Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It's a false conspiracy theory that the USA is going to steal oil from Middle eastern countries. It is true that if there were no oil in the ME, no one would give a crap about it. The world economy is dependent on oil. So our policy is built on keeping the oil flowing.
The Middle East was civilized until Islam arose and tried to take over the world.
The Middle East was just being fought over by the Romans or Byzantines vs. the Persians pre-Islam, while the Arab peninsula was a bunch of feuding tribes. What was that civilized about it at that point? The Byzantines weren't particularly liked as rulers either. It's always been in the middle of someone's invasion route or provinces in someone else's empire for much of the last 2000+ years--it's the crossroads of the world where Africa, Asia, and Europe meet, though that's been for worse rather than better.
For the longest, the idea of the US meddling in the Middle East for oil has been regarded as an anti-war conspiracy theory. This is the narrative from right side of the spectrum. But in reality, is it really a conspiracy theory? I mean many historians and political scientists have been contending that US foreign policy in the MENA is indeed driven by oil interest.
All you have to do is look at history.
1920-28: U.S. pressures Britain, then the dominant Middle East power, into signing a "Red Line Agreement"
1932-34: Oil is discovered in Bahrain, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, and U.S. oil companies obtain concessions.
1944: U.S. State Department memo refers to Middle Eastern oil as "a stupendous source of strategic power, and one of the greatest material prizes in world history."
Between 1948 and 1960, Western capital earns $12.8 billion in profits from the production, refining and sale of Middle Eastern oil, on fixed investments totaling $1.3 billion.
and it goes on and on and on and on....
This being said, I don't think it is entirely fair to say that the invasion of Middle East is all about oil. You an argue that it is unjust and not moral enough to invade a country for oil, and I won't deny that one bit.
However, It's not JUST about the oil, it's about maintaining dollar hegemony. The US will go to any length necessary to make sure the entire world uses US dollars to purchase oil. The petrodollar is key to making sure the value of the dollar remains high.
It's not about necessarily OWNING the oil. It's about getting it to market to drive down demand and thus, worldwide price. They didn't care who gets the oil as long as it gets to market and for a "reasonable" price.
You can also argue that it is to put forces strategically located throughout the world to contain China as well as to prevent them from cornering vast oil supplies.
Oil supply is like blood supply in term of global economy.
So is it all about oil? Yes and No. Is the war morally justified? no. But things are not just black and white.
If we were there for the oil, then we would have gotten free oil from Iraq and Kuwait.
Didn't happen.
Who controls Iraq's oil? who runs the largest oil field... Exxon. The american public was never in line to get cheaper oil or get any benefits, the corporations get the spoils, do the corporations employ Americans? I guess, there is some trickle down but the profiteering stays up top.
For the longest, the idea of the US meddling in the Middle East for oil has been regarded as an anti-war conspiracy theory. This is the narrative from right side of the spectrum. But in reality, is it really a conspiracy theory? I mean many historians and political scientists have been contending that US foreign policy in the MENA is indeed driven by oil interest.
It has evidently escaped your notice that the world runs on oil. Any competent government is going to pay a lot of attention to the areas that produce that oil and conduct their foreign policy accordingly. Anyone that thinks this is wrong and a "bad thing" is simply a buffoon that lives is a rainbow colored rubber room.
Who controls Iraq's oil? who runs the largest oil field... Exxon. The american public was never in line to get cheaper oil or get any benefits, the corporations get the spoils, do the corporations employ Americans? I guess, there is some trickle down but the profiteering stays up top.
And another ignoramus pontificates on a subject about which he clearly knows nothing.
The Middle East was just being fought over by the Romans or Byzantines vs. the Persians pre-Islam, while the Arab peninsula was a bunch of feuding tribes. What was that civilized about it at that point? The Byzantines weren't particularly liked as rulers either. It's always been in the middle of someone's invasion route or provinces in someone else's empire for much of the last 2000+ years--it's the crossroads of the world where Africa, Asia, and Europe meet, though that's been for worse rather than better.
Not to mention if it wasnt for the Mongols single handily setting the back the middle east 500 years it would have been a totally different story, if it wasnt for heavy drinking habits among their Khans and internal feuds the mongols would have not stopped until they reached Spain.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
