Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

Scootaloo

(25,699 posts)
10. Well, here's a question.
Thu Mar 7, 2013, 08:25 AM
Mar 2013

Does throwing a nation into chaos help or hinder the production and export of oil (or other resources?) By any strain of logic, it's a negative impact on the export economy of a nation. Tearing Afghanistan up didn't really help us get their minerals, and fucking up Iraq severely lowered oil production there.

The point is control. Thus our alliance with Saudi Arabia; if their oil wells dried up tomorrow, we'd start buying their sand instead. Their primary export to us isn't crude; it's influence, control. Similarly Israel; it's the stick to Saudi Arabia's carrot.

Why? Well, this is the painful part - no reason, really. That is, no specific, tangible reason. Most of the Middle East isn't soaked in crude - Syria certainly isn't. However useless the region is to us though, it's better that we control this useless region, than some other empire control it and potentially find use.

We cooked up our sweetheart deals with Israel not because Israel was particularly useful for anything, but becuase we were basically buying them away from the Soviets. we helped overthrow Mossadegh for BP, but we supported the Shah and his murder-parties for decades after because he was aligned against the Russians and Chinese, a staunch anti-communist. The Saudis similarly fund and influence powerful anti-left movements through the Muslim and Arab worlds (both religious and secular) as a bugger against - again - soviet / chinese influence (nevermind that both nations are now as hyper-capitalist as we are, the principle remains)

It's not for barrels of this resource or boxes of that one. it's imperial brinksmanship. we seek to rule just to keep others from doing so - and strong independent states (or worse, strong states aligned with competing empires, like Iran or Syria) are utterly intolerable

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

So here are these two countries: Xipe Totec Mar 2013 #1
+1 newfie11 Mar 2013 #2
Oil? Nope. Scootaloo Mar 2013 #5
Think deeper. Why would we have an interest in the Middle East anyway? Xipe Totec Mar 2013 #7
Well, here's a question. Scootaloo Mar 2013 #10
The Carter Doctrine: it's all about the oil. bananas Mar 2013 #23
Is it possible it could be all of that and a few other things also to some degree? nolabels Mar 2013 #24
just because you fail to implement a plan, does not mean that was not the plan magical thyme Mar 2013 #25
The important thing is he's found a way to blame it on "Teh Joos." Ian David Mar 2013 #13
Scootaloo is correct cpwm17 Mar 2013 #39
The only difference is... Bohemianwriter Mar 2013 #19
His name is Zinn not Zimm tazzersgoldenangel Mar 2013 #30
Noticed that... Bohemianwriter Mar 2013 #41
Message auto-removed hk59298igg Mar 2013 #32
Location, location, location. TwilightGardener Mar 2013 #22
^ This. nt Poll_Blind Mar 2013 #36
So, a couple of days ago little Un says he wants LeftofObama Mar 2013 #3
The Generals . . . another_liberal Mar 2013 #16
It's time to send in SEAL Team 6 and take out Submariner Mar 2013 #4
Not our job. n/t magellan Mar 2013 #8
Because it's that simple, right? Posteritatis Mar 2013 #37
They are delusional idiots davidpdx Mar 2013 #6
Kim Jong Boo Boo throwing another tantrum ... and in other news ... water is still wet Snake Plissken Mar 2013 #9
You know, for a few minutes there when Un first came to power... RevStPatrick Mar 2013 #11
The Day North Korea Launches a Nuclear Strike Against the US Andy Stanton Mar 2013 #12
They may not care. I think THAT prospect is most frightening. closeupready Mar 2013 #34
Well, I gotta tell you . . . OldRedneck Mar 2013 #14
They can't very likely hit us . . . another_liberal Mar 2013 #15
It would be... Volaris Mar 2013 #18
I doubt that . . . another_liberal Mar 2013 #33
North Korea: "This is a recording. Thank you for waiting" DinahMoeHum Mar 2013 #17
Envoy Dennis Rodman didn't get it done, huh? Dustlawyer Mar 2013 #20
It would go something like this... slackmaster Mar 2013 #21
After the nuclear nightmare in Japan this threat is very yesterday . peace13 Mar 2013 #26
U.N. Security Council approves new sanctions against North Korea jsr Mar 2013 #27
Even China is growing tired of the NK's temper tantrums. Pararescue Mar 2013 #28
AP sucks. It's become a "Sensational Headline" contest. Spitfire of ATJ Mar 2013 #29
It's so entertaining BigDemVoter Mar 2013 #31
NK's dictator is going to be even madder now. Don't you just hate it when pampango Mar 2013 #35
They're going to burn popcorn in the break room microwave and stink up the hall? Throd Mar 2013 #38
I wonder how rational the political leadership of the US would be ronnie624 Mar 2013 #40
Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Furious over sanctions, N...»Reply #10