Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: Oil interests in the Middle East? Or cliche leftist idiocy?


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Oil interests in the Middle East? Or cliche leftist idiocy? Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Oil interests in the Middle East? Or cliche leftis... - 6/20/2015 9:36:09 AM   
Sanity


Posts: 22039
Joined: 6/14/2006
From: Nampa, Idaho USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01

The Bush Sr. / King Fahd price fixing deal is well documented. One need not go to HuffPo



One needs to go to HuffnPoo though, to find a normal diplomatic event from thirty years ago written about as if its dramatic breaking news, and see the United States government referred to as an oilogopoly

(Drama queen much)

We are one of the top oil producing nations, ergo oil is a major part of our economy. If the prices are either too low or too high they are harmful to our economy. Leftists have to turn plain, boring, every day facts like those into their typical mindless propaganda (USA bad, Republicans evil) because they have nothing real to contribute to society

Look at how the thread started. The West, in the 1920s, oh what bad people we are. Killing brown people for oil. That half cocked meme went down in flames, so now its Bush. Oh, hes an oil man, pure evil.

So predictable, and nothing but drivel.

_____________________________

Inside Every Liberal Is A Totalitarian Screaming To Get Out

(in reply to MasterJaguar01)
Profile   Post #: 41
RE: Oil interests in the Middle East? Or cliche leftis... - 6/20/2015 9:51:06 AM   
HunterCA


Posts: 2343
Joined: 6/21/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01

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.


If that explanation helps you sleep at night, enjoy

I made a point that Biden was right about Iraq (I meant Senator Biden, and clarfied later) Among other things, I cited that Iraq was created to support British and U.S. oil Intersts, (which I later corrected to British oil interests). My main original point was that Biden was right. You immediately assumed that I was on some leftist crusade about oil, and wanted to argue the oil interests. We were derailing the original thread, so I created this one. I will admit, my statement, including the U.S.in the creation of Iraq was incorrect (U.S. got in 6 years later). Nevertheless, my point about Iraq's creation (in support of what Joe Biden was saying (basically, that there was no national unity) remains correct.

Just an observation. In your world, any information that Republicans, have used government power (taxpayer money, US troops) to advvance corporate interests is dismssed immediately as "leftist propaganda".. (Which is your right). But you will never learn anything if you keep your mind closed.

Another point. I am no expert on leftist dogma, but I have never heard the historically docmented creation of Iraq as referred to as leftist dogma. I will assume you know it better than I.

You challenged my statement, and I found I got one fact wrong (not really a salient point (in the context of Biden), but it was incorrect. I researched, and corrected my statement. (And I learned!)

I will admit, I have an advantage, since I am not an idealogue, so I am happy to point out flaws (or praise) either party. (And learn! I have learned from everyone here!)

But you? Only the Republican party line. Everything else is the work of evil, sneaky, leftist Fabian Socialists.



Just sayin'

MJ, let's look at what you said again:

quote:

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

Spending blood for oil is a leftist cliché. That's been demonstrated here. That your statement is factually incorrect has been demonstrated here. That is the point of this thread. Yet, rather than admit it you go into other leftist cliche rants above. Your arguments and tactics are demonstratively false and you use them to snipe other comments. It's silly and just as I've always said you do.

(in reply to MasterJaguar01)
Profile   Post #: 42
RE: Oil interests in the Middle East? Or cliche leftis... - 6/20/2015 9:53:16 AM   
MasterJaguar01


Posts: 2369
Joined: 12/2/2006
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity


quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01

The Bush Sr. / King Fahd price fixing deal is well documented. One need not go to HuffPo



One needs to go to HuffnPoo though, to find a normal diplomatic event from thirty years ago written about as if its dramatic breaking news, and see the United States government referred to as an oilogopoly

(Drama queen much)

We are one of the top oil producing nations, ergo oil is a major part of our economy. If the prices are either too low or too high they are harmful to our economy. Leftists have to turn plain, boring, every day facts like those into their typical mindless propaganda (USA bad, Republicans evil) because they have nothing real to contribute to society

Look at how the thread started. The West, in the 1920s, oh what bad people we are. Killing brown people for oil. That half cocked meme went down in flames, so now its Bush. Oh, hes an oil man, pure evil.

