Just invade Germany and set up a puppet regime.
It'd even reduce the total number of critics by a whole country.
It'd even reduce the total number of critics by a whole country.
Whom should US invade next
- Thread starter Sovz
- Start date
King of Creation
Vault Fossil
Come on Welsh, you're smarter than that.welsh said:
King of Creation said:Come on Welsh, you're smarter than that.welsh said:
True, it's actually only a few thousand Americans killed for a lot more oil.
Judging by the current oil production levels in the Middle East, it's more like "a few thousand Americans killed for a little less oil".
King of Creation
Vault Fossil
I can't believe I'm asking this, but you guys don't actually think this is for oil, do you?
King of Creation said:
No, W is "bringing democracy" to Iraq because he's such a nice guy. His daddy liberated kuwait for the same reason.
No, we don't think it is for oil. We *know* it is for oil.King of Creation said:
Graz'zt said:
You would think the oil companies would be good enough at fucking the country over to at least have the common decency of keeping oil prices down in AMERICA. A poor college student can't afford road trips anymore...
King of Creation
Vault Fossil
Graz'zt said:
Please enlighten me as to how it is for oil. I know its not, but I would like to see your logic.
Aw... POOR American college students.
Anyway.
Just that they didn't manage to get a stable oil supply from invading Iraq doesn't mean it wasn't a motivation.
The US hasn't exactly proven its strategical and tactical brilliance throughout the course of the past years.
Anyway.
Just that they didn't manage to get a stable oil supply from invading Iraq doesn't mean it wasn't a motivation.
The US hasn't exactly proven its strategical and tactical brilliance throughout the course of the past years.
Are you blind? Iran is a country with the second largest natural oil reserves in the world. Furthermore, it is a country which trades its oil exports for euros instead of dollars. Finally, there is no other possible reason why USA would want to invade Iran. Iran has never attacked its neighbours, has never announced its intent to attack its neighbours, doesn't have any proven connections to global terrorist networks, doesn't possess weapons of mass destruction - in short, nothing whatsoever indicates that Iran is a threat to global safety.King of Creation said:
King of Creation
Vault Fossil
Why would the US need to invade Iran for oil? To take the prices down a couple of cents? No. It's plainly stupid to think so. The US has plenty of oil as it is, and more and more drilling is going to be taking place, thereby increasing already high domestic production. Nevermind the fact that the US already produces more oil than Iran, Mexico, China, Canada, Venezuela, UAE, Kuwait, Nigeria, and Iraq. There is no reason to go and steal Iran's oil, because we already produce more. By your logic of invasion for oil, the US should have taken over and federalized all oil producing, drilling, and refining because the government wants to steal oil. The United States government does not control the means of production. It's not like the US goes in and has the military drill for oil. It's all private companies. Invading a country for oil would not accomplish anything at all because the US wouldn't be able to profit. We'd still have to pay someone for the oil, whether it's the Iranians or Chevron. You don't see us invading the Chevron headquarters, do you? It'd be a lot easier.
Also, Graz'zt, Iran has openly performed declarations of war on the United States. Ayatollah Khomeini was also not a very nice person, I'm not sure if you've heard of him or not. Iran also constantly sends soldiers into Iraq to attack the coalition presence there.
Iran sponsors terrorism, that's a fact.
And Iran possesses a LOT of weapons of mass destruction. They had very established Chemical and Biological weapons programs that produced large quantities of weapons, including cyanogen chloride, phosgene, and mustard gas. http://cns.miis.edu/research/wmdme/iran.htm
I dunno if you're also aware that Iran has stated that it will pursue nuclear weapons?
Also, Graz'zt, Iran has openly performed declarations of war on the United States. Ayatollah Khomeini was also not a very nice person, I'm not sure if you've heard of him or not. Iran also constantly sends soldiers into Iraq to attack the coalition presence there.
Iran sponsors terrorism, that's a fact.
http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/pgtrpt/2000/2441.htm
And Iran possesses a LOT of weapons of mass destruction. They had very established Chemical and Biological weapons programs that produced large quantities of weapons, including cyanogen chloride, phosgene, and mustard gas. http://cns.miis.edu/research/wmdme/iran.htm
I dunno if you're also aware that Iran has stated that it will pursue nuclear weapons?
