RSS Feed Share on Facebook Send this to Twitter | Login Login | Register
City Independent
The Hull City Fanzine
 
Hull City Forum

Hull City Forum

Hull City Forum >> CI Football Plus >> Middle East, Any experts on here?
Deails Post
42 posts. < 1 2 3 > Show 15 30 50

New Back To Top

theotherphantom

User Image

12835 posts
First used 09/01/17

Group
Hull City

#1
01/05/2018 at 16:49

I'm trying to work out what on earth is going on over there. It's probably blatantly obvious to the rest of you, so feel free to correct me, because this is not an area of expertise for me.

1. The USA is in there because of (1) oil and (2) Israel.
2. Israel intends to have a war with Iran, but wants Iran to look like the aggressors.
3. When it does happen, the USA will be standing behind Israel, lobbing the odd firework into the action.

Is that a reasonable summary?

Companies with names such as Genie Oil and Anglo-Iranian Oil Company have appeared. Not to mention a certain banking organisation with a long family history.

Do we know where conspiracy theories end and facts start? 

Post edited on 01/05/2018 at 17:06 by theotherphantom

>>>>> 12th season in exile <<<<< 

New Back To Top

candw

User Image

26502 posts
First used 09/01/17

#2
01/05/2018 at 17:46

I think you have summarised things pretty well.

The US has had a hit list of 7 countries to be "changed" in 5 years. See Gen Wesley Clarke. 

New Back To Top

essexgull

8980 posts
First used 12/01/17

#3
01/05/2018 at 17:52

You'll get opposite answers from different posters depending on their political opinions on this matter. Most pick a side and then cite the evidence that suits, rendering most discussions pointless.

I would suggest that Iran and Israel have been at war, via proxy conflicts in the region, for nearly 2 decades now. Iran are currently stretched weaker than they've been since the 1970s revolution due to 5 years of low oil price, involvement in wars against Saudi Arabia, in Lebanon and Syria, together with large scale discontentment towards the rulers in their own country, so perhaps now is a good time for Israel to finally directly strike.

The US gets very little oil from the Middle East nowadays and with most ME countries producing it at a loss currently, it's an asset of diminishing importance. Iran are no where near as strong militarily as Israel, so more likely they will use Hezbollah in Lebanon to start a rocket assault on Israel.

I am no where near a ME expert. I used to trade oil, so was important to know a little bit. Perhaps my self-learned education is out of date by a decade.

ESSEX GULL



New Back To Top

theotherphantom

User Image

12835 posts
First used 09/01/17

Group
Hull City

#4
01/05/2018 at 18:04

Thanks. Is the US piloted from above by zillionaires (possibly described as Zionists) who like to organise wars because they're profitable? Is the stuff about the CIA true? 

>>>>> 12th season in exile <<<<< 

New Back To Top

essexgull

8980 posts
First used 12/01/17

#5
01/05/2018 at 18:25

[quote post_date='01/05/2018 at 18:04' user_id='theotherphantom']Thanks. Is the US piloted from above by zillionaires (possibly described as Zionists) who like to organise wars because they're profitable? Is the stuff about the CIA true?[/quote

I'd hazard a guess that the 'US' does not operate as a coherent, unilateral country and has many internal and external forces shaping it's policies. If anything, regarding oil alone, the US benefits from peace in the ME because the oil price drops putting most of the oil producing countries in the faecal matter and their debts/ensuing poverty makes them ripe for regime change.

Regarding zillionaires organising wars, of the 10 biggest companies in the world by market capitalisation, 8 are US-created and based and they are all tech/online companies. These companies are far more likely to make their billions from peacetime and good cooperation with formerly antagonistic countries - the 120 million or so Iranians won't be buying on Amazon during a war with Israel. I'd suggest that Zionist billionaires waging war for profit is a fantasy that fits prejudices of the far-right and the far-left. The wealthiest men in the world will make more money during a period of peace when growth of the middle-income and professional/commercial class is encouraged in the middle East, creating half a billion or so potential customers/consumers.

It's just logic. The guy who owns Zara (the clothes shop) has 100x the personal wealth that anyone in the oil industry has. Money, influence and the world has changed a lot since the 1970s.

ESSEX GULL 

New Back To Top

essexgull

8980 posts
First used 12/01/17

#6
01/05/2018 at 18:26

Quote Quote by theotherphantom on 01/05/2018 at 18:25' user_id='essexgull'][quote post_date='01/05/2018 at 18:04
Thanks. Is the US piloted from above by zillionaires (possibly described as Zionists) who like to organise wars because they're profitable? Is the stuff about the CIA true?


I'd hazard a guess that the 'US' does not operate as a coherent, unilateral country and has many internal and external forces shaping it's policies. If anything, regarding oil alone, the US benefits from peace in the ME because the oil price drops putting most of the oil producing countries in the faecal matter and their debts/ensuing poverty makes them ripe for regime change.

Regarding zillionaires organising wars, of the 10 biggest companies in the world by market capitalisation, 8 are US-created and based and they are all tech/online companies. These companies are far more likely to make their billions from peacetime and good cooperation with formerly antagonistic countries - the 120 million or so Iranians won't be buying on Amazon during a war with Israel. I'd suggest that Zionist billionaires waging war for profit is a fantasy that fits prejudices of the far-right and the far-left. The wealthiest men in the world will make more money during a period of peace when growth of the middle-income and professional/commercial class is encouraged in the middle East, creating half a billion or so potential customers/consumers.

It's just logic. The guy who owns Zara (the clothes shop) has 100x the personal wealth that anyone in the oil industry has. Money, influence and the world has changed a lot since the 1970s.

ESSEX GULL 

Post edited on 01/05/2018 at 18:26 by essexgull

New Back To Top

theotherphantom

User Image

12835 posts
First used 09/01/17

Group
Hull City

#7
01/05/2018 at 19:27

Not sure about some of that, but I hope you're right. The US always seems to want control of the oil itself. They do have a habit of creating regime change, and a worse habit of getting rid of secular democracies. There's a list of around 70 countries they've attacked at various times.

The zillionaires suggestion was about dynastic ones who have been around for centuries rather than internet/tech ones.

Thank you for your thoughts on the matter. 

>>>>> 12th season in exile <<<<< 

New Back To Top

theotherphantom

User Image

12835 posts
First used 09/01/17

Group
Hull City

#8
01/05/2018 at 19:30

Quote Quote by candw on 01/