So predictable, and nothing but drivel.



Agreed about the added drama in HuffPo. As for higher oil priices being good for our economy, that is debatable. (Certainly is, if one is n the oil business, or works for someone who s).

The thread was started by me, because Hunter, ignoring my main point about Biden, wanted to talk about it (assuming I was on some leftist crusade) and we were derailing the other thread. And frankly, I am glad he did, as I enhanced my own understanding from my research.

(in reply to Sanity)
Profile   Post #: 43
RE: Oil interests in the Middle East? Or cliche leftis... - 6/20/2015 10:08:54 AM   
NorthernGent


Posts: 8730
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline

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



Clearly, history is not a subject upon which you hold any great deal of insight.

Turkey has certainly not 'always been the initial aggressors'.


_____________________________

I have the courage to be a coward - but not beyond my limits.

Sooner or later, the man who wins is the man who thinks he can.

(in reply to Sanity)
Profile   Post #: 44
RE: Oil interests in the Middle East? Or cliche leftis... - 6/20/2015 10:15:02 AM   
MasterJaguar01


Posts: 2369
Joined: 12/2/2006
Status: online
quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

MJ, let's look at what you said again:

quote:

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

Spending blood for oil is a leftist cliché. That's been demonstrated here. That your statement is factually incorrect has been demonstrated here. That is the point of this thread. Yet, rather than admit it you go into other leftist cliche rants above. Your arguments and tactics are demonstratively false and you use them to snipe other comments. It's silly and just as I've always said you do.


I am still amazed that you really think I care about leftist cliches.?

And (How is that "demostrated" here? How does one "demonstrate that something is cliche?)

Regarding my statement, I got one part wrong (the U.S. got in 6 years later). The TPC (lateer the IPC) was a REAL Oil consortium, founded by a REAL Turkish Armenian, living in London (doing business with Britain). These are factually correct FACTS.

Here is the best link describing the TPC and Britian's intentions in Iraq
http://countrystudies.us/iraq/53.htm

To blanketly say that my statement is factually incorrect, is disingenuous. But then again, that is your tactic. (Derail the conversation to challenge one minor sub-point, in order to declare the entire statement as false (as you have done here, and have always done)) It is definitely an old, and tiresome debate tactic. As I have said, I am glad you did, becusee I enhanced my own understanding.


RE: cliches... I have nothing to admit. I am not up on leftist cliches. I will leave that for you to deciide.

< Message edited by MasterJaguar01 -- 6/20/2015 10:31:17 AM >

(in reply to HunterCA)
Profile   Post #: 45
RE: Oil interests in the Middle East? Or cliche leftis... - 6/20/2015 10:22:51 AM   
Sanity


Posts: 22039
Joined: 6/14/2006
From: Nampa, Idaho USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

Clearly, history is not a subject upon which you hold any great deal of insight.

Turkey has certainly not 'always been the initial aggressors'.



I provided links to an online encyclopedias filled with the facts that I described

You, a trolls empty rhetoric

_____________________________

Inside Every Liberal Is A Totalitarian Screaming To Get Out

(in reply to NorthernGent)
Profile   Post #: 46
RE: Oil interests in the Middle East? Or cliche leftis... - 6/20/2015 10:29:26 AM   
NorthernGent


Posts: 8730
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity


quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

Clearly, history is not a subject upon which you hold any great deal of insight.

Turkey has certainly not 'always been the initial aggressors'.



I provided links to an online encyclopedias filled with the facts that I described

You, a trolls empty rhetoric


Tell the encyclopedia people that they too need to shape up.




_____________________________

I have the courage to be a coward - but not beyond my limits.

Sooner or later, the man who wins is the man who thinks he can.

