babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


  
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » archived babble   » the middle east and central asia   » New World Order: Israel, Iraqi Oil & Profits

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: New World Order: Israel, Iraqi Oil & Profits
majorvictory
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2878

posted 21 April 2003 07:56 AM      Profile for majorvictory     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Israel seeks pipeline for Iraqi oil
quote:
'After all, this is a new world order now. This is what things look like particularly if we wipe out Syria. It just goes to show that it is all about oil, for the United States and its ally.'


From: Toronto | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Cougyr
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3336

posted 22 April 2003 03:21 PM      Profile for Cougyr     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Why am I not surprised?
From: over the mountain | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
SamL
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2199

posted 12 May 2003 10:42 PM      Profile for SamL     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
The memorandum has been quietly renewed every five years, with special legislation attached whereby the US stocks a strategic oil reserve for Israel even if it entailed domestic shortages - at a cost of $3 billion (£1.9bn) in 2002 to US taxpayers.


Tell me I'm misinterpreting this: the US is willing to sacrifice its own domestic oil reserve for Israel's sake?


From: Cambridge, MA | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 13 May 2003 01:12 AM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
And to top it all of the bastards had the nerve to write a provision into the FTA and SHAFTA forcing Canada to maintain its energy exports to the USA even if it means problems for us. Talk about the most duplicitous bunch of idiots I ever did see.
From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Gir Draxon
leftist-rightie and rightist-leftie
Babbler # 3804

posted 13 May 2003 02:19 AM      Profile for Gir Draxon     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Israel seeks pipeline? OoO scary! Evil American Empire!

Europe seeks to restore their supply of Iraqi oil to pre-war levels? That would be fine. preferable in fact because... well.. um...

quote:
Tell me I'm misinterpreting this: the US is willing to sacrifice its own domestic oil reserve for Israel's sake?

The US had plenty of oil (Saudi Arabia and Kuwait) before the start of this war. This is why I never belived this was was about American greed for oil.

There is no sacfrifice of essential oil reserves here.


From: Arkham Asylum | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 13 May 2003 02:39 AM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
D'ya think it might be about controlling the PRICE of oil? Reducing the power of OPEC?

Could it be?


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
CMOT Dibbler
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4117

posted 20 May 2003 08:18 PM      Profile for CMOT Dibbler     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Gir Draxon:
Israel seeks pipeline? OoO scary! Evil American Empire!

Europe seeks to restore their supply of Iraqi oil to pre-war levels? That would be fine. preferable in fact because... well.. um...

The US had plenty of oil (Saudi Arabia and Kuwait) before the start of this war. This is why I never belived this was was about American greed for oil.

There is no sacfrifice of essential oil reserves here.


So what was it about then?

Some people are speculating that because the gulf sheikhdoms are run by extremists and because those countrys are hotbeds of "terrorism," the Americans decided that this might be a good time to find a new oil rich vassel state. Observe how they are currently pulling troops out of Saudi Arabia. All they have to do now is put ahmed Chilabi into power in Iraq an bang! They can distance themselves from the backward and feudal house of Saud and from the war of succesion that will inevitably follow the death of king Fahd.


From: Just outside Fernie, British Columbia | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
evenflow
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3493

posted 09 June 2003 07:50 PM      Profile for evenflow        Edit/Delete Post
I never thought of it that way CMOT. Good food for thought.

I can't believe that anyone would think this invasion was about anything other than controlling the oil.

Being as they haven't found any WMD, one has to deduce that the invasion was about something else. Since they weren't protecting any of the people or history of Iraq, it only leaves the oil. It's not like they are there to drink the water or anything.

With the US occupying Iraq, it ensures that Iraqi oil will be traded in US dollars for the foreseeable future, requiring countries who need Iraqi oil to have US dollars to buy it, thus keeping them dependent on the US.

Not particularly shocking that Israel is the first one to extend the 'gimme gimme' hand of friendship. Business as usual.


From: learning land | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
April Follies
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4098

posted 09 June 2003 08:39 PM      Profile for April Follies   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
My $0.02 CN:

The neocons reasons for wishing invasion were many and complex; oil was certainly a factor. This is true both from the point of view of the oil lobby, and for the political/econimic implications of oil as a tool. The neocons want not only a reliable supply of oil to the West, but also to break the OPEC cartel's hold over oil. In addition, they want a military outpost apart from the Saudi Arabian bases which are the cause of much unrest.

Indeed, they want to donwgrade the links between the US and Saudi Arabia in general. Partly, they view the spread of terrorism via radical Wahhabist Islam to have its roots in Saudi Arabia, home to Wahhabism. Partly they know that the troops so near Mecca and Medina are a continual sore for conservative Muslims. Partly Saudi Arabia's just too influential in the region for their taste - much as CMOT mentioned.

The pro-Likud elements amont the neocons also want to establish pro-Israel regimes in the Middle East, overlooking the difficulties of sustaining this in the face of widespread popular pro-Palestinian sentiment. There is currently grudging acceptance of Israel on the part of many of the MidEast regimes, if only to placate the U.S. However, apparently this is not considered sufficient by some elements, who want to completely dry up funding for Palestinian insurgents and weaken opposition to Likud territorial ambitions in, e.g. Lebanon. Perle seems to be the big voice on this score.

