To the Chinese and the Indians, the spoils of war

[evilgenius]

the battle with the Arabs in the 70's (a political one) over oil was waged on the part of the West not for control by a regional entity over supply, but for control over that by the spot market. The sense is that if a market can rule then the US and others whose interests eventually are 'all in' with that will come out well too, even in a swelling world where other regions are coming along.

lol, this myth again :D

For your info, US diplomacy and big oil NEEDED price increase (after US peak in 71 and to start Alaska GOM, North sea) and PUSHED OPEC towards the quotas and price increase, there has been no battle --at all-- with the Arabs about that in the 70ies, quite the contrary, that it was then possible to brand it "arab embargo"( a leaking joke that lasted 3 months and never effective towards the US from KSA especially), was quite practical towards the US populace though, that's true.

So, whose conspiracy theory book did you lift that one from? I mean, the very idea that big oil needed a price increase so they forced the Arab oil embargo. You must be a youngster, not to remember the geopolitical situation of those times.

[Sixstrings]

At home, Chinese play go, Indians play chess, Americans watch NASCAR and "Dancing With the Stars".

And 19 year old kids come back from the desert missing legs, brain injured, messed up in the head maybe for life.

To what end.. who here would honestly want their son to fight in Iran, or whatever the next Libya is to protect some other country's oil contracts..

How about rare earth metals.. anybody want their son to die for those? Perhaps in Uganda? Then the Chinese will get the deals anyhow, I don't even see why we fight these resource wars.

[Sixstrings]

While there are some noises that China and others benefit from Iraqi contracts, there is not evidence that the Iraqi oil is not under the US control.

What does control mean, though? It's a free market, no? I know we get oil from Iraq, not sure what the breakdown is compared to their other customers. I know the US gets most of its oil from Canada that's #1 (go tar sands, cook them forests up). Mexico is second, then KSA, Venezuela, Nigeria, Angola and Iraq last on the list.

How is this even decided, I wonder, other than market driven (cost to ship). Do we somehow get first dibs on Iraqi oil, versus other nations?

Afghanistan appears to have never been a resource play. Looks like that article lobbies for the Chinese and others to finance the US military stay in Afghanistan.

It's an odd situation, US companies are all globalist and free market anyhow. A US company would sell to the Chinese and let your grandma freeze in the cold if the Chinese offered more for the heating oil. Just like the Irish starved in the potato famine while the country exported food to England -- that's what an international free market means, that's globalism.

[Sixstrings]

Exxon is seriously holding position in Iraq Kurdistan though, for instance :

How does that benefit the US though. It's an American company but whatever, anyone can buy its stock.

Also I'm sure Exxon would ship oil to Europe if the profit were there after cost to transport. It's an international market, oil goes to the highest bidder -- so why do we fight for it?

[Sixstrings]

Correction-- you got nothing out of it. Millions of Americans and people around the world did benefit from it directly or indirectly.

Fair point. But might doesn't make right.. nor the profit of a million people while all 300 million of us are dealing with this post war inflation now. I don't guess it benefited the million Iraqi civilians that died -- men, women, children. Maybe it was worth it in the long run but was it our business? Revolution is up to the people there, not us.

Lots of "bad guys" in the world Pretorian. Take one out and another pops up, or something even worse develops -- what if Iran comes to control Iraq. What a mess eh? iran was an ally, then they revolt then Iraq was an ally (didn't we sell them their chem weapons for war with Iran?), then Iraq didn't play ball so Iran and Iraq were both our enemies, now Iraq is regime changed but they're not Iran's enemy anymore. So how are we better off?

If Iran gets too much influence over Iraq, I guess we have to go to war with both of them.

[Pretorian]

Correction-- you got nothing out of it. Millions of Americans and people around the world did benefit from it directly or indirectly.

Fair point. But might doesn't make right.. nor the profit of a million people while all 300 million of us are dealing with this post war inflation now. I don't guess it benefited the million Iraqi civilians that died -- men, women, children. Maybe it was worth it in the long run but was it our business? Revolution is up to the people there, not us.

Lots of "bad guys" in the world Pretorian. Take one out and another pops up, or something even worse develops -- what if Iran comes to control Iraq. What a mess eh? iran was an ally, then they revolt then Iraq was an ally (didn't we sell them their chem weapons for war with Iran?), then Iraq didn't play ball so Iran and Iraq were both our enemies, now Iraq is regime changed but they're not Iran's enemy anymore. So how are we better off?