Jarno Mikkola
Water Chip? Been There, Done That
Actually it all about the bribes, the US government(official) gets money from the oil sheiks of the middle east, you can see this even in the money traces of their election financing. And when you(US) chances one of the sheiks(local grime boss, ), to its own man(the private compony, it gets most of the benefits from the selling.King of Creation said:
Yes, liberated kuwait form it's control of the oil supplies.DirtyDreamDesigner said:
It's shocking how misinformed you are. Here's a newsflash: US domestic oil production has been decreasing since 1971. It now amounts to about 3.5 million barrels per day. In 2010 it will barely exceed 2.5 million. Your choice of comparative examples is rather poor. The countries you named either have an undeveloped oil exploitation infrastructure, or comparatively much lesser oil reserves than USA or are comparatively much smaller than USA or have oil reserves exploitation of which isn't yet economically viable or have already seen their production peak and decline long ago. Regardless, your "arguments" are irrelevant. USA hasn't been capable of producing sufficient oil for its own needs for a long time now, and that capability will only become lesser in near future. From that standpoint, it's logical that USA wants to secure steady and prolific oil production abroad. What better way to do so than to invade Iraq and Iran, countries which have huge proven oil reserves that have barely been touched as yet?King of Creation said:
Your naivette is cute sometimes, but mostly it's just sad. Oil deposits and infrastructure in Iraq and Iran don't *need* to be federalized for America to benefit from them. It's enough that concessions for those deposits and infrastructure go to large conglomerates such as Exxon-Mobil. Coincidentially, those conglomerates are often generous financial sponsors of the Republican Party. Furthermore, their former executives ended up having very high positions in the Bush administration and are as such responsible for tailoring American external policies...
Evidence?
Ignoring the fact that US Department of State website isn't exactly the most impartial source, I can't help but feel indifferent. So Iran has at some point provided support to anti-Israel organizations in the Middle East. Big deal, who hasn't? That's a pretty weak casus belli right there.
Iran claims its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes. They are probably lying, but nonetheless, they *don't actually have* nuclear weapons, nor are there any indicators they would use them against their neighbours if they *did* have them. Again, that's a very weak justification for an armed invasion.
King of Creation
Vault Fossil
I'm misinformed??Graz'zt said:
The United States actually produces 8.69 million barrels per day, and that number is INCREASING due to all the new drilling legislation. The only countries that produce more oil per day are Russia (9.27 million bpd) and Saudi Arabia (10.37 million bpd).
Ok...I can't take you seriously anymore.
The countries I named are all part of the top 14 biggest oil producing countries in the world. The list:
Country Oil Production in Million of barrels per day
1.) Saudi Arabia 10.37
2.) Russia 9.27
3.) US 8.69
4.) Iran 4.09
5.) Mexico 3.83
6.) China 3.62
7.) Norway 3.18
8.) Canda 3.14
9.) Venezuela 2.86
10.) UAE 2.76
11.) Kuwait 2.51
12.) Nigeria 2.51
13.) UK 2.08
14.) Iraq 2.03
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0922041.html
I'll give you that the US doesn't produce as much as it consumes daily, but it appears you don't know how much that is. The US consumes about 20.5 million bpd. It imports about 11.8 million bpd, while only producing 8.69. However, if you were aware of current events, you would know that oil companies are having new doors opened to them in the US...in Alaska, the Midwest, the Rockies, etc. More drilling will be taking place, more oil production. It probably won't be long until the US is the biggest producer of oil in the world.
Also, by your argument, why doesn't the US invade Canada? They have bigger oil reserves than Iran. Wouldn't it be much easier to just annex Canada? Hell, the US could probably steal all of Canada's reserves and they wouldn't even notice. You'd just have to distract them with some bacon, or maybe some good beer. So why would we then invade Iran? Why would we spend all of that money just to steal their oil reserves when we can take Canada's?
I'm not sure if you're aware how a capitalist economy works. I produce something, and then you pay me for it. I don't give it to you for free. Exxon-Mobil is not going to just up and give oil to anyone. They're still going to charge competitive prices. If they don't, then there won't be an Exxon-Mobil anymore.
Oh, I dunno. How about capturing the freaking US embassy and holding everyone hostage for 444 days? Or how about sending troops to fight against the coalition in Iraq?
There's not really much in the quote I provided that can be construde as biased. The facts are facts. Whether you choose to ignore them or not is your prerogative.
