@Mcleanhatch. Ender, Knucklez or somebody else....your thoughts on this piece

  • Wanna Join? New users you can now register lightning fast using your Facebook or Twitter accounts.
Jul 7, 2002
3,105
0
0
#1
America's primary interest in the Persian Gulf lies in ensuring the free and stable flow of oil from the region to the world at large. This fact has nothing to do with the conspiracy theories leveled against the Bush administration during the run-up to the recent war. U.S. interests do not center on whether gas is $2 or $3 at the pump, or whether Exxon gets contracts instead of Lukoil or Total. Nor do they depend on the amount of oil that the United States itself imports from the Persian Gulf or anywhere else. The reason the United States has a legitimate and critical interest in seeing that Persian Gulf oil continues to flow copiously and relatively cheaply is simply that the global economy built over the last 50 years rests on a foundation of inexpensive, plentiful oil, and if that foundation were removed, the global economy would collapse.

Today, roughly 25 percent of the world's oil production comes from the Persian Gulf, with Saudi Arabia alone responsible for roughly 15 percent -- a figure expected to increase rather than decrease in the future. The Persian Gulf region has as much as two-thirds of the world's proven oil reserves, and its oil is absurdly economical to produce, with a barrel from Saudi Arabia costing anywhere from a fifth to a tenth of the price of a barrel from Russia. Saudi Arabia is not only the world's largest oil producer and the holder of the world's largest oil reserves, but it also has a majority of the world's excess production capacity, which the Saudis use to stabilize and control the price of oil by increasing or decreasing production as needed. Because of the importance of both Saudi production and Saudi slack capacity, the sudden loss of the Saudi oil network would paralyze the global economy, probably causing a global downturn at least as devastating as the Great Depression of the 1930s, if not worse. So the fact that the United States does not import most of its oil from the Persian Gulf is irrelevant: if Saudi oil production were to vanish, the price of oil in general would shoot through the ceiling, destroying the American economy along with everybody else's.

But the United States is not simply concerned with keeping oil flowing out of the Persian Gulf; it also has an interest in preventing any potentially hostile state from gaining control over the region and is resources and using such control to amass vast power or blackmail the world. And it has an interest in maintaining military access to the Persian Gulf because of the region's geostrategically critical location, near the Middle East, Central Asia, eastern Africa, and South Asia. If the United States were denied access to the Persian Gulf, its ability to influence events in many other key regions of the world would be greatly diminished. (Much of the air war against Afghanistan, for example, was mounted from bases in the Persian Gulf.) The tragedy of September 11, 2001, finally, has demonstrated that the United States also has an interest in stamping out the terrorist groups that flourish in the region.
 
May 8, 2002
4,729
0
0
48
#3
nefar559 said:
America's primary interest in the Persian Gulf lies in ensuring the free and stable flow of oil from the region to the world at large. This fact has nothing to do with the conspiracy theories leveled against the Bush administration during the run-up to the recent war. U.S. interests do not center on whether gas is $2 or $3 at the pump, or whether Exxon gets contracts instead of Lukoil or Total. Nor do they depend on the amount of oil that the United States itself imports from the Persian Gulf or anywhere else. The reason the United States has a legitimate and critical interest in seeing that Persian Gulf oil continues to flow copiously and relatively cheaply is simply that the global economy built over the last 50 years rests on a foundation of inexpensive, plentiful oil, and if that foundation were removed, the global economy would collapse.

Today, roughly 25 percent of the world's oil production comes from the Persian Gulf, with Saudi Arabia alone responsible for roughly 15 percent -- a figure expected to increase rather than decrease in the future. The Persian Gulf region has as much as two-thirds of the world's proven oil reserves, and its oil is absurdly economical to produce, with a barrel from Saudi Arabia costing anywhere from a fifth to a tenth of the price of a barrel from Russia. Saudi Arabia is not only the world's largest oil producer and the holder of the world's largest oil reserves, but it also has a majority of the world's excess production capacity, which the Saudis use to stabilize and control the price of oil by increasing or decreasing production as needed. Because of the importance of both Saudi production and Saudi slack capacity, the sudden loss of the Saudi oil network would paralyze the global economy, probably causing a global downturn at least as devastating as the Great Depression of the 1930s, if not worse. So the fact that the United States does not import most of its oil from the Persian Gulf is irrelevant: if Saudi oil production were to vanish, the price of oil in general would shoot through the ceiling, destroying the American economy along with everybody else's.

