quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

In addition, is it your supposition that Churchill would not have allowed an oil company from, say, Brazil into the oil fields at the time?

Npope. Not my supposition. If it made the TPC/IIPC stronger, more profitable, I have no doubt anyone was welcome.

So, you agree that the U.S. private industry was doing reasonable and legitimate work and was not imperialistic? And further you have no comments on the geopolitical things mentioned above?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity


In your determination to make the West the heavy, you are still ignoring the fact that the Ottomans declared jihad vs. Russia, France and Britain

And that they were always historically the initial aggressors

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

In addition, is it your supposition that Churchill would not have allowed an oil company from, say, Brazil into the oil fields at the time?

Npope. Not my supposition. If it made the TPC/IIPC stronger, more profitable, I have no doubt anyone was welcome.

So, you agree that the U.S. private industry was doing reasonable and legitimate work and was not imperialistic? And further you have no comments on the geopolitical things mentioned above?

Once again, my point was about Biden. Not about imperialist American Oil companies. There's tons of information on the use of American soldiers to enrich U.S. oil companies from the beginning of the 20th century to the present.

In this case, 5 American oil companies were looking to get in on Mesopotamian oil. They missed out on the creation of TPC, but had a good idea there were other oil deposits.

They hired some geologists to go out there, and used ther find to leverage their way into TPC. I do not believe for a second, that if the US were in a position to do what Britian did, they would have jumped at the chance (to set up a puppet state, friendly to their interests0

As for reasonable, and legitimate in this case, I have no comment.

quote:



Iraq will never be a stable country. It was created by Churchill to serve British and U.S. oil interests.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity


Thank you.

And my point about the Nazis was that, if the British had not gone into the ME during WW I then the Germans would have likely maintained a much stronger foothold there

Could have dramatically changed the outcome of WW II

Or the Soviets could have gone in. Who knows? No one is innocent though. And we arent all guilty of anything

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

As a second corollary, show me where the private American oil companies had anything to do with British imperialism or should not have been trying to get access to oil markets. None of that is discussed in any of your links.

That's a broad statement. You keep mentioning imperialism. In this case, the British, (and American oil companies for that mater) wanted one thing: Oil.

The British were in a position to intervene, since they had troops there already, and they had been doing business with the Turks prior to WWI.

In this case, the Britsh could care less who governed the region, as long as whomever it was, let them drill for oil. The US couldn't get in on the TPC until 6 years later. If it wasn't for "British Imperialism" as you keeepp saying, five American oil companies would not have:

1) Lead a geological team to discover oil
2) Negotiate their way into TPC


As for if they should or should not have been trying to get access to oil markets, I have no comment. What I am saying is, if it were not for "British Imperialism", those companies would NOT have had that access.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

As a second corollary, show me where the private American oil companies had anything to do with British imperialism or should not have been trying to get access to oil markets. None of that is discussed in any of your links.

That's a broad statement. You keep mentioning imperialism. In this case, the British, (and American oil companies for that mater) wanted one thing: Oil.

The British were in a position to intervene, since they had troops there already, and they had been doing business with the Turks prior to WWI.

In this case, the Britsh could care less who governed the region, as long as whomever it was, let them drill for oil. The US couldn't get in on the TPC until 6 years later. If it wasn't for "British Imperialism" as you keeepp saying, five American oil companies would not have:

1) Lead a geological team to discover oil
2) Negotiate their way into TPC


As for if they should or should not have been trying to get access to oil markets, I have no comment. What I am saying is, if it were not for "British Imperialism", those companies would NOT have had that access.

Britain looked to Iran for oil and not Iraq. Iraq was only an afterthought, the main of of Britain entering into Iraq was to halt the spread German influence. Infact Churchil was a consultant for Anglo Persian Oil in the early 20s. The whole reason for British influence was to safeguard our trade routes to India and the far East. Yemen, or to be exact Aden, was a coaling port for our ships.

The reason America didnt have influence until 1927 was simple, France and the UK didnt want America (Or Russia) to have influence in the area. As for the actual States being formed, much the same had happened for years before, as the Ottoman Empire fell apart. So while British interests for the Empire as a whole did have some influence in events, oil wasnt the main interest, infact it didnt really eneter the reckoning until 1916 as I recall. Dont forget that in 1912-ish British Coal was producing peak amounts and we had vast reserves.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

As a second corollary, show me where the private American oil companies had anything to do with British imperialism or should not have been trying to get access to oil markets. None of that is discussed in any of your links.

