[Rhodes22-list] Stan, CAUTION, politics ahead

[brad haslett]

Wally,

One correction to your observation; Qatar was the base
for our command center in the region and is a Muslim
country.

In a nutshell, I agree that oil is at the bottom line
of much of the Gulf regions problems and our interest
in military intervention.  Those countries would still
dispute Israel's right to exist, but, without oil they
wouldn't have the means to build the armies that
really pose a threat to Israel and each other. 
Without oil our response to the area would be much
like our response to most of Africa; tragic but not in
our interests to do anything about it.

Here is where I disagree with most of the "blood for
oil" proponents; all but the last third of Iraq's oil
production is already on the world market.  Assuming
that we don't just outright annex the Iraqi oil fields
(and we're not) they still get the money from the oil.
 Sure, American oil companies will get contracts for
field improvements (as opposed to some French and
Russian companies who are presently there) and the big
oil companies (they are almost all multi-national
companies now so its hard to call them American) will
get some shipping and distribution contracts, BUT, 
very little NEW oil will enter the marketplace. 
Contrary to what many folks think, or know about the
domestic oil industry, cheap oil hurts domestic
producers in the long run.  Hypothetical:  If GW was
still in the oil business and whoever was President
bombed the Iraqi oil fields out of existance, it would
save his company from seeking a buyout instead of
filing bankruptcy.  See my point?


--- Wally Buck <tnrhodey at hotmail.com> wrote:
> Heck Brad, can't you tell I love politcal debates.
> It takes a lot to piss me 
> off and even more to offend. I always try to keep a
> some what open mind and 
> some times my opinion can be swayed.
> >
> >BH......... Ending worldwide terrorism is in the
> best
> >interest of the worldwide economy, not just ours.
> >Whether you like it or not our economy is very
> >inter-dependent with other nations.  Look at what
> >happened to the stock market after the Towers fell.
> >While financial health may sound like a bad thing
> to
> >some folks, a failing economy hurts everyone
> >regardless of financial position.  Frankly, our
> only
> >stable and reliable ally in the region is Israel. 
> The
> >House of Saud is crumbling and has been the source
> of
> >many of the discontents.  Iraq WAS funding
> political
> >instability in the region.  The radical Muslums
> have
> >proven that they can and will attack us on our own
> >soil.  How can you ignore instability in the region
> as
> >a threat?.................BH
> 
> Of course ending terrorism is a good thing and
> obvioulsy our econmoy is 
> effected by the world economy. I do think going in
> after Bin laden was the 
> right thing to do. And of course financial health is
> a good thing. Some 
> times I have to chuckle about our ally Isreal. How
> did we wind up being 
> friends with one of the few countries in the middle
> east with no oil. :) 
> Just kidding here. Instability in the region may be
> a financial threat but I 
> don't think it was a threat to our National
> Security, just our wallet. Most 
> of what you say is true and this just supports the
> claim that oil was one of 
> the main drivers of the war.
> 
> >BH.........It is a dis-appointment that more Muslum
> >countries didn't sign on this time.  Saudi Arabia's
> >ruling family is at risk of losing power and took
> the
> >safe course.  Turkey had just installed a new
> >government and the vote to join the effort fell
> short
> >by only a handfull of votes. Jordan is now run by
> King
> >Hussain's son as opposed to the King who was
> married
> >to an American during Gulf War 1 but that's just
> >guesswork on my part.  Egypt?  Dunno.  It is a
> >certainty that Jordan, Syria, and Turkey were
> dealing
> >in smuggled Iraqi oil so maybe it was just
> financial
> >self-interest. I will once again refer to an
> article
> >in the March/April issue of "Foreign Affairs" by
> Ken
> >Pollack that addresses that specific question in
> >detail.  I'm not sure if its available on line but
> if
> >I ever get a scanner I'll send you a
> >copy.................
> 
> Is is not a disappoinment that more Muslim countries
> didn't help us, it is a 
> disappoinment that NO Muslim countries or any
> country in the area joined us. 
> You stated the reasons but did not answer the
> question. If they are not 
> worried about the instability then why should we? I
> think the answer is 
> "oil". My point is that oil is the main thing
> driving the war.
> 
> >
> >BH..........We have at least another year of 43 to
> go.
> >  I'll let his record in history speak for
> >itself.......BH
> > >
> 
> My point here is that with out his father greasing
> the way 43 would not have 
> a presidential record for history to judge. He would
> have not gotten into 
> Yale, and most likely not been elected president. He
> was Commander in Chief 
> while we kicked ass on a third rate military.
> 
> >BH..........I agree our record of nation building
> has
> >met with mixed results regardless of who was
> President
> >at the time.  I give the nod to Dr. Rice as having
> a
> >better handle on this than me.........BH
> 
> I think mixed results is giving our nation building
> record too much credit. 
> What are the success stories? I will admit I am not
> an expert in this area 
> (or any other) but when I look back in modern times
> it seems we have had no 
> success what so ever.
> 
> >
> >BH.............Their unit supports everyone in that
> >area out of Germany.  The primary thrust of their
> >mission was to Afghanastan but they made trips to
> the
> >Gulf area as well.  Those boys, fighter pilots,
> >transports, etc. all drink and eat together and
> they
> >share a lot of info with each other.  They don't
> share
> >  much with me and I respect them for that.  I
> think
> >what they were referring to was that the "no fly
> zone"
> >kept Saddam from launching another gas attack via
> >airborne equipment like he did on the Kurds.  There
> >has been a lot of recon efforts in that area for a
> >long time and the units are all dependent on each
> >other so even though stuff is supposed to be "hush,
> >hush" they figure out what the others are doing.
> >Still, they keep it from me, even when they're
> >drunk.............BH
> 
> I buy that but if our recon was so good how come we
> don't have a clue as to 
> the location of a single WMD? I know it is a big
> country and they have had 
> years to hide the stuff. Heck it is probably all in
> Syria by now.
> 
> Brad I guess in a nut shell I feel that Oil is the
> thing driving the war and 
> it seems no one wants to admit it. I don't think we
> would have lifted a 
> finger to help Kuwait if oil wasn't involved. Our
> economy runs on oil. Bin 
> laden sites US meddling in the Middle East as the
> reason for 911. We 
> wouldn't give a shit about the middle east if they
> had no oil. I say call a 
> spade a spade. There are a bucnh worse things going
> on through out various 
> African nations and we don't care, they have no oil.
> 
> As long as we rely on foreign oil we will always be
> at the mercy of 
> countries that seem to hate our guts. Our solution
> seems to be to help prop 
> up on regime after the next. They all eventually
> topple and wind up hating 
> us even more.
> 
> Wally
> 
>
_________________________________________________________________
> Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection
> with MSN 8. 
> http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
> 
> __________________________________________________
> Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help?
www.rhodes22.org/list


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
http://calendar.yahoo.com