The Origins of the War Against Iraq

[redstar2000]

The new American strategy of military occupation of oil-rich countries goes back a long way.


The United States considered using force to seize oil fields in the Middle East during an oil embargo by Arab states in 1973, according to British government documents just made public.

It was thought that US airborne troops would seize the oil installations in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait and might even ask the British to do the same in Abu Dhabi.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/middle_east/3333995.stm

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[Jesus Christ]

some how im not too suprised

[LuZhiming]

It goes back much deeper than that. Noam Chomsky has pointed this out thousands of times, the State Department released a report in 1945 where they described the Persian Gulf region as a "stupendous source of strategic power, and one of the greatest material prizes in world history".

[el_profe]

Instead of trying to get oil, they should try to find other ways to fuel cars, planes, everything.

Solar panels is something that i think will eventually be used in houses instead of electricity.

They are trying to make solar planes (planes that use the solar energy instead of fuel)

[Loknar]

Well, the US built Saudi Arabia’s oil industry, if they decide to cut it off we have a right to guard our interests .

[Bolshevika]

Actually, El Profe, there is already an unlimited form of energy other than oil, Tesla found it and many scientists have proved it to work. It requires pulling energy out of the atmosphere or even the ionosphere.

Tesla even built a large tower that pulled energy down. But of course, the U.S. government tore it down.

As long as capitalism exists and oil companies are a pillar that holds it up, there will be dozens of more genocide wars.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Well, the US built Saudi Arabia’s oil industry, if they decide to cut it off we have a right to guard our interests .

Well malte has a right to defend his interests, he's gonna take this board down, and shoot you in the face while he's at it.

asshat. :angry:

[SonofRage]

If you want solar power, all you have to do is give Exxon ownership of the Sun :D (I stole that from Ralph Nader so its his joke, not mine).

[apathy maybe]

Actually I don't see what this has to do with the US invading Iraq in 2003 to remove a dictator they didn't like (they did like him but then he got upitty).

And all the power we could ever need in the next few hundred years is freely availiable, the Sun.

[Rastaman]

but solar panels are bad.. according to the big corperate owners...

they need to sell the fuel to get richer.. once u have solar panels u can have as much enrgy as u want without paying a dime.. thats really bad for buisness

[Le Libérer]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2004, 03:06 AM
The new American strategy of military occupation of oil-rich countries goes back a long way.


The United States considered using force to seize oil fields in the Middle East during an oil embargo by Arab states in 1973, according to British government documents just made public.

It was thought that US airborne troops would seize the oil installations in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait and might even ask the British to do the same in Abu Dhabi.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/middle_east/3333995.stm

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas
Dear Redstar, whats sad is most Americans (at least those who voted for Bush) think its perfectly ok to go in, ravish, rape, and kill a country to take anything they want. This is from another board I'm on, and I quote from one of my fellow Americans :ph34r: :


No, remember we heard about the protesters in London on the news. It seems like that was the TOP news. For days.....
I want to know what's directed toward us, too, so we can tell them, "Bring it on, if you dare.."
I admire what Bush AND Tony Blaire have done. Anyone who saw the A&E biography of Saddam the other night and saw his atrocities on camera the night he proclaimed himself "president" got chills sent up their spine.....
Bush's course of action is right on the mark, IMO....thank God w/ the terrorism that finally invaded this country, someone had the balls to stand up for others who have been terrorized for 35 years.

Now thats a sad commentary!

[Loknar]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2004, 08:24 AM

Well, the US built Saudi Arabia’s oil industry, if they decide to cut it off we have a right to guard our interests .

Well malte has a right to defend his interests, he's gonna take this board down, and shoot you in the face while he's at it.

asshat. :angry:
Ok what would you do with out oil?


Lets say live in a country that completely relies on food exports from another nation which borders you. Suddenly that nation decides to cut off the food supply. As head of state, you desperately try to get food else ware, it is somewhat successful but with in 90 days your state will be in a state of mass famine. What do you do?


This is what I would do. Go into the country in question, change it's government and make them sell you the food. Either that or you just say "well we don’t have a right to force them" and allow your people to starve.


Guys REALISM is what drives every nation. It is not about what is right and what is wrong. It's like this "There's the way it is and the way it ought to be", that is how each nation runs this planet and it is a realistic practice.

[redstar2000]

"There's the way it is and the way it ought to be"...

Yes, and we're in "the way it ought to be" end of things at this board.

You may have noticed. :lol:

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[Don't Change Your Name]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2004, 10:46 PM
Ok what would you do with out oil?
That's stupid. You dont need oil, you have many alternative ways of having energy. You dont drink oil, dont you?


Lets say live in a country that completely relies on food exports from another nation which borders you. Suddenly that nation decides to cut off the food supply. As head of state, you desperately try to get food else ware, it is somewhat successful but with in 90 days your state will be in a state of mass famine. What do you do?


This is what I would do. Go into the country in question, change it's government and make them sell you the food. Either that or you just say "well we don’t have a right to force them" and allow your people to starve.