Most terrorist organizations don't just focus on one target. They want to take out the infidel everywhere. They're non-discriminatory murderers. Israelis, other Arabs, westerners, doesn't matter.
How about how Amadinejad has said he wants deterrence capability?
Not really. It's all about prevention. Take them out now so they don't pose an immediate threat down the road. It was a strong enough justification to invade Iraq.
welsh
Junkmaster
King, I actually think Iran's interests in the middle east are hegemonic. That they have had their hands in Afghanistan and Iraq is pretty clear as is the evidence that they have supported terrorist organizations in the past.
That said, the notion of whether the US would federalize oil reserves is kind of silly at the present moment. To do so would be a shock to the notions of private property and regularly predictable contract rights that makes the US economy stable. Furthermore, you are suggesting that the US government is acting as an independent thinking entity, but we know that's not the case. Governments don't think, people do. In a democratic state, those who choose the a country's policy is determined by those who have gained office and who their constituents are. That the Republican Party has been generously supported by the oil industry is well known. The relationship between business and state is not unique to the US but probably is true for most of the world.
Furthermore, countries have been nationalizing their mineral/ natural resources since the 1970s with limited success. Why? Because the companies that control the flow of oil are generally still the multinationals. So the costs of the capital intensive extraction or resources has fallen to the developing states,while the lower cost of marketing and shipping fuels has been reserved for the MNCs. (Micheal Shafer wrote a good paper on this if you are interested).
Is this about oil? But for oil there would be little interest in the Persian Gulf. During the Iran-Iraq war the US flagged Kuwaiti tankers in an effort to assure oil would continue to flow uninterrupted. the US supplied armaments to keep the two strongest militaries fighting each other and not threatening Saudi Arabia. The US has shown an interest in supporting many of the Persian Gulf States and ties with the Saudis (including going to war with Iraq the first time) to protect the flow of oil. The Carter Doctrine- which created the Rapid Deployment Force, the predecessor to CENTCOM, was based on the defense of Persian Gulf Oil from a Russian invasion, was expanded by the Reagan Corrollary to protect Persian Oil from other Persian Gulf States (namely protect Saudi oil fields from Iraqi armored brigades).
Is it about oil? At the same time the US was planning to deploy troops in Iraq it could have intervened to stopped the bloodshed in Liberia. Instead, its kepts its marines on the ship and let the violence continue. And this is not the only time this has occurred. In fact, US interests in Africa for much of the Cold War centered around sustaining access to strategic resources from both South Africa and Zaire, while limiting the exploitation of resources to our enemies. You cannot discount that the US has had policies that favor protecting US access to strategic important materials and this has motivated, at least in part, interventions in many parts of the world.
And while you may be right, that the oil industry in the US may have greater production in the next few years, there is the counter argument that we have reached or will soon reach the point where the remaining reserves of global oil become increasingly difficult or expensive to get at. Even in the US there is a lot of pressure against expanded oil production for environmental reasons.
But this isn't just because that oil goes to the US. Rather, it has more to do with sustaining a liberally integrated global economic system. The US economy is tied to a global economy. We get credit from foreign countries, our companies make profits from abroad, etc. If the global economy were to suffer, the US economy would suffer as well. Thus the US has a strategic national security interest in maintaining the global economy because our standard of living, our quality of life, requires that we sustain that economy.
But there is a problem. Developing states, including China and India, are becoming massive consumers of energy as their economies grow. A China growing at 8% a year has become increasingly worried about its control of oil along its periphery as well as foreign sources. Meanwhile, some of the key players in the global economy, such as Japan, depend on middle east oil to sustain itself. But oil is finite, the more you comsume, the less you got and what remains becomes increasingly difficult to get at.
Thus you have the problem- if oil is reaching a tipping point where we can expect less oil and more difficulty in getting oil, than we have two choices-
(1) Find alternative sources- possible but still far away. So far there have been no really feasible alternatives for oil or a replacement for the internal combustion engine.
(2) Open up easy reserves. So one makes a deal with Libya so that their oil becomes available, one looks the other way at problems in Nigeria as long as the oil flows, One invades Iraq thus ending the sanctions problems and get the oil flowing. The US brokers a ceasefire between the North and South in Sudan so that the pipeline going through Sudan doesn't get blown up. And one might even think about invading Iran- if only to get the oil.