(in reply to Sanity)
Profile   Post #: 47
RE: Oil interests in the Middle East? Or cliche leftis... - 6/20/2015 10:52:45 AM   
HunterCA


Posts: 2343
Joined: 6/21/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

MJ, let's look at what you said again:

quote:

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

Spending blood for oil is a leftist cliché. That's been demonstrated here. That your statement is factually incorrect has been demonstrated here. That is the point of this thread. Yet, rather than admit it you go into other leftist cliche rants above. Your arguments and tactics are demonstratively false and you use them to snipe other comments. It's silly and just as I've always said you do.


I am still amazed that you really think I care about leftist cliches.?

And (How is that "demostrated" here? How does one "demonstrate that something is cliche?)

Regarding my statement, I got one part wrong (the U.S. got in 6 years later). The TPC (lateer the IPC) was a REAL Oil consortium, founded by a REAL Turkish Armenian, living in London (doing business with Britain). These are factually correct FACTS.

Here is the best link describing the TPC and Britian's intentions in Iraq
http://countrystudies.us/iraq/53.htm

To blanketly say that my statement is factually incorrect, is disingenuous. But then again, that is your tactic. (Derail the conversation to challenge one minor sub-point, in order to declare the entire statement as false (as you have done here, and have always done)) It is definitely an old, and tiresome debate tactic. As I have said, I am glad you did, becusee I enhanced my own understanding.


RE: cliches... I have nothing to admit. I am not up on leftist cliches. I will leave that for you to deciide.

Okay, in one regard you're correct. On leftist cliches. Picked at random:

http://afterthefuture.typepad.com/afterthefuture/2006/09/radioactive_oil_1.html

quote:

It's amazing how one of the most obvious things about are involvement in the Middle East is rarely spoken about in the mainstream media--oil. Even liberal commentators shy away from it. I think in large part it has to do with the Michael Moore factor that has made it a radioactive subject. "Blood for oil" has become a leftist cliche that makes it impossible for most people to take it seriously. It's one of those things that we just don't want to think about. It doesn't make us feel good like the idea of toppling dictators and spreading democracy .


http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2002/09/21608.shtml

quote:



But let me be clear. My problem isn't with clichés themselves. As a conservative, I have to have more than a little respect for the pearls of wisdom contained in phrases like "why buy the cow if you can get the milk for free?" There are millennia's worth of Hayekian trial and error built into the trite phrases your mother or grandmother uses. No, my problem is with people who accept clichés without reflecting on what exactly they mean. In a sense, clichés become an ideology all of their own. And since we accept cute phrases like "the grass is always greener on the other side of the fence" uncritically, clichés can be far more pernicious than ideology.


(in reply to MasterJaguar01)
Profile   Post #: 48
RE: Oil interests in the Middle East? Or cliche leftis... - 6/20/2015 4:20:27 PM   
MrRodgers


Posts: 10542
Joined: 7/30/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA


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.

You miss the point and your anger makes you look silly while you miss the point...a whole lot of points really.

My point is that there is no point in rehashing pre WWII middle east geopolitics. Post WWII, the dust had settled and we (the west) moved in with military and industrial hegemony.

Much more important than anything prior to WWI was that by the 50's, the US (the west) made sure that there were NO democratically elected homegrown govts. allowed unless they played ball with us...period.

(in reply to HunterCA)
Profile   Post #: 49
RE: Oil interests in the Middle East? Or cliche leftis... - 6/20/2015 4:52:17 PM   
HunterCA


Posts: 2343
Joined: 6/21/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers


quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA


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.

You miss the point and your anger makes you look silly while you miss the point...a whole lot of points really.

My point is that there is no point in rehashing pre WWII middle east geopolitics. Post WWII, the dust had settled and we (the west) moved in with military and industrial hegemony.

Much more important than anything prior to WWI was that by the 50's, the US (the west) made sure that there were NO democratically elected homegrown govts. allowed unless they played ball with us...period.