That's a broad statement. You keep mentioning imperialism. In this case, the British, (and American oil companies for that mater) wanted one thing: Oil.

The British were in a position to intervene, since they had troops there already, and they had been doing business with the Turks prior to WWI.

In this case, the Britsh could care less who governed the region, as long as whomever it was, let them drill for oil. The US couldn't get in on the TPC until 6 years later. If it wasn't for "British Imperialism" as you keeepp saying, five American oil companies would not have:

1) Lead a geological team to discover oil
2) Negotiate their way into TPC


As for if they should or should not have been trying to get access to oil markets, I have no comment. What I am saying is, if it were not for "British Imperialism", those companies would NOT have had that access.

Britain looked to Iran for oil and not Iraq. Iraq was only an afterthought, the main of of Britain entering into Iraq was to halt the spread German influence. Infact Churchil was a consultant for Anglo Persian Oil in the early 20s. The whole reason for British influence was to safeguard our trade routes to India and the far East. Yemen, or to be exact Aden, was a coaling port for our ships.

The reason America didnt have influence until 1927 was simple, France and the UK didnt want America (Or Russia) to have influence in the area. As for the actual States being formed, much the same had happened for years before, as the Ottoman Empire fell apart. So while British interests for the Empire as a whole did have some influence in events, oil wasnt the main interest, infact it didnt really eneter the reckoning until 1916 as I recall. Dont forget that in 1912-ish British Coal was producing peak amounts and we had vast reserves.

All correct. Keep in mind this was 1921. The TPC was already in place. By then, oil was a huge factor in Mesopotamia, and the creation of Iraq.

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

Not this shit again.

Ever since the British saw the writing in the wall come Churchill's early 20th cent. military swan song, they knew (he and the British) that the future was the UK/US world-wide, domination of industrial imperialism. And to think, it was Wilson who fell for it and got the US into WWI.

Kant was clairvoyant just as you reflected in your outrageous statement that 'the Vietnamese are happy on $1/day.'

Thus the west has the right (might) to feel as if they are so superior that as Kant said in so many words, [we] invade and take these countries as if they belong to nobody and proves that history will forever be...written in blood.

The Turkish saw it, the Iranians saw it, the Iraqis saw it, General Smedley Butler, a Marine hero saw it when he wrote 'War is a Racket' fighting overseas for Standard oil and equated the US navy (military) to the world's fucking Mafia.

But, MR, we've already seen from other posts that you should be taking meds for your thinking problems and depression. When you say things, you really are saying imaginary stuff that was given you with your kool aide and never provide any links. You just expect your word to come down from the mount. If you want to participate, provide credible links and get some meds for your afflictions.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

Not this shit again.

Ever since the British saw the writing in the wall come Churchill's early 20th cent. military swan song, they knew (he and the British) that the future was the UK/US world-wide, domination of industrial imperialism. And to think, it was Wilson who fell for it and got the US into WWI.

Kant was clairvoyant just as you reflected in your outrageous statement that 'the Vietnamese are happy on $1/day.'

Thus the west has the right (might) to feel as if they are so superior that as Kant said in so many words, [we] invade and take these countries as if they belong to nobody and proves that history will forever be...written in blood.

The Turkish saw it, the Iranians saw it, the Iraqis saw it, General Smedley Butler, a Marine hero saw it when he wrote 'War is a Racket' fighting overseas for Standard oil and equated the US navy (military) to the world's fucking Mafia.

But, MR, we've already seen from other posts that you should be taking meds for your thinking problems and depression. When you say things, you really are saying imaginary stuff that was given you with your kool aide and never provide any links. You just expect your word to come down from the mount. If you want to participate, provide credible links and get some meds for your afflictions.

We've had links ad infinitum all over this subject. What good is any of what this OP is all about, going to do as along as the middle east was never going to be allowed to nationalize their oil or at the very least, produce it without a very profitable western partnership with Arab dictators or kleptocratic ruling parties ? Nothing and renders the discussion and any links superfluous.