Of course this plan doesn't quite work out as well as it should. Control of oil in Iraq has been difficult because insurgents tend to blow up pipelines. But should the operation succeed, you should expect more oil flowing from Iraq. More oil = more supply leads to less demand, leads to reduced prices. Or, hopefully, enough supply to reduce competition between nations on the dwindling supply of oil until alternative fuels or energy sources can be harnassed.
How expensive would a war with Iran be? In the 1980s thousands of Iranians fought against Iraq using tactics similar to those used in World War 1 against a technologically superior Iraq. Human wave attacks killed thousands. Part of the motivation might have been revolutionary zeal, or it might have been nationalistic pride. But the war lasted nearly ten years, and in the end, the Iraqis were fighting defensively against an Iranian army that was weak in military hardware, but strong in commitment and zeal.
Do you think Iranians would be less likely to fight the US if we invaded? How do you think it would play out on US TV if Iranian civilians attacked US strongpoints in human wave attacks?
US military planning has, since World War 2, been based on using firepower to reduce casualties. Casualties inflicted upon our enemy in the Korean and Vietnam War far outnumbered those lost by Americans. Do you think the Iranians would be less willing to lay down their lives than were the Chinese, North Koreans or the Vietnamese. And the lesson of those wars should not be lost to American planners- power is difficult to quantify. Technology and firepower alone do not win wars. Rather, it is often character that eventually triumphs- the human will to sacrifice and suffer. Why did we lose in Vietnam? Because at the end of the day the Vietnamese were more powerful than the US.
Right before the War in Iraq started I had the chance to watch A Bridge To Far on TV, that tells about the disasterous Market Garden operation. In that operation, Allied forces made predictions based on over-ambitious goals, hasty planning, poor intelligence, and false optimism- and the mission turned into a near disaster in which thousands of lives were lost for very little gain. One things we didn't learn those lessons for Iraq, perhaps we might for a war in Iran?
That said, the notion of whether the US would federalize oil reserves is kind of silly at the present moment. To do so would be a shock to the notions of private property and regularly predictable contract rights that makes the US economy stable. Furthermore, you are suggesting that the US government is acting as an independent thinking entity, but we know that's not the case. Governments don't think, people do. In a democratic state, those who choose the a country's policy is determined by those who have gained office and who their constituents are. That the Republican Party has been generously supported by the oil industry is well known. The relationship between business and state is not unique to the US but probably is true for most of the world.
Furthermore, countries have been nationalizing their mineral/ natural resources since the 1970s with limited success. Why? Because the companies that control the flow of oil are generally still the multinationals. So the costs of the capital intensive extraction or resources has fallen to the developing states,while the lower cost of marketing and shipping fuels has been reserved for the MNCs. (Micheal Shafer wrote a good paper on this if you are interested).
Is this about oil? But for oil there would be little interest in the Persian Gulf. During the Iran-Iraq war the US flagged Kuwaiti tankers in an effort to assure oil would continue to flow uninterrupted. the US supplied armaments to keep the two strongest militaries fighting each other and not threatening Saudi Arabia. The US has shown an interest in supporting many of the Persian Gulf States and ties with the Saudis (including going to war with Iraq the first time) to protect the flow of oil. The Carter Doctrine- which created the Rapid Deployment Force, the predecessor to CENTCOM, was based on the defense of Persian Gulf Oil from a Russian invasion, was expanded by the Reagan Corrollary to protect Persian Oil from other Persian Gulf States (namely protect Saudi oil fields from Iraqi armored brigades).
Is it about oil? At the same time the US was planning to deploy troops in Iraq it could have intervened to stopped the bloodshed in Liberia. Instead, its kepts its marines on the ship and let the violence continue. And this is not the only time this has occurred. In fact, US interests in Africa for much of the Cold War centered around sustaining access to strategic resources from both South Africa and Zaire, while limiting the exploitation of resources to our enemies. You cannot discount that the US has had policies that favor protecting US access to strategic important materials and this has motivated, at least in part, interventions in many parts of the world.
And while you may be right, that the oil industry in the US may have greater production in the next few years, there is the counter argument that we have reached or will soon reach the point where the remaining reserves of global oil become increasingly difficult or expensive to get at. Even in the US there is a lot of pressure against expanded oil production for environmental reasons.
But this isn't just because that oil goes to the US. Rather, it has more to do with sustaining a liberally integrated global economic system. The US economy is tied to a global economy. We get credit from foreign countries, our companies make profits from abroad, etc. If the global economy were to suffer, the US economy would suffer as well. Thus the US has a strategic national security interest in maintaining the global economy because our standard of living, our quality of life, requires that we sustain that economy.