BS, provide citations. Include Isreal.

(in reply to MrRodgers)
Profile   Post #: 50
RE: Oil interests in the Middle East? Or cliche leftis... - 6/20/2015 4:59:00 PM   
Sanity


Posts: 22039
Joined: 6/14/2006
From: Nampa, Idaho USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

My point is that there is no point in rehashing pre WWII middle east geopolitics. Post WWII, the dust had settled and we (the west) moved in with military and industrial hegemony.

Much more important than anything prior to WWI was that by the 50's, the US (the west) made sure that there were NO democratically elected homegrown govts. allowed unless they played ball with us...period.


And if the Islamists had come out of the wars with the upper hand, rather than having lost their bloody Ottoman empire? What do you think the ME would look like today. Rosy? My ass.

Never mind the way leftists try to sweep the Soviets under the rug. In the 1950s we had the Soviets trying to fill the vacuum left by the Ottoman Empire, we did what we had to to keep them from taking the ME by the throat. And if you really believe that we were the bad guys in that theater you are a fool

_____________________________

Inside Every Liberal Is A Totalitarian Screaming To Get Out

(in reply to MrRodgers)
Profile   Post #: 51
RE: Oil interests in the Middle East? Or cliche leftis... - 6/20/2015 5:15:48 PM   
HunterCA


Posts: 2343
Joined: 6/21/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity


quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

My point is that there is no point in rehashing pre WWII middle east geopolitics. Post WWII, the dust had settled and we (the west) moved in with military and industrial hegemony.

Much more important than anything prior to WWI was that by the 50's, the US (the west) made sure that there were NO democratically elected homegrown govts. allowed unless they played ball with us...period.


And if the Islamists had come out of the wars with the upper hand, rather than having lost their bloody Ottoman empire? What do you think the ME would look like today. Rosy? My ass.

Never mind the way leftists try to sweep the Soviets under the rug. In the 1950s we had the Soviets trying to fill the vacuum left by the Ottoman Empire, we did what we had to to keep them from taking the ME by the throat. And if you really believe that we were the bad guys in that theater you are a fool

Well, I won't contest whether or not he's a fool. But I wouldn't limit it to this specific discussion.

(in reply to Sanity)
Profile   Post #: 52
RE: Oil interests in the Middle East? Or cliche leftis... - 6/20/2015 5:20:37 PM   
HunterCA


Posts: 2343
Joined: 6/21/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity


quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

My point is that there is no point in rehashing pre WWII middle east geopolitics. Post WWII, the dust had settled and we (the west) moved in with military and industrial hegemony.

Much more important than anything prior to WWI was that by the 50's, the US (the west) made sure that there were NO democratically elected homegrown govts. allowed unless they played ball with us...period.


And if the Islamists had come out of the wars with the upper hand, rather than having lost their bloody Ottoman empire? What do you think the ME would look like today. Rosy? My ass.

Never mind the way leftists try to sweep the Soviets under the rug. In the 1950s we had the Soviets trying to fill the vacuum left by the Ottoman Empire, we did what we had to to keep them from taking the ME by the throat. And if you really believe that we were the bad guys in that theater you are a fool

And , you notice he says there is no point in discussing it because he's posted on it in the past. Lol.

(in reply to Sanity)
Profile   Post #: 53
RE: Oil interests in the Middle East? Or cliche leftis... - 6/20/2015 6:45:09 PM   
MrRodgers


Posts: 10542
Joined: 7/30/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA


quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers


quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA


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.

You miss the point and your anger makes you look silly while you miss the point...a whole lot of points really.

My point is that there is no point in rehashing pre WWII middle east geopolitics. Post WWII, the dust had settled and we (the west) moved in with military and industrial hegemony.

Much more important than anything prior to WWI was that by the 50's, the US (the west) made sure that there were NO democratically elected homegrown govts. allowed unless they played ball with us...period.

BS, provide citations. Include Isreal.

