argues, ‘about the Soviet Union, access to oil and the project for a Jewish state in Palestine.’[12] Hence, ‘‘‘Arabist’ ambassador Raymond Hare’ described the Second World War period, as ‘the great divide’ in United States’ relation with the Middle East, because these three interests would later serve as a backdrop and reasoning for a great deal of American interventions in the Middle East and thus also come to be the cause of several future conflicts between the United States and the Middle East.[2]
For more details on Anglo-American Petroleum Agreement, see Anglo-American Petroleum Agreement.