(September 2, 2012 at 9:48 pm)Minimalist Wrote:Quote:Come on, there is no end to it. The US should just accept that they were in the war for oil,
I disagree. THAT would have made some sense. This war was about domestic politics. It was supposed to be a trophy war for Dubya and his neo-con cunt buddies.
If the US wanted Iraqi oil, American oil companies would have bought it and continued to manipulate the price as they are doing this very weekend - what some call the "invisible hand of the market" - and passed the cost on the the consumer....just like they always do.
Well, it doesn't work that way. It was a war for oil, but it wasn't done as to loot the oil reserves right away. It was to secure the oil reserves for future use, with a US backed government in place to sell them for cheap when the time comes.
Quote:AND long term control of oil supplies in the Middle East. The modus is something the US has wanted for over 50 years; a permanent military presence in the Middle East.Bullseye.
Quote:However, after the end of the cold war,the US badly needed a terrifying external enemy.Another one.
Quote:Canada and Mexico are the chief suppliers of crude oil to the US along with Saudi Arabia.True, yet these are the current suppliers. You ought to have some oil for future use, yes? Not just for cars, but ships, and etc. these all run through oil. The US, and with it, the west secures it's oil supplies, in the middle east.
The war in Afghanistan, another war for an outpost to secure Central Asian oil and gas reserves.
![[Image: trkdevletbayraklar.jpg]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=i128.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fp161%2Fazmhyr%2Ftrkdevletbayraklar.jpg)
Üze Tengri basmasar, asra Yir telinmeser, Türük bodun ilingin törüngin kim artatı udaçı erti?