Gen. Abizaid, "Of Course It's About Oil,"

[Spurious George]

Global security and the challenge of climate change

Stanford Report, October 15, 2007

Concerning the Middle East, Friedman(New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman) blamed the United States for treating the region as a collection of cheap "gas stations" for the last 50 years. In exchange for low oil prices and a hands-off policy toward Israel, he said, the United States turned a blind eye to the entrenchment of ideological, authoritarian regimes. "It is my opinion that Osama bin Laden and 9/11 represented the distilled essence of everything that was going on out 'back there,'" he said, referring to Western acquiescence to policies that preached intolerance and rejected equal opportunity for all citizens.

Abizaid(retired Army Gen. John Abizaid) said the dynamics in the Middle East, particularly the war in Iraq, are closely tied to oil. "We can't really deny that," he said. Furthermore, the rise of Sunni and Shiite extremists, the continuing Arab-Israeli conflict and global dependence on Middle Eastern oil have created problems with global implications.

"It is this dependency that can't just be dealt with by military means," Abizaid said. "We must adapt, as a matter of national security, a way to reduce our dependency on Middle Eastern oil." Following enthusiastic applause from the audience, he said these problems are further complicated by the question of whether Pakistan can maintain control of its nuclear weapons and by the expansion of the terrorist group al-Qaida into a global phenomenon. "The problem for us is that we can't deal with just military" solutions, he said. "We need to have economic, diplomatic and political components in a solution. The military is only 20 percent of the solution in the Middle East."

- Link -

[questionmark]

Global security and the challenge of climate change

Stanford Report, October 15, 2007

- Link -

Why ain't we surprised?

[Spurious George]

Why ain't we surprised?

Because most of the world has known it for over 4 years now?

[The Skeptic Eric Raven]

We need oil. They should have just stated it.

[Unlimited]

We need oil. They should have just stated it.

in 2003 gas was how much?...so we got the oil and 86.00 barrel oil...it seems this has only worked out for the oil companies..

[questionmark]

in 2003 gas was how much?...so we got the oil and 86.00 barrel oil...it seems this has only worked out for the oil companies..

88 bucks, but that is partially due to the dollar weakness (the Sheiks want to buy the same amount of stuff at Harrod's in London per barrel). If we discount the dollar oil just went up about 15% this year (in Yen, Pounds or Euro). Still a lot but not worrying.

[Starscream]

what oil?

who needs oil??

[Drexl Spivey]

It isn't just about thieving iraqi oil. It is the control of iraqi oil , they want to break opec . They want to control european /chinese economies . They want saudi arabia. But US broke a lot of sh** just getting half an a*** in iraq with a civil situation out of their control even with their mossad/sas agents helping it along, and a plunging world reputation that'll take decades to recover. Bush junior never listened his daddy. USA will be hated for years and years , and internally..you'll be divided , 9/11 wont go away and the people that disbelieve the governments account of that day grows and grows. Then we got the peak oil looming , I reckon that mayan guy might just about got it right.

[bathory]

sigh

i like how one strategic consideration suddenly becomes the be all and end all motivation for the war in iraq, what a load crap

[Spurious George]

sigh

i like how one strategic consideration suddenly becomes the be all and end all motivation for the war in iraq, what a load crap

A load of crap like you saying Che killed a lot of innocent people and then not being able to back it up with anything?

Then what was it about besides putting a couple hundred thousand boots over some of the largest oil reserves in the world and on Iran's western doorstep? Fighting an enemy that wasnt there before the invasion? What a load of crap.

Greenspan: 'Its about the oil.'

Abizaid: 'Its about the oil.'

Most of the world: 'Its about the oil.'

Get a grip...

Edited October 18, 2007 by McNuclearWar

[bathory]

learn2read

I said that oil wasn't the be all and end all

of course it was a consideration, part of the rationale, but to suggest that it was THE motivator for this war is bs

as for che, i don't recall the thread, i probably didn't even read the replies after i posted offending you so

i make amends http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articl...24/212049.shtml

[Spurious George]

learn2read

I said that oil wasn't the be all and end all

of course it was a consideration, part of the rationale, but to suggest that it was THE motivator for this war is bs

as for che, i don't recall the thread, i probably didn't even read the replies after i posted offending you so

i make amends http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articl...24/212049.shtml

NewsMax... no thanks.

Gen. Abizaid: "Of course it's about oil, we can't really deny that". Get a grip...

And you didnt offend me you just appear to be unable to back anything you say up with anything more than your opinion, which mean little.

[Celumnaz]

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=2679

imo that's just a short list

[Spurious George]

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=2679

imo that's just a short list

Yet not one of them mentions oil or energy security... interesting.