The OP is oil 'interests.' The history of the US taking down both the democratically elected govts. in Iran and Iraq for western 'oil interests,' is almost common knowledge and the net is and has been full of links.

Israel is irrelevant to Persian gulf oil history.


(in reply to HunterCA)
Profile   Post #: 54
RE: Oil interests in the Middle East? Or cliche leftis... - 6/20/2015 6:56:35 PM   
MrRodgers


Posts: 10542
Joined: 7/30/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity


quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

My point is that there is no point in rehashing pre WWII middle east geopolitics. Post WWII, the dust had settled and we (the west) moved in with military and industrial hegemony.

Much more important than anything prior to WWI was that by the 50's, the US (the west) made sure that there were NO democratically elected homegrown govts. allowed unless they played ball with us...period.


And if the Islamists had come out of the wars with the upper hand, rather than having lost their bloody Ottoman empire? What do you think the ME would look like today. Rosy? My ass.

Never mind the way leftists try to sweep the Soviets under the rug. In the 1950s we had the Soviets trying to fill the vacuum left by the Ottoman Empire, we did what we had to to keep them from taking the ME by the throat. And if you really believe that we were the bad guys in that theater you are a fool

Again, this soviet bear bullshit ? First of all, the Soviets had oil, so they were never so desparate as to start wars over ME oil.

The US can protect any number of other demo-elected govts. from the soviets without sending in the CIA but oh no, we just had to take down the ME govts. to ensure western oil interests because of the Russian bear ? Bullshit.

History is soaked with wars justified by such imaginary enemies and what they might do.

Hell it wasn't long before Rome as much as told its neighbors that they knew they weren't a threat because Rome was too busy attacking and conquering first.

(in reply to Sanity)
Profile   Post #: 55
RE: Oil interests in the Middle East? Or cliche leftis... - 6/20/2015 7:04:15 PM   
MrRodgers


Posts: 10542
Joined: 7/30/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA


quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity


quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

My point is that there is no point in rehashing pre WWII middle east geopolitics. Post WWII, the dust had settled and we (the west) moved in with military and industrial hegemony.

Much more important than anything prior to WWI was that by the 50's, the US (the west) made sure that there were NO democratically elected homegrown govts. allowed unless they played ball with us...period.


And if the Islamists had come out of the wars with the upper hand, rather than having lost their bloody Ottoman empire? What do you think the ME would look like today. Rosy? My ass.

Never mind the way leftists try to sweep the Soviets under the rug. In the 1950s we had the Soviets trying to fill the vacuum left by the Ottoman Empire, we did what we had to to keep them from taking the ME by the throat. And if you really believe that we were the bad guys in that theater you are a fool

And , you notice he says there is no point in discussing it because he's posted on it in the past. Lol.

The CS forum is full of these discussions as well as other cyber sources. SO the OP is yet another grasping at straws to find some way, it appears...anyway to now even historically denigrate something called 'cliche leftist idiocy' whatever that is.

It's like starting an OP suggesting manifest destiny ? 'North American land interests...OR the origin of rightist, greedy, capitalist scummery...'the only good indian was...a dead indian.'

(in reply to HunterCA)
Profile   Post #: 56
RE: Oil interests in the Middle East? Or cliche leftis... - 6/20/2015 7:39:23 PM   
Sanity


Posts: 22039
Joined: 6/14/2006
From: Nampa, Idaho USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

Again, this soviet bear bullshit ? First of all, the Soviets had oil, so they were never so desparate as to start wars over ME oil.

The US can protect any number of other demo-elected govts. from the soviets without sending in the CIA but oh no, we just had to take down the ME govts. to ensure western oil interests because of the Russian bear ? Bullshit.

History is soaked with wars justified by such imaginary enemies and what they might do.

Hell it wasn't long before Rome as much as told its neighbors that they knew they weren't a threat because Rome was too busy attacking and conquering first.