But the United States is not simply concerned with keeping oil flowing out of the Persian Gulf; it also has an interest in preventing any potentially hostile state from gaining control over the region and is resources and using such control to amass vast power or blackmail the world. And it has an interest in maintaining military access to the Persian Gulf because of the region's geostrategically critical location, near the Middle East, Central Asia, eastern Africa, and South Asia. If the United States were denied access to the Persian Gulf, its ability to influence events in many other key regions of the world would be greatly diminished. (Much of the air war against Afghanistan, for example, was mounted from bases in the Persian Gulf.) The tragedy of September 11, 2001, finally, has demonstrated that the United States also has an interest in stamping out the terrorist groups that flourish in the region.
source please.

at face value it appears to make sense but you dont normally post pieces like this, so it maker me wonder if you got a trick up your sleeve.
 
Jul 7, 2002
3,105
0
0
#4
Jul 7, 2002
3,105
0
0
#7
"FOREIGN AFFAIR" published by the COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS

What is the Council on Foreign Relations? When and why was it formed?

The Council on Foreign Relations was founded in 1921 by businessmen, bankers, and lawyers determined to keep the United States engaged in the world. Today, the Council is composed of men and women from all walks of international life and from all parts of America dedicated to the belief that the nation's peace and prosperity are firmly linked to that of the rest of the world. From this flows the Council's mission: to increase America's understanding of the world and contribute ideas to U.S. foreign policy.

Who finances the Council?

The Council is supported by a wide range of individuals and institutional donors. Specifically, the Council's largest donations come from corporate, foundational and individual endowment gifts and grants. Member donations constitute "The Annual Fund," which is in addition to annual dues.
 
Jul 7, 2002
3,105
0
0
#10
ok, but i thought we were disarming iraq from it WMDs, and liberating iraqi ppl....and stop terrorism becuase they hate our freedoms...and since iraq was the reason behind 9/11 we had to do something about it....the article above was something the left was saying all long
 

HERESY

THE HIDDEN HAND...
Apr 25, 2002
18,326
11,459
113
www.godscalamity.com
www.godscalamity.com
#11
ok what you just posted (nefar) was STRAIGHT from the horses mouth. WHY IS IT THAT NOT ONE PRO WAR ADVOCATE HAS MENTIONED ANYTHING ABOUT THE COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS? I'VE LISTED STUFF ABOUT THE CFR FOR THE PAST TWO YEARS BUT PRO WAR ADVOCATES SWEEP IT UNDER THE RUG. THEY SAY "OH YOUR A CONSPIRACY THEORIST" THATS BULL! YOU JUST READ A REPORT STRAIGHT FROM THE HORSES MOUTH. BRAINWASHED INDIVIDUALS. AS I HAVE SAID BEFORE *MUCH* OF WHAT *THEY* DO IS IN THE *OPEN*

:h:
 
Jul 24, 2002
4,878
5
0
47
www.soundclick.com
#13
The CFR's basically saying that all conspiracy theories are bullshit.
Then they turn around say, "here's my conspiracy theory about what's really going on".....

Bullshit.....

My subconscious tells me that Bush went after Iraq not necessarily for oil. But only to pay his dues....
He's returning the favor to those who put him in the White House....
 
May 8, 2002
4,729
0
0
48
#14
nefar559 said:
ok, but i thought we were disarming iraq from it WMDs,
we are and everything else is just gravy on top

nefar559 said:
and since iraq was the reason behind 9/11 we had to do something about it
i dont recall any1 in power ever saying that

nefar559 said:
the article above was something the left was saying all long
only they are using it as the MAIN reason when it isnt