If you wish to swallow western bullshit and even to the extent of rehashing 20th century history...fine. The whole forum suffers for there being a whole lot less here...here.

I don't even know what the expression "cliche leftist idiocy?" is supposed to inspire or add to any objective discussion about anything. We'd have to completely go over all of the "cliche rightest idiocy."

And before anyone even goes there, the only ME country that has any oil production of significance that isn't in bed with the west, is Iran and we see what...nobody fucking cares.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01

"Cliche leftist idiocy" was Hunter's term for a concept he refuses to accept. I started the thread with his words, so it could be recognized from the previous thread.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01

"Cliche leftist idiocy" was Hunter's term for a concept he refuses to accept. I started the thread with his words, so it could be recognized from the previous thread.

Anything pointing out that politics carried out for the pursuit of oil is wrong, automatically gets labelled "Cliche leftist ideology" or similar by the American right. Oddly enough it rarely gets labelled as such by the right in Europe.

You could google American Oil interests, often at the expense of ordinary Americans, before you could shout "Zapata oil" capitalism and profit often came above keeping oil prices down, especially due to Bush Snr and his middle-east connections.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/raymond-j-learsy/oil-prices-plunging-presi_b_6020330.html

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01

"Cliche leftist idiocy" was Hunter's term for a concept he refuses to accept. I started the thread with his words, so it could be recognized from the previous thread.

Anything pointing out that politics carried out for the pursuit of oil is wrong, automatically gets labelled "Cliche leftist ideology" or similar by the American right. Oddly enough it rarely gets labelled as such by the right in Europe.

You could google American Oil interests, often at the expense of ordinary Americans, before you could shout "Zapata oil" capitalism and profit often came above keeping oil prices down, especially due to Bush Snr and his middle-east connections.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/raymond-j-learsy/oil-prices-plunging-presi_b_6020330.html

Hold on to your tin foil hats, its a HuffnPoo conspiracy theory flashback

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

In addition, is it your supposition that Churchill would not have allowed an oil company from, say, Brazil into the oil fields at the time?

Npope. Not my supposition. If it made the TPC/IIPC stronger, more profitable, I have no doubt anyone was welcome.

So, you agree that the U.S. private industry was doing reasonable and legitimate work and was not imperialistic? And further you have no comments on the geopolitical things mentioned above?

Once again, my point was about Biden. Not about imperialist American Oil companies. There's tons of information on the use of American soldiers to enrich U.S. oil companies from the beginning of the 20th century to the present.

In this case, 5 American oil companies were looking to get in on Mesopotamian oil. They missed out on the creation of TPC, but had a good idea there were other oil deposits.

They hired some geologists to go out there, and used ther find to leverage their way into TPC. I do not believe for a second, that if the US were in a position to do what Britian did, they would have jumped at the chance (to set up a puppet state, friendly to their interests0

As for reasonable, and legitimate in this case, I have no comment.

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

In addition, is it your supposition that Churchill would not have allowed an oil company from, say, Brazil into the oil fields at the time?

Npope. Not my supposition. If it made the TPC/IIPC stronger, more profitable, I have no doubt anyone was welcome.

So, you agree that the U.S. private industry was doing reasonable and legitimate work and was not imperialistic? And further you have no comments on the geopolitical things mentioned above?

Once again, my point was about Biden. Not about imperialist American Oil companies. There's tons of information on the use of American soldiers to enrich U.S. oil companies from the beginning of the 20th century to the present.

In this case, 5 American oil companies were looking to get in on Mesopotamian oil. They missed out on the creation of TPC, but had a good idea there were other oil deposits.

They hired some geologists to go out there, and used ther find to leverage their way into TPC. I do not believe for a second, that if the US were in a position to do what Britian did, they would have jumped at the chance (to set up a puppet state, friendly to their interests0

As for reasonable, and legitimate in this case, I have no comment.

No your point was to use leftist cliché to make some other point. It was to use leftist dogma as truth that nobody could deny. And you've demonstrated that was your point by not addressing the specific comments I've presented to you on here. Which goes to what I've always said about you. You're only on here to bait and criticize others. When it comes to having to prove up your leftist dogmatic shit you escape or evade.
/thread.