If Iran gets too much influence over Iraq, I guess we have to go to war with both of them.

Well obviously when you consider an entire nation there is no profit. And obviously gains of the few should not be covered by losses of majority, but this is the world we live in, like it or not.
If benefits to Americans were considered US should have killed most of Iraqis with WMDs or with their own hands ( by paying them a few hundreds per each head ) , and use the rest as slaves or semi-slaves on the oil rigs, or wherever it can be done without jeopardizing security. That is all, and you can have your $1 gasoline for quite awhile.
I honestly doubt Americans care about some country that most college graduates can't find on the map more than they do about their gas bill.

Speaking of gasoline, I've met a flag-waving Obama-lover that told me that his gas bill had not changed in almost 10 years because whenever he needs gas he spends the same $10 on it.


PS Btw is there any other country in the world that has an entire DEPARTMENT dedicated to their veterans? Does it not mean that the wars have to be fought constantly for the sake of it's existence?

[Arthur75]

the battle with the Arabs in the 70's (a political one) over oil was waged on the part of the West not for control by a regional entity over supply, but for control over that by the spot market. The sense is that if a market can rule then the US and others whose interests eventually are 'all in' with that will come out well too, even in a swelling world where other regions are coming along.

lol, this myth again :D

For your info, US diplomacy and big oil NEEDED price increase (after US peak in 71 and to start Alaska GOM, North sea) and PUSHED OPEC towards the quotas and price increase, there has been no battle --at all-- with the Arabs about that in the 70ies, quite the contrary, that it was then possible to brand it "arab embargo"( a leaking joke that lasted 3 months and never effective towards the US from KSA especially), was quite practical towards the US populace though, that's true.

So, whose conspiracy theory book did you lift that one from? I mean, the very idea that big oil needed a price increase so they forced the Arab oil embargo. You must be a youngster, not to remember the geopolitical situation of those times.

No conspiracy theory there at all, just simple historical facts (and common knowledge to quite a few people). Even though still clearly totally overlooked by most Americans even "peak oil aware" ones (with the "special" KSA relationship as well quite often overlooked, and most "geopolitical games" around oil and its price in general).

You can check James Akins interviews below for instance (sorry no english version of this thing to my knowledge), also interview of some Berkeley professor :
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xewm92 ... les-g_news
(911 logo has nothing to do with this doc, added by the guy who posted it)

Basically :
Fuel shortages issues started in the US from US peak, not the embargo
Akins was the guy that audited US capacity for Nixon : conclusion it's a mess
Akins was then US ambassador to Saudi Arabia, he clearly pushed price increase during an Algiers OPEC meeting in 72, to a level that OPEC members didn't dare mentioning.
Again price increase was necessary for big oil (and always good for them anyway).
The embargo lasted something like 3 months only, towards a few countries (the US, Holland in Europe), was never effective from KSA towards the US (tankers going from KSA though Barhain directly to vietnam for the US army or even the US).
Akins very clear here : voices started in the US especially from some repub senators on necessity to have some "actions" taken.
He explained them what was going on, they shat up, never any leak.
And then you have plenty of other games around the oil price/prod level with Kissinger, the Shah, Saudi king, etc
Or the "oil glut" episode in 85, where Reagan managed to have the Saudis increase their prod (in order to cut USSR revenues), for instance :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=02F-3l1EKsA

Again, very clearly, the "Arab embargo" label for the first oil shock is a total misnomer, but was/is quite practical for US domestic "communication".
The proper label should simply be "US 1971 peak" (first producer of the time, don't forget).

[Arthur75]

Also I'm sure Exxon would ship oil to Europe if the profit were there after cost to transport. It's an international market, oil goes to the highest bidder -- so why do we fight for it?

Because "energy security" is the job of your Army, whether you want it or not, your Army runs on your taxes, and the petro dollars allowed you to print money for quite sometimes (but this is linked to the "energy security" job).
Funny how this "free market" myth comes back whenever things gets touchy, you really don't get that the oil market IS ALSO A DIPLOMATIC game from the beginning, or what ?
The overall ignorance of historical aspects from most Americans is really quite amazing.