Only in the mind of a far left useful idiot, was the cold war "nothing"

Have it your way MR, the Soviets werent interested in ME real estate

For the rest of us, there is reality. Any Google search reveals myriad Soviet dealings with ME powers with a mind toward fomenting wars and unrest that they could capitalize upon

From the first random link -

quote:



The Cold War’s Arab Spring: How the Soviets Created Today’s Middle East

Stolen Kremlin records show how the Soviets, including Gorbachev, created many of today's Middle East conflicts




The dominant narrative of modern Middle East history emphasizes the depredations visited upon the region by European colonization and accepts as a truism that the former colonial powers prioritized the protection of their material interests—in oil, above all—above the dignity and self-determination of the region’s inhabitants. Thus did botched decolonization result in endless instability. The most intractable of the regional conflicts to which this gave rise, that between the Arabs and Israelis, is attributed in this narrative to Israel’s unwillingness to accede to Palestinian national aspirations. Thus did the region become a breeding ground for radicalism, intensified by Cold War rivalry between the superpowers, who replaced the European colonizers as the region’s meddling overlords. Then came Mikhail Gorbachev—a Westernizing reformer. At last, the Cold War was over. A new world order was at hand.

What if this conventional wisdom is nonsense? Russian exile Pavel Stroilov argues just this in his forthcoming book, Behind the Desert Storm. “Not a word of it is true,” he writes. “It was the Soviet Empire—not the British Empire—that was responsible for the instability in the Middle East.”

Stroilov, a historian now living in London, fled Russia in 2003 after stealing 50,000 top-secret Kremlin documents from the Gorbachev Foundation archives, where he was working as a researcher. He was given access to the archive in 1999, but Gorbachev refused him permission to copy its most significant documents. Having observed the network administrator entering the password into the system, Stroilov reproduced the archive and sent it to secure locations around the world.

Stroilov’s cache includes hundreds of transcripts of discussions between Gorbachev and foreign leaders, politicians, and diplomats. (The originals are still sealed under Kremlin pressure.) There are notes from Politburo and other top decision-making meetings, notes written by Gorbachev’s aides Anatoly Chernyaev and Georgy Shakhnazarov and by Politburo member Vadim Medvedev. None were ever available to independent researchers, although some were published by the Gorbachev Foundation in a heavily censored version. Stroilov also stole the 1972-1986 diary of Anatoly Chernyaev, deputy chief of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union International Department and Gorbachev’s principal aide on international affairs from 1986 to 1991. He stole reports dating from the 1960s by Vadim Zagladin, who was deputy chief of the International Department until 1987 and Gorbachev’s adviser from 1987 to 1991. (Stroilov also draws upon Soviet dissident Vladimir Bukovsky’s vast, stolen collection of documents, as well as the Mitrokhin Archive, a collection of notes taken secretly by the defector Vasili Mitrokhin during his 30 years as a KGB archivist in the foreign intelligence service and the First Chief Directorate.)

Stroilov’s book about these documents, many only now translated into English, challenges the conventional wisdom that Western colonialists are to blame for the chaos in the region. All of its major conflicts, he argues, were caused by Soviet expansionism. Terrorism and the rabid anti-Israeli animus of the Arab world were Soviet inspirations. And the revolutions we are seeing now were inevitable, for the Soviet client states were socialist regimes, and sooner or later socialism exhausts economies and thus the patience of the people who live in them.

Stroilov focuses upon Gorbachev’s intrigues in the Middle East, explaining the Arab Spring as the “final act of the Cold War.” This thesis is overstated—Stroilov is a bit too enamored of his own collection to admit the complexity of these events—but there is nonetheless much in his archives to support this description. The documents clearly suggest that many contemporary conflicts in the Middle East were fomented by the Soviet empire, particularly in the final years before its break-up. And the events he describes have had a significant impact upon the current state of the region—from the conflict in Iraq to the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, to the development of a de facto alliance between the European Union and the Arab states. Perhaps most significantly, there is much here to suggest that it is past time to reexamine Gorbachev’s reputation as a reformer and liberalizer. Stroilov’s book suggests that in the Middle East, Gorbachev’s policy was old-school Kremlin imperialism, all the way to the end...


