quote:

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01

I am wayyyyy oversimplifying this story, but here is a summary...


In the late 19th and early 20th century, the Briitish (and everyone else for that matter) had interests in controlling oil rich territory in the middle east (We will focus on Persia and Mesoptamia).

The British and US were partnering with the Ottoman Turks (more below on this), so everyone was happy. Then came World War I. The Turks took the German side.

(Not good for the British (and their partners)). The British entered militarily and tried to control the Mesopotamian region (Why couldn't we learn from them?). They tried to create seperate provinces, but all under British control. That didn't work. (The original British Mandate). After, several revolts and uprisings, in 1921 (again lots of detail left out here) the British wanted to work with Prince Faisal (and appointed him King of the newly formed Iraq) because they thought he could give the local sunnis and Shia enough of a feeling of autonomy, while still being dependent on the British. And the country of Iraq (a name the British gave to the region as a whole) was born (Again suummarizing here)

Oil was discovered in Mesopotamia in 1908. Oil production was being developed by the TPC, (Turkish Petroleum Company which was started in 1912 by a Turkish AMERICAN (this is where the American oil interests come in) named "Calouste Gulbenkian". It was a jjoint venture with many British oil interests.) (Of course it became the IPC, and is largely owned by RDS... etc.)

My apologies to Hunter. I thought this was common knowledge. There are hundreds of links on this. Here are a few:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Petroleum_Company
https://www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/185/40548.html
http://countrystudies.us/iraq/19.htm

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

In the "other"thread, that germinated this thread, you said this:

quote:

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

Please show me in any of the links you've posted where what you say about the U.S. Oil interests is discussed. I'm aware that the leftist progressive Wilson both fucked up everything he turned his hand to and "wanted" and open door policy for American private companies to have access to Middle East oil reserves. But show me where Churchill had any desire during this imperialistic phase to serve American private companies, or their interests.

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.

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: HunterCA

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.

I imagine cotton candy people want sugar to spin. I imagine clothing manufacturers want cotton, silk or whatever. Why shouldn't oil companies want to find oil?

But, your initial comment implied it was stable until Britain and the US decided to pursue oil interests. It's an old lefty saw. Would it have been stable if Asia had pursued the oil and brought it into the world?

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

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.

I imagine cotton candy people want sugar to spin. I imagine clothing manufacturers want cotton, silk or whatever. Why shouldn't oil companies want to find oil?

But, your initial comment implied it was stable until Britain and the US decided to pursue oil interests. It's an old lefty saw. Would it have been stable if Asia had pursued the oil and brought it into the world?

The regon was most definitely stable, operating semi-autonomously under the Ottoman turks for hundreds of years.

As for what would have happened if the Asians invaaded instead? Probably the same thing? I don't know.

The point of my post on tthe other thread was "Joe Biden was exactlyy right". Iraq has no common national interest. It consists of three ethnicities that, at best tolerate each other. They do not trust each other, and they certainly do NOT want to be governed by anyone outside their ethnicity. It was created to protect oil interests (I will say Western oil interests). American companies joined 6 years later.

Rand Paul is now seeing that. (Or at least part of it, in the case of the Kurds (who have NEVER wanted tto be part of a unified Iraq)

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

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.

I imagine cotton candy people want sugar to spin. I imagine clothing manufacturers want cotton, silk or whatever. Why shouldn't oil companies want to find oil?

But, your initial comment implied it was stable until Britain and the US decided to pursue oil interests. It's an old lefty saw. Would it have been stable if Asia had pursued the oil and brought it into the world?

The regon was most definitely stable, operating semi-autonomously under the Ottoman turks for hundreds of years.

As for what would have happened if the Asians invaaded instead? Probably the same thing? I don't know.

The point of my post on tthe other thread was "Joe Biden was exactlyy right". Iraq has no common national interest. It consists of three ethnicities that, at best tolerate each other. They do not trust each other, and they certainly do NOT want to be governed by anyone outside their ethnicity. It was created to protect oil interests (I will say Western oil interests). American companies joined 6 years later.

Rand Paul is now seeing that. (Or at least part of it, in the case of the Kurds (who have NEVER wanted tto be part of a unified Iraq)

quote:

As Iraq falls apart, it's worth remembering Vice President Joe Biden hailing that country as one of President Obama's "great achievements" in a 2010 interview with then CNN host Larry King:

"I am very optimistic about -- about Iraq. I mean, this could be one of the great achievements of this administration. You're going to see 90,000 American troops come marching home by the end of the summer. You're going to see a stable government in Iraq that is actually moving toward a representative government," said Biden.

"I spent -- I've been there 17 times now. I go about every two months -- three months. I know every one of the major players in all of the segments of that society. It's impressed me. I've been impressed how they have been deciding to use the political process rather than guns to settle their differences."

quote:

Sen. Joseph Biden (D-DE) talks about his plan for a decentralized Iraq, divided along ethnic and religious lines — a Kurdish area to the north, and the rest divided between Shia and Sunni Muslims.

quote:



"I don't want to debate history here, but I never called for a partition," Biden said. "I called for a central government with considerable autonomy in the regions."

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.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01

The regon was most definitely stable, operating semi-autonomously under the Ottoman turks for hundreds of years.

As for what would have happened if the Asians invaaded instead? Probably the same thing? I don't know.

The point of my post on tthe other thread was "Joe Biden was exactlyy right". Iraq has no common national interest. It consists of three ethnicities that, at best tolerate each other. They do not trust each other, and they certainly do NOT want to be governed by anyone outside their ethnicity. It was created to protect oil interests (I will say Western oil interests). American companies joined 6 years later.

Rand Paul is now seeing that. (Or at least part of it, in the case of the Kurds (who have NEVER wanted tto be part of a unified Iraq)

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?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01

The regon was most definitely stable, operating semi-autonomously under the Ottoman turks for hundreds of years.

As for what would have happened if the Asians invaaded instead? Probably the same thing? I don't know.

The point of my post on tthe other thread was "Joe Biden was exactlyy right". Iraq has no common national interest. It consists of three ethnicities that, at best tolerate each other. They do not trust each other, and they certainly do NOT want to be governed by anyone outside their ethnicity. It was created to protect oil interests (I will say Western oil interests). American companies joined 6 years later.

Rand Paul is now seeing that. (Or at least part of it, in the case of the Kurds (who have NEVER wanted tto be part of a unified Iraq)

A lot gets glossed over in your version of history

The Ottoman Empire, which had been in decline sine 1566, was an Islamist empire built on the corpses of Christians and others after many years of bloody jihad. As Hunter pointed out, they ruled with iron fists and at their height they stretched well into Europe, so one could easily argue that they were the initial aggressors.

Despite their bloody history the main reason Britain took such a heavy hand with them in the years you mention was that they called for a military jihad against France, Russia and Great Britain in November 1914, and thus sided with Germany in WW I (big mistake)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/wwone/middle_east_01.shtml

http://www.britannica.com/place/Ottoman-Empire/World-War-I-1914-18

Had Britain not been involved in the ME would the Nazis be running it today? Or the Soviets?

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.