Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Oil Politics in the Mideast

Expand Messages
  • Sean McBride
    Oil Politics in the Mideast I read the materials posted about British oil interests, and was unable to uncover any evidence proving that those interests are
    Message 1 of 7 , Apr 1, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      Oil Politics in the Mideast
       
      I read the materials posted about British oil interests, and was unable to uncover any evidence proving that those interests are agitating for an American war against Iran.  Again: where is the proof for this assertion, which is quite absurd on its face?  No amount of military aggression against Iran would be able to secure Iranian oil for American and British oil companies.
       
      When Jim Lobe at Antiwar.com develops his arguments about the role of neoconservatives in forming Bush 43 administration policies, he displays an encyclopedic knowledge of all the players and their activities, buttressed by carefully documented facts.  His articles are bursting over with low-hanging semantic fruit: large collections of proper names that are nicely tied together, with all the i's dotted and the t's crossed.  Those promoting the oil industry model for Bush 43's behavior come to the table with almost nothing to support their theories.
       
      When it is pointed out to them that the Bush 41 circle (including James Baker), which is much better connected to oil interests than Bush 43, has *opposed* Bush 43's neocon policies in the Mideast, they simply fall silent.  They are unable to deal rationally with the known facts of the situation.
       
      The oil rationale for American military aggression in the Mideast has been pushed primarily by Israeli ops who couldn't care less about the bottom line of the American oil industry or about American strategic and oil interests in the Mideast.  You appear to have been taken in by this con game, as was Michael Ruppert.  Greg Palast wasn't taken in -- he appears to be one of the key authors of the hustle; he's a swindler, as are all the neocons. 
       
      Neoconservatism is a gigantic con game which is in the process of bankrupting America in every conceivable department.
       
      Now, *some* American oil industry executives may have thought that the Iraq War was a brilliant idea -- the stupid ones, or the ones under the influence of the neocons.  But most oil industry executives didn't believe this.  And all of them, for a certainty, believe that a war against Iran would be the height of folly.
       
      The Israeli government, the Israel lobby, AIPAC, neoconservatives, Christian Zionists and related interests have been the only major lobbying group in American politics that has been agitating for an American war against Iran.  George W. Bush is susceptible to this influence -- in fact, he is putty in their hands, their Manchurian Candidate -- because he is a fanatical Christian Zionist whose capacity for critical thinking is minimal, to be charitable on the point.
       
      Prove me wrong.  Post some relevant and well-documented facts on this issue.
    • Albert Underwood
      Given the world’s thirst for oil and the current imperialist tendencies of the United States, Iran must equip its army with nuclear weapons immediately, to
      Message 2 of 7 , Apr 1, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        "Given the world’s thirst for oil and the current imperialist tendencies of the United States , Iran must equip its army with nuclear weapons immediately, to defend from attacks by oil-thirsty, profit-driven nations and their oil barons. After all, no European nuclear power has rushed forward to fill the big hole in the nuclear protection umbrella that has existed over Iran since the fall of the Shah in 1979. Iran's greatest threats are from the British, via a nuclear Israel and nuclear United States."

        More at
        http://www.voxpublishing.com/IE/Nukes4Iran.htm

        Sean McBride <smcbride2@...> wrote:
        Oil Politics in the Mideast
         
        I read the materials posted about British oil interests, and was unable to uncover any evidence proving that those interests are agitating for an American war against Iran.  Again: where is the proof for this assertion, which is quite absurd on its face?  No amount of military aggression against Iran would be able to secure Iranian oil for American and British oil companies.
         
        When Jim Lobe at Antiwar.com develops his arguments about the role of neoconservatives in forming Bush 43 administration policies, he displays an encyclopedic knowledge of all the players and their activities, buttressed by carefully documented facts.  His articles are bursting over with low-hanging semantic fruit: large collections of proper names that are nicely tied together, with all the i's dotted and the t's crossed.  Those promoting the oil industry model for Bush 43's behavior come to the table with almost nothing to support their theories.
         
        When it is pointed out to them that the Bush 41 circle (including James Baker), which is much better connected to oil interests than Bush 43, has *opposed* Bush 43's neocon policies in the Mideast, they simply fall silent.  They are unable to deal rationally with the known facts of the situation.
         
        The oil rationale for American military aggression in the Mideast has been pushed primarily by Israeli ops who couldn't care less about the bottom line of the American oil industry or about American strategic and oil interests in the Mideast.  You appear to have been taken in by this con game, as was Michael Ruppert.  Greg Palast wasn't taken in -- he appears to be one of the key authors of the hustle; he's a swindler, as are all the neocons. 
         
        Neoconservatism is a gigantic con game which is in the process of bankrupting America in every conceivable department.
         
        Now, *some* American oil industry executives may have thought that the Iraq War was a brilliant idea -- the stupid ones, or the ones under the influence of the neocons.  But most oil industry executives didn't believe this.  And all of them, for a certainty, believe that a war against Iran would be the height of folly.
         
        The Israeli government, the Israel lobby, AIPAC, neoconservatives, Christian Zionists and related interests have been the only major lobbying group in American politics that has been agitating for an American war against Iran.  George W. Bush is susceptible to this influence -- in fact, he is putty in their hands, their Manchurian Candidate -- because he is a fanatical Christian Zionist whose capacity for critical thinking is minimal, to be charitable on the point.
         
        Prove me wrong.  Post some relevant and well-documented facts on this issue.


        Now that's room service! Choose from over 150,000 hotels
        in 45,000 destinations on Yahoo! Travel
        to find your fit.

      • Sean McBride
        You have still produced nothing in the way of *FACTS* to support the assertion that American and British oil companies are agitating for an Anglo-American war
        Message 3 of 7 , Apr 1, 2007
        • 0 Attachment
          You have still produced nothing in the way of *FACTS* to support the assertion that American and British oil companies are agitating for an Anglo-American war against Iran.  Shouldn't your theories be based on facts, instead of on infinitely regressive theories?  So far you have argued that your theory supports your theory.
           
          There is a mountain of facts documenting Israeli/neocon agitation for an American attack on Iran.  There is substantial evidence demonstrating strong opposition from the oil-centric Bush 41 political bloc to such an attack.


          Albert Underwood <aeund@...> wrote:
          "Given the world’s thirst for oil and the current imperialist tendencies of the United States , Iran must equip its army with nuclear weapons immediately, to defend from attacks by oil-thirsty, profit-driven nations and their oil barons. After all, no European nuclear power has rushed forward to fill the big hole in the nuclear protection umbrella that has existed over Iran since the fall of the Shah in 1979. Iran's greatest threats are from the British, via a nuclear Israel and nuclear United States."

          More at
          http://www.voxpubli shing.com/ IE/Nukes4Iran. htm

          Sean McBride <smcbride2@yahoo. com> wrote:
          Oil Politics in the Mideast
           
          I read the materials posted about British oil interests, and was unable to uncover any evidence proving that those interests are agitating for an American war against Iran.  Again: where is the proof for this assertion, which is quite absurd on its face?  No amount of military aggression against Iran would be able to secure Iranian oil for American and British oil companies.
           
          When Jim Lobe at Antiwar.com develops his arguments about the role of neoconservatives in forming Bush 43 administration policies, he displays an encyclopedic knowledge of all the players and their activities, buttressed by carefully documented facts.  His articles are bursting over with low-hanging semantic fruit: large collections of proper names that are nicely tied together, with all the i's dotted and the t's crossed.  Those promoting the oil industry model for Bush 43's behavior come to the table with almost nothing to support their theories.
           
          When it is pointed out to them that the Bush 41 circle (including James Baker), which is much better connected to oil interests than Bush 43, has *opposed* Bush 43's neocon policies in the Mideast, they simply fall silent.  They are unable to deal rationally with the known facts of the situation.
           
          The oil rationale for American military aggression in the Mideast has been pushed primarily by Israeli ops who couldn't care less about the bottom line of the American oil industry or about American strategic and oil interests in the Mideast.  You appear to have been taken in by this con game, as was Michael Ruppert.  Greg Palast wasn't taken in -- he appears to be one of the key authors of the hustle; he's a swindler, as are all the neocons. 
           
          Neoconservatism is a gigantic con game which is in the process of bankrupting America in every conceivable department.
           
          Now, *some* American oil industry executives may have thought that the Iraq War was a brilliant idea -- the stupid ones, or the ones under the influence of the neocons.  But most oil industry executives didn't believe this.  And all of them, for a certainty, believe that a war against Iran would be the height of folly.
           
          The Israeli government, the Israel lobby, AIPAC, neoconservatives, Christian Zionists and related interests have been the only major lobbying group in American politics that has been agitating for an American war against Iran.  George W. Bush is susceptible to this influence -- in fact, he is putty in their hands, their Manchurian Candidate -- because he is a fanatical Christian Zionist whose capacity for critical thinking is minimal, to be charitable on the point.
           
          Prove me wrong.  Post some relevant and well-documented facts on this issue.


        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.