_____________________________

Inside Every Liberal Is A Totalitarian Screaming To Get Out

(in reply to MrRodgers)
Profile   Post #: 57
RE: Oil interests in the Middle East? Or cliche leftis... - 6/20/2015 7:50:11 PM   
MasterJaguar01


Posts: 2369
Joined: 12/2/2006
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers


quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA


quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity


quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

My point is that there is no point in rehashing pre WWII middle east geopolitics. Post WWII, the dust had settled and we (the west) moved in with military and industrial hegemony.

Much more important than anything prior to WWI was that by the 50's, the US (the west) made sure that there were NO democratically elected homegrown govts. allowed unless they played ball with us...period.


And if the Islamists had come out of the wars with the upper hand, rather than having lost their bloody Ottoman empire? What do you think the ME would look like today. Rosy? My ass.

Never mind the way leftists try to sweep the Soviets under the rug. In the 1950s we had the Soviets trying to fill the vacuum left by the Ottoman Empire, we did what we had to to keep them from taking the ME by the throat. And if you really believe that we were the bad guys in that theater you are a fool

And , you notice he says there is no point in discussing it because he's posted on it in the past. Lol.

The CS forum is full of these discussions as well as other cyber sources. SO the OP is yet another grasping at straws to find some way, it appears...anyway to now even historically denigrate something called 'cliche leftist idiocy' whatever that is.

It's like starting an OP suggesting manifest destiny ? 'North American land interests...OR the origin of rightist, greedy, capitalist scummery...'the only good indian was...a dead indian.'


Ummm.....

For the MILLIONTH (and a half) time. "Cliche Leftist Idiocy" is Hunter's words, not mine. I had no such agenda as you described. The ONLY reason this thread was started is to avoid derailing another thread. I used Hunter's words so it could be easily identified as a continuation of the previous conversation.

I understand your point. (Yes it is certainly well known of US intervention in other countries to enrich the profits of oil companies and other Republican donors.)

But you are a leftist ideologue, and as a result make sweeping broad statements, that are easily disproven.

If you have facts, state them. But stick to the facts.... "Rightist, greedy, capitalist scummery" actually sounds more ridiculous than "Cliche Leftist Idiocy". (For the Million and Oneth time, NOT MY WORDS)

(in reply to MrRodgers)
Profile   Post #: 58
RE: Oil interests in the Middle East? Or cliche leftis... - 6/20/2015 8:07:00 PM   
MrRodgers


Posts: 10542
Joined: 7/30/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01


quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers


quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA


quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity


quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

My point is that there is no point in rehashing pre WWII middle east geopolitics. Post WWII, the dust had settled and we (the west) moved in with military and industrial hegemony.

Much more important than anything prior to WWI was that by the 50's, the US (the west) made sure that there were NO democratically elected homegrown govts. allowed unless they played ball with us...period.


And if the Islamists had come out of the wars with the upper hand, rather than having lost their bloody Ottoman empire? What do you think the ME would look like today. Rosy? My ass.

Never mind the way leftists try to sweep the Soviets under the rug. In the 1950s we had the Soviets trying to fill the vacuum left by the Ottoman Empire, we did what we had to to keep them from taking the ME by the throat. And if you really believe that we were the bad guys in that theater you are a fool

And , you notice he says there is no point in discussing it because he's posted on it in the past. Lol.

The CS forum is full of these discussions as well as other cyber sources. SO the OP is yet another grasping at straws to find some way, it appears...anyway to now even historically denigrate something called 'cliche leftist idiocy' whatever that is.

It's like starting an OP suggesting manifest destiny ? 'North American land interests...OR the origin of rightist, greedy, capitalist scummery...'the only good indian was...a dead indian.'


Ummm.....

For the MILLIONTH (and a half) time. "Cliche Leftist Idiocy" is Hunter's words, not mine. I had no such agenda as you described. The ONLY reason this thread was started is to avoid derailing another thread. I used Hunter's words so it could be easily identified as a continuation of the previous conversation.

I understand your point. (Yes it is certainly well known of US intervention in other countries to enrich the profits of oil companies and other Republican donors.)

But you are a leftist ideologue, and as a result make sweeping broad statements, that are easily disproven.

If you have facts, state them. But stick to the facts.... "Rightist, greedy, capitalist scummery" actually sounds more ridiculous than "Cliche Leftist Idiocy". (For the Million and Oneth time, NOT MY WORDS)

OK MJ but not only did I not specify but that doesn't change anything. I am hardly a leftist ideologue and in fact quite the opposite.

Was brought up in a conservative repub family in Mich.

As I've written many times, this is not...my father's repub party. I don't much mourn the fate of the repub party especially if it continues to appeal and pander to radicals for whom compromise is a dirty word.

Oh and feel free to 'disprove' anything you can and the quotes are...equally ridiculous.

< Message edited by MrRodgers -- 6/20/2015 8:15:42 PM >

(in reply to MasterJaguar01)
Profile   Post #: 59
RE: Oil interests in the Middle East? Or cliche leftis... - 6/20/2015 8:24:56 PM   
MasterJaguar01


Posts: 2369
Joined: 12/2/2006
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01


quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers


quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA


quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity


quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

My point is that there is no point in rehashing pre WWII middle east geopolitics. Post WWII, the dust had settled and we (the west) moved in with military and industrial hegemony.

Much more important than anything prior to WWI was that by the 50's, the US (the west) made sure that there were NO democratically elected homegrown govts. allowed unless they played ball with us...period.


And if the Islamists had come out of the wars with the upper hand, rather than having lost their bloody Ottoman empire? What do you think the ME would look like today. Rosy? My ass.

Never mind the way leftists try to sweep the Soviets under the rug. In the 1950s we had the Soviets trying to fill the vacuum left by the Ottoman Empire, we did what we had to to keep them from taking the ME by the throat. And if you really believe that we were the bad guys in that theater you are a fool

And , you notice he says there is no point in discussing it because he's posted on it in the past. Lol.

The CS forum is full of these discussions as well as other cyber sources. SO the OP is yet another grasping at straws to find some way, it appears...anyway to now even historically denigrate something called 'cliche leftist idiocy' whatever that is.

It's like starting an OP suggesting manifest destiny ? 'North American land interests...OR the origin of rightist, greedy, capitalist scummery...'the only good indian was...a dead indian.'


Ummm.....

For the MILLIONTH (and a half) time. "Cliche Leftist Idiocy" is Hunter's words, not mine. I had no such agenda as you described. The ONLY reason this thread was started is to avoid derailing another thread. I used Hunter's words so it could be easily identified as a continuation of the previous conversation.

I understand your point. (Yes it is certainly well known of US intervention in other countries to enrich the profits of oil companies and other Republican donors.)

But you are a leftist ideologue, and as a result make sweeping broad statements, that are easily disproven.

If you have facts, state them. But stick to the facts.... "Rightist, greedy, capitalist scummery" actually sounds more ridiculous than "Cliche Leftist Idiocy". (For the Million and Oneth time, NOT MY WORDS)

OK MJ but not only did I not specify but that doesn't change anything. I am hardly a leftist ideologue and in fact quite the opposite.

Was brought up in a conservative repub family in Mich.

As I've written many times, this is not...my father's repub party. I don't much mourn the fate of the repub party especially if it continues to appeal and pander to radicals for whom compromise is a dirty word.

Oh and feel free to 'disprove' anything you can and the quotes are...equally ridiculous.



I apologize then. Some of the statements you make appear to me as far more ideological than factual.

(in reply to MrRodgers)
Profile   Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Oil interests in the Middle East? Or cliche leftist idiocy? Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.111