[Celumnaz]

right? especially since ppl are claiming "It's all and only about the oil!1!11one"

heck, haven't even got to the ancient history or religious apocalyptic nut stuff yet... probably a good dozen or so reasons in there for those that take those perspectives

and then we only get 9.5% of our oil imports from the middle east and oil is abiogenic and coal is cheap and we have Plenty of it and I just don't think it's all about oil and wouldn't mind one bit having all the fearfully projected "turmoil and chaos" if they turned off the spicket. Necessity is the Mother of invention. Leftists wouldn't know what to do without electricty. Wait for the new orleans rescue squad to pick em up.

[Spurious George]

You do understand how lying works right? Give every reason and justification except the real one... sheesh.

[Clocker]

right? especially since ppl are claiming "It's all and only about the oil!1!11one"

heck, haven't even got to the ancient history or religious apocalyptic nut stuff yet... probably a good dozen or so reasons in there for those that take those perspectives

and then we only get 9.5% of our oil imports from the middle east and oil is abiogenic and coal is cheap and we have Plenty of it and I just don't think it's all about oil and wouldn't mind one bit having all the fearfully projected "turmoil and chaos" if they turned off the spicket. Necessity is the Mother of invention. Leftists wouldn't know what to do without electricty. Wait for the new orleans rescue squad to pick em up.

Yup, I don't think it was all about oil either. There are always more sides to a story than just one. However, 9,5% is not an insignificant amount even though it's not your main source for oil. Perhaps some of the reasons in the FP lists were genuine reasons too...perhaps some corporations had some influence. Perhaps more control over the region was one reason. There were many reasons, as you agree. I just don't understand why you had to pull the leftist card here. Why the constant baiting of the 'other side' (this is not aimed at you specifically)? Seriously it would be high time for the US to get some more parties to the fray in order to stop the constant bickering. Oh, and you'd probably consider like 80% of us Finns 'leftist' by our political views, and a fairly large percentage of us do know what to do without electricity.

[Celumnaz]

oh ya sorry, dang cons and their bumper sticker mindets caught me off guard...

"Bush**e Lied Ppl Deid! No Blud 4 OiL!!"

[Spurious George]

Are you guys even aware of the 'game' being played right now all over the world to grab and hold energy reserves, the bigger the better, going on between numerous big players? The rise of China and their need for energy sources and that being the only way for the US to counter their intense growth? The return of Russia and their huge energy reserves? Does any of this ring a frickin' bell?

- Link -

Edited October 18, 2007 by McNuclearWar

[Clocker]

Are you guys even aware of the 'game' being played right now all over the world to grab and hold energy reserves, the bigger the better, going on between numerous big players? The rise of China and their need for energy sources and that being the only way for the US to counter their intense growth? The return of Russia and their huge energy reserves? Does any of this ring a frickin' bell?

- Link -

It's all about the resources, nothing has changed really. The race in the Arctic and all that...yeah, I'd say most governments want as much natural resources as possible.

[Spurious George]

True and for countries like China and India it can make or break their enormous economic growth rate... here is an interesting article by the BBC from 1997 and some related recent articles...

Europe/Asia: Oil And The Great Game

November 28, 1997

A hundred years ago, Russia and Britain were engaged in a struggle for influence and commercial advantage in Central and South-Central Asia - dubbed at the time "The Great Game". Today, American companies are spearheading the drive to exploit opportunities created by the breakup of the Soviet Union, in a region Russians still tend to regard as their sphere of influence. The oil and gas potential of countries like Kazakhstan and Azerbaijan could equal that of the Middle East. The problem is how to deliver to world markets reliably and at a reasonable price.

The Central Asians want to end their reliance on Russian land routes. No one says this openly, but Western countries and former Russian dependencies like Ukraine and Poland want this too. Turkey, Georgia, Bulgaria all hope to gain from the development of new pipelines and sea routes. America is encouraging this, partly to isolate Iran, which provides a potentially attractive route from Central Asia. As a result, Russia and Iran have drawn closer

- Link -

Analysis: Caspian meet and energy hopes

Oct. 18, 2007

For an energy-starved world, the recently concluded summit in Tehran between the five Caspian littoral states is good news, as it brings the possibility of a final delineation of Caspian offshore waters closer.

A final agreement between Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Russia, Turkmenistan and Iran on the division of Caspian waters and seabed would allow increased exploration and development, which up to now has been thwarted by disagreements. The bad news for Western energy companies, however, is that future exploitation would seem to be, on the basis of the agreements recently concluded, the sole prerogative of the littoral nations themselves.

- Link -

Caspian oil may spur the third world war – Putin warns Americans from Iran

Oct. 16, 2007

The seeds of a catastrophic third world war are in the Caspian oil basin. Russian leader Vladimir Putin met his Iranian counterpart Tuesday and implicitly warned the U.S. not to pursue oil pipeline projects in the area if they weren't backed by regional powers. He also warned US not to attack Iran.