This is so ridiculous... in first place: why the hell does this nation relies on food exports? Does it buy the food or is it some kind of colony? Why does it rely in only one nation? Are those in that country stupid? Do they know how to produce food? What was the cause for the cut off? How is this related to a fascist empire who goes to a country to steal something like oil (NOBODY in yanquiland will starve without oil, and if they cant carry the food because of that they can fuck themselves for pretending to be owners of the world and polluting it when they could have found alternative energy sources) using as a pretext that they want to throw off a dictator they once supported? And who the fuck do you think you are to go and change a government from another country? Isnt that anti-democratic? (Unless of course its a dictatorship, but in such a case I doubt a dictator will just stop supplying someone as if it was an enemy) If your starving nations has enough power/money/military as to change another country's government, WHY THE HELL DIDNT THEY SPEND THE TIME AND MONEY BUILDING THEIR MILITARY AND GETTING THEIR POWER DEVELOPING TECHNIQUES TO GET FOOD SO THAT THEY WOULD HAVE AUTONOMY IN SUCH AN IMPORTANT ASPECT??? And if it was so that they could just spend everything on creating a big killing machine without having to worry about the food, WHY DID THEY HAVE TO WASTE THINGS ON SOMETHING THAT KILLS? ARENT THEY IMPERIALIST MURDERERS??? Your stupid yanki argument doesnt have sense or you havent explained yourself very well, but your argument makes you look like a brainwashed patriotic idiot, at least you seem that in my eyes.


Guys REALISM is what drives every nation. It is not about what is right and what is wrong. It's like this "There's the way it is and the way it ought to be", that is how each nation runs this planet and it is a realistic practice.

No no no. Exploitation, greed, hate, violence, believing in their supremacy, robbery, and a bunch of stupid ideals about a "nation" (which supports the idea that the world is divided in small pieces which is CLEARLY STUPID) is what drives every nation. And what drives idiots like you.

[Loknar]

Listen you moron, if oil was suddenly cut off (especially as early as the 1970's) your alternate energy bs wouldn’t have time to kick in. Everything would go to hell since we are so reliant upon energy.


Now, you only provide more questions to counter my question but you never answered it. And a reasonable explanation is some nations would build up their industry way more than their farms. This was the case of Germany in WW1. They imported food from overseas, the British navy stopped food shipments and people starved.

Now drop your right and wrong melodrama, you have allot to learn about politics and how things work in this world. I have news for you, the US didn’t start Imperialism. Imperialism has always existed, man conquers each other in many forms. Whether I think it’s right or wrong DOESN’T MATTER. It is simply the way it is and despite what you think this hasn’t changed.

Now envision your self as the head of state of a nation. Your people desperately need food imports, if they don’t get those shipments they will starve, your economy will collapse. Now, your neighbor provides %80 of the food, but your relationship turns sour, they decide to cut off the food. Now, as I said, you can’ replace that much food. But the food is with in your grasp. What do you do?

[Sabocat]

The U$ only gets a small percentage of it's oil from the Middle East. The war is about controlling other countries supplies of oil. So Loknar, you can easily see, that the U$ is more than capable of surviving without that supply. In fact, as you can see from the list below, Texas is responsible for more of our oil than Saudi Arabia.

Domestic Energy Consumption
The United States consumes by far the most energy of any country in the world: on average 20,000,000 barrels of oil a day. Although the US accounts for only 5.5% of the worlds population, 20,000,000 barrels represents 26% of the world's total oil production (a quarter of the world's carbon emissions). Domestic oil production is roughly 5 million barrels of oil per day which means that a net import of 15 million barrels of oil per day are necessary to fuel our energy dependant economy.
Breakdown of US Energy Supplies:
Domestic Production (per day)
Texas- 25% (about 1.5 million barrels)
California- 21% (about 1 million barrels)
Alaska- 24% (about 1.5 million barrels)
Louisiana- 14% (about 500,000 barrels)
Other states (about 500,000 barrels)

Imports (per day)
Canada - 1.68 million barrels
Saudi Arabia- 1.49 million barrels
Venezuela- 1.46 million barrels
Mexico- 1.35 million barrels
Other ( including North Africa, West Africa, Australasia, China, Pacific countries, other Central and South American countries)- 7 million barrels

http://www.columbia.edu/~sp2023/scienceand...%20figures.html (http://www.columbia.edu/~sp2023/scienceandsociety/web-pages/facts%20and%20figures.html)



This is not an issue of access, it is primarily about control. The US was just as concerned to control Middle East oil producing regions when it didn't depend on them at all. Until about 30 years ago, North America was the largest producer and the US scarcely used Middle East oil at all. Since then Venezuela has normally been the largest oil exporter to the United States. US intelligence projections suggest that in coming years the US will rely primarily on Western Hemisphere resources: primarily the Atlantic basin - Venezuela, Mexico, Brazil, probably Colombia, but also possibly Canada, which has huge potential reserves if they become economically competitive. Imported supplies accounted for 50% of US oil consumption in 2000 and by 2020 the figure is expected to rise to 66%.

Control over the greatest concentration of energy resources has two goals: (1) economic: huge profits for energy corporations, construction firms, arms producers, as well as petrodollars recycled to US treasury, etc; and (2) it's a lever of global geo-political control. For those trying to understand the motives behind US behaviour towards Iraq, it is impossible to underestimate the importance which oil has in the minds of Washington's strategic planners.

Attempts to discredit arguments about US access to Iraqi oil by claiming that it if it is interested in access to supplies it could more easily strike a deal with Saddam to satisfy its "thirst for oil" rather than overthrow him, entirely miss the crucial issue - control.

http://oilcontrol.tripod.com/

So you see, your pathetic attempt to make it look like the U$ would be crippled without this oil are completely unfounded.

[elijahcraig]

William Blum explains the coup in Iran in 53 which drastically played out over the last fifty years, tumulting down to the present situation.

Third World Traveller is a good site for any information on Iraq, or any other third world country which has been smashed by the US.