But there is a problem. Developing states, including China and India, are becoming massive consumers of energy as their economies grow. A China growing at 8% a year has become increasingly worried about its control of oil along its periphery as well as foreign sources. Meanwhile, some of the key players in the global economy, such as Japan, depend on middle east oil to sustain itself. But oil is finite, the more you comsume, the less you got and what remains becomes increasingly difficult to get at.
Thus you have the problem- if oil is reaching a tipping point where we can expect less oil and more difficulty in getting oil, than we have two choices-
(1) Find alternative sources- possible but still far away. So far there have been no really feasible alternatives for oil or a replacement for the internal combustion engine.
(2) Open up easy reserves. So one makes a deal with Libya so that their oil becomes available, one looks the other way at problems in Nigeria as long as the oil flows, One invades Iraq thus ending the sanctions problems and get the oil flowing. The US brokers a ceasefire between the North and South in Sudan so that the pipeline going through Sudan doesn't get blown up. And one might even think about invading Iran- if only to get the oil.
Of course this plan doesn't quite work out as well as it should. Control of oil in Iraq has been difficult because insurgents tend to blow up pipelines. But should the operation succeed, you should expect more oil flowing from Iraq. More oil = more supply leads to less demand, leads to reduced prices. Or, hopefully, enough supply to reduce competition between nations on the dwindling supply of oil until alternative fuels or energy sources can be harnassed.
How expensive would a war with Iran be? In the 1980s thousands of Iranians fought against Iraq using tactics similar to those used in World War 1 against a technologically superior Iraq. Human wave attacks killed thousands. Part of the motivation might have been revolutionary zeal, or it might have been nationalistic pride. But the war lasted nearly ten years, and in the end, the Iraqis were fighting defensively against an Iranian army that was weak in military hardware, but strong in commitment and zeal.
Do you think Iranians would be less likely to fight the US if we invaded? How do you think it would play out on US TV if Iranian civilians attacked US strongpoints in human wave attacks?
US military planning has, since World War 2, been based on using firepower to reduce casualties. Casualties inflicted upon our enemy in the Korean and Vietnam War far outnumbered those lost by Americans. Do you think the Iranians would be less willing to lay down their lives than were the Chinese, North Koreans or the Vietnamese. And the lesson of those wars should not be lost to American planners- power is difficult to quantify. Technology and firepower alone do not win wars. Rather, it is often character that eventually triumphs- the human will to sacrifice and suffer. Why did we lose in Vietnam? Because at the end of the day the Vietnamese were more powerful than the US.
Right before the War in Iraq started I had the chance to watch A Bridge To Far on TV, that tells about the disasterous Market Garden operation. In that operation, Allied forces made predictions based on over-ambitious goals, hasty planning, poor intelligence, and false optimism- and the mission turned into a near disaster in which thousands of lives were lost for very little gain. One things we didn't learn those lessons for Iraq, perhaps we might for a war in Iran?
Cimmerian Nights
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
Don't forget that Saddam called in a hit on Bush's daddy. He's just being a standup Texan.
Seriously though, I love to hear outsiders complain about the states. Unless you can tell me who Bill Frist, "Hammer" DeLay, and Karl Rove are then you don't even begin to understand how shitty things are.
And beleive it or not, not all Americans are Evangeilcal Texan neo-cons.
Seriously though, I love to hear outsiders complain about the states. Unless you can tell me who Bill Frist, "Hammer" DeLay, and Karl Rove are then you don't even begin to understand how shitty things are.
And beleive it or not, not all Americans are Evangeilcal Texan neo-cons.
Jarno Mikkola
Water Chip? Been There, Done That
Just a little fuel to the flames.
As obvious as the Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, ought it didn't, so why to still fight? Well it hasn't given all of it's oil :!: yeat.welsh said:
It just numbers, but who were the enemy in Vietnam, if it was all vietnamese, then yes, but if it was just the "rebels" then NO!welsh said:
It isn't about who has the biggest production rates, it is why has most the most in reserves, which can be allocated to US, and in what ways. A revolution it a good way to lose, many resources (but not for the country). That's what most of the terrorist fears are all about, the lost nuclear bombs(formerly controlled by URRS).King of Creation said: