[Keith_McClary]

Crude conspiracy theories could be right, study shows

Among the findings, published in the Journal of Conflict Resolution, are:
The more oil a country has, the more likely a third party will intervene in their civil war;
The more oil a country imports, the greater the likelihood it will intervene in an oil-producing country's civil war;
Dr Bove said: "Before the ISIS forces approached the oil-rich Kurdish north of Iraq, ISIS was barely mentioned in the news. But once ISIS got near oil fields, the siege of Kobani in Syria became a headline and the US sent drones to strike ISIS targets.
"We don't claim that our findings can be applied to every decision made on whether to intervene in another country's war, but the results clearly demonstrate supply of and demand for oil motivates a significant number of decisions taken to intervene in civil wars in the post-World War II period.
"The 'thirst for oil' is often put forward as a near self-evident explanation behind the intervention in Libya and the absence of intervention in Syria. Many claims are often simplistic but, after a rigorous and systematic analysis, we found that the role of economic incentives emerges as a key factor in intervention."
...
With the West becoming less energy-dependent and China becoming more energy-dependent, the incentives for third party countries to intervene in other countries' wars was likely to change in the future, they said.

They don't define "energy-dependent".

[ROCKMAN]

So the theory is that govts tend to act in the self-interests of it citizens. I wonder how much money was paid for such ground breaking research? And where can I get a piece of such financial support? I've got this theory that most folks don't like their taxes increased. With a $500,000 stipend I'm sure I can pin the details down. LOL.

[GoghGoner]

I think the part where governments interfere in other counties on behalf of oil interests has been really obvious, however, I had never flipped it around in my mind where countries with oil never are influenced to invade anybody.

The researchers said that at the other end of the spectrum, oil-rich states including the Gulf States, Mexico and Indonesia have no history of military intervention in other countries' civil wars, even if they have advanced and well equipped military forces.

[BobInget]

Only slightly off topic:
If your interested how and why historic moments often go unnoticed, check in to following link during the next 24/48 hours:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... atest.html

There's an inside chance this Israeli/Hezbollah land war will erupt into something
of far greater scope.

Israeli leaders feel precipitating this current crisis, (I know, I know, what crisis?)
at this time, is the last window of opportunity to bomb Iran's nuclear infrastructure.
The Russians, as you may or may not be aware, promised Iran delivery of their
latest S-400 anti aircraft missiles. Once Iran has S-300 and S-400 missiles in place,
IAF losses would be greater. Hezbollah needs to be neutralized prior to Israel launching 'tactical' nuclear bunker busters on Iran's enrichment facilities.

Hezbollah, like Israel and Iran have been preparing for this show-down for years.

For Putin and Russia this is a win win. Iran can't hit US but it certainly can
knock out Saudi shipping for the better part of a year with just a few submarine launched missiles that manage to get through.
Should Iran's oil distribution choke points be compromised, Saudi Arabia,
will be next.

So far oil markets are reacting like most reader's here: Crisis? What Crisis?

[vox_mundi]

So the theory is that govts tend to act in the self-interests of it citizens. I wonder how much money was paid for such ground breaking research? And where can I get a piece of such financial support? I've got this theory that most folks don't like their taxes increased. With a $500,000 stipend I'm sure I can pin the details down. LOL.

Have no fear Rockman, your taxes are being spent on more important things (like military bases in 105 countries, or $75 billion/yr on nuclear weapons).

The researchers were from the Universities of Portsmouth, Warwick and Essex (England) - as mentioned in the 3rd paragraph of the linked article - and the good citizens of the UK covered the tab (which is simply the standard salary of the academics).

[salinsky]

Did I hear a tearing sound?

[BobInget]

Speaking of conspiracies, my latest must be Israel fixing to bomb Iran's nukes in
what a western press likes to call "preventive strikes" . When it was Mano a Mano
during cold war times we called it what it was, 'first strike'.
Israel either takes this first strike window of opportunity, pre S-300, or drops the entire idea. Here's the latest on those missiles 1/28/15

http://www.airforce-technology.com/news ... ia-4498099

Russia has the biggest heavy lift cargo aircraft in the world. Doubtless, S-300 and S-400 come with Russian (teaching) crews, this will put Bibi in an even more awkward dilemma. Go for it and risk war with Russia or simply drop out of current Israeli elections.
First things first, Israel must fight Hezbollah before attacking Iran. This in itself
won't be easy.

The fact is Russia and Iran, along with Iraq are getting tighter by the hour.

Today's frontal attack on oil prices was strictly for profit, nothing less.

[americandream]

So the theory is that govts tend to act in the self-interests of it citizens. I wonder how much money was paid for such ground breaking research? And where can I get a piece of such financial support? I've got this theory that most folks don't like their taxes increased. With a $500,000 stipend I'm sure I can pin the details down. LOL.

Or the alternative may well be that the structure of the social economy compels certain outcomes. Often enough, governments are in denial as to the real objective of their actions just as many of us are in denial about the climate.

[jjhman]

An innocent question:

If you were in charge of the Iranian gov't would you think your country would be safer without nuclear weapons (like Iraq or VietNam) or safer with them (like Russia and North Korea)?

2nd innocent question:

Is it possible to think that Israel is a rogue state, stealing land from Arabs to build settlements for Russian Jews, without being called an anti-Semite?

[Keith_McClary]

An innocent question:

If you were in charge of the Iranian gov't would you think your country would be safer without nuclear weapons (like Iraq or VietNam) or safer with them (like Russia and North Korea)?

Not to mention Libya, which gave up it's "WMDs" in exchange for ... .

2nd innocent question:

Is it possible to think that Israel is a rogue state, stealing land from Arabs to build settlements for Russian Jews, without being called an anti-Semite?

Funny, most of the Russians don't qualify as "Jews" in the Jewish State. They would need to convert to Orthodox Judaism (involving rabbinical surgery) but only a small percentage have converted.

[ennui2]

Iran signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) in 1968 and ratified it in 1970. If Iran now feels it needs nukes to protect itself from "zionist aggression" or whatever else, it should officially break from the NPT. But to build nukes in violation of the treaty and lie about it is douchey behavior.