Putin said none of the nations' territory should be used by any outside countries for use of military force against any nation in the region. Will Azerbaijan, a former Soviet republic, oblige American in allowing them to stage an all out attack against Iran? The region is a hot spot for massive political and military upheaval.

India has already scrapped plans for Iranian gas with hope American backed Caspian gas will be available to India.

Putin expressed strong opposition to U.S.-backed efforts to build pipelines to deliver hydrocarbons to the West bypassing Russia.

Russia considers Caspian basin that contains the world's third-largest energy reserves, as something the western nations should not touch. The western nations on the other hand are eying the Caspian basin since the fall of Soviet Union.

- Link -

This 'Great Game' has been on for over 10 years, all manners of high-ranking people in the US have stated 'its about the oil' but many people still refuse to see it, favoring partisan slogans and humanitarian justifications... 'humanitarian bombings', I like it, just delusional enough for many to believe.

[Stardrive]

The answer is yes and no. I wish things were black and white, but in reality most issues are in the grey shade.

The reason we went war was to overthrow Saddam before he was able to aqcuire a nuke and use it to control the stategically located Straite of Hormuz through which 20% of the free worlds oil passes. Thus, plunging the world into economic chaos, shrinking the supply and raising the demand for oil which he would have gladly provided at a greatly inflated cost making him filthy rich in the process.

Would Saddam have used a nuke if he got one? Judging by his track record, more than likely. Would Saddam have been able to eventually acquire one? Hard to say for a fact if he would or would'nt have.

Now comes my opinion.

It is my opinion that the Bush administration took advantage of the situation, and the mood of the American people, after 9/11. Myself and many others here opposed the war from the onset and still do. Yes, Saddam was in violation of umteen UN resolutions, and he very much desired a nuke. But at the end of the day, it's not our place to be the worlds janitor.

The wisest solution to all this would have been a big push to go green with renewable energy sources. This would have rendered any threat to global economic instability inert by reducing the global demand for oil. We could have been the worlds new supplier of (green) energy. We may have a "reason" to be in the Middle East, but I still feel we have no business being in the Middle East.

[Spurious George]

The answer is yes and no. I wish things were black and white, but in reality most issues are in the grey shade.

The reason we went war was to overthrow Saddam before he was able to aqcuire a nuke and use it to control the stategically located Straite of Hormuz through which 20% of the free worlds oil passes. Thus, plunging the world into economic chaos, shrinking the supply and raising the demand for oil which he would have gladly provided at a greatly inflated cost making him filthy rich in the process.

Would Saddam have used a nuke if he got one? Judging by his track record, more than likely. Would Saddam have been able to eventually acquire one? Hard to say for a fact if he would or would'nt have.

Now comes my opinion.

It is my opinion that the Bush administration took advantage of the situation, and the mood of the American people, after 9/11. Myself and many others here opposed the war from the onset and still do. Yes, Saddam was in violation of umteen UN resolutions, and he very much desired a nuke. But at the end of the day, it's not our place to be the worlds janitor.

The wisest solution to all this would have been a big push to go green with renewable energy sources. This would have rendered any threat to global economic instability inert by reducing the global demand for oil. We could have been the worlds new supplier of (green) energy. We may have a "reason" to be in the Middle East, but I still feel we have no business being in the Middle East.

Everything before that was opinion... but I liked how you threw in "free world" there, like every tanker coming through the Strait of Hormuz is destined for Freedomland, USA.

But sure it's not all black and white, sure the US was after some huge oil reserves with an easy target in their way but they must have also had the 'Iran Plan' hatched before then and saw the benefit of having troops on both sides of Iran's border(Afghanistan, Iraq). Now we are in the second phase of 'We have no evidence but they want nukes! And judging by our opinion their previous track record we need to bomb them too... to keep oil secure for the free world' at $150 a frickin barrel.

The recent 'energy security' justification that is gaining popularity is a sugar-coated half-assed admission, be a man USA and admit it... there is a 'Great Game' raging right now and without some drastic action the US was going to lose it... of course the drastic action was taken by a bunch of fanatic chickenhawks and failed miserably... but that is a different topic and one I would also enjoy discussing.

[bathory]

i would say Oil comes from the regional security reason

if it was solely about oil, there are plenty of other countries that could have been toppled much more easily, especially if they were willing to make up any old crap to invade, surely they could have gone into Sudan (with wide international support)

[Guardsman Bass]

Obviously, Oil wasn't the sole reason. But it touched literally every proximate reason as to why we went to war, from the way we specifically focused on Saddam's violations in spite of far more egregious regimes (like North Korea), to the focus on regime change in the Middle East. It's pretty much always in the background.