There are also such factors as establishing military intimidation of other governments in the region; establishing better infiltration of anti-US groups (I think they're dreaming on this one); proving certain theories of military actions (Rumsfeld, mostly); giving reconstruction contracts to favored elements (Bechtel, Halliburtion, etc; Cheney and others have large investments here); opening profitable defense contracts via the "field testing" of new weapons (Pearle - he has stock in a lot of these companies); the political populatity of being seen as taking decisive military action (Bush and other Republican candidates); even some religious reasons (Bush, through Phil Graham and other family and constituent religious connections).


From: Help, I'm stuck in the USA | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 09 June 2003 08:50 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by April Follies:
My $0.02 CN:

Cheapskate!


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
April Follies
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4098

posted 09 June 2003 11:09 PM      Profile for April Follies   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Cheapskate? Moi? Perish forbid! But the last time I gave the full dollar CN, those disgruntled northerners had the nerve to call me a loonie...

[ 09 June 2003: Message edited by: April Follies ]


From: Help, I'm stuck in the USA | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
evenflow
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3493

posted 18 June 2003 12:13 AM      Profile for evenflow        Edit/Delete Post
good one re: loonie!
From: learning land | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 18 June 2003 01:00 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I think Americans who aren't used to seeing a lot of Canadian money get a real kick out of our "loonies" and "twonies" - the name in particular.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Meowful
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4177

posted 18 June 2003 11:40 AM      Profile for Meowful   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by evenflow:

With the US occupying Iraq, it ensures that Iraqi oil will be traded in US dollars for the foreseeable future, requiring countries who need Iraqi oil to have US dollars to buy it, thus keeping them dependent on the US.

This is true... Iraq was going to begin selling its oil in Euros and that freaked the states out. Imagine if the US dollar meant NOTHING in the middle east? This was the US's way of being sure the oil continues to be sold in US dollars...


From: British Columbia | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Black Dog
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2776

posted 18 June 2003 05:35 PM      Profile for Black Dog   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
The US had plenty of oil (Saudi Arabia and Kuwait) before the start of this war. This is why I never belived this was was about American greed for oil.

Once again, we see the limitations of the right-wing tendancy to boil issues down to the simplest possible level. You tend to miss a few things that way.

This argument complete ignores the importance of oil in the global economy. It's never been a matter of the U.S. ensuring its supply of oil. It's about dictating pricing, dictating where the profits go (ie. American companies) and using control of the oil supply to thwart any potential rival powers from emerging (ie. China, the E.U.). And that's just a few of the oil-issues. There's a lot more going on here than can be distilled down into soundbite form.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
evenflow
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3493

posted 19 June 2003 12:19 AM      Profile for evenflow        Edit/Delete Post
Well stated black dog
From: learning land | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
majorvictory
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2878

posted 07 February 2004 08:10 PM      Profile for majorvictory     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
U.S. checking possibility of pumping oil from northern Iraq to Haifa, via Jordan

quote:
By Amiram Cohen

The United States has asked Israel to check the possibility of pumping oil from Iraq to the oil refineries in Haifa. The request came in a telegram last week from a senior Pentagon official to a top Foreign Ministry official in Jerusalem.

The Prime Minister's Office, which views the pipeline to Haifa as a "bonus" the U.S. could give to Israel in return for its unequivocal support for the American-led campaign in Iraq, had asked the Americans for the official telegram.

The new pipeline would take oil from the Kirkuk area, where some 40 percent of Iraqi oil is produced, and transport it via Mosul, and then across Jordan to Israel. The U.S. telegram included a request for a cost estimate for repairing the Mosul-Haifa pipeline that was in use prior to 1948. During the War of Independence, the Iraqis stopped the flow of oil to Haifa and the pipeline fell into disrepair over the years.

The National Infrastructure Ministry has recently conducted research indicating that construction of a 42-inch diameter pipeline between Kirkuk and Haifa would cost about $400,000 per kilometer. The old Mosul-Haifa pipeline was only 8 inches in diameter.

National Infrastructure Minister Yosef Paritzky said yesterday that the port of Haifa is an attractive destination for Iraqi oil and that he plans to discuss this matter with the U.S. secretary of energy during his planned visit to Washington next month. Paritzky added that the plan depends on Jordan's consent and that Jordan would receive a transit fee for allowing the oil to piped through its territory. The minister noted, however, that "due to pan-Arab concerns, it will be hard for the Jordanians to agree to the flow of Iraqi oil via Jordan and Israel."



From: Toronto | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 08 February 2004 05:03 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Are the Kurds in the Way?

quote:
its colonial occupation of the region and has been closed since the creation of Israel in 1948. The US, Israel and Turkey have a defense agreement which means that these governments will try to work together to get what they want. When it comes to the Kurds, this means that Turkey gets help in preventing Kurdish self-rule, Israel gets a cheap and steady oil supply, and the US gets a tighter grip on the Middle East and some oil profits as a bonus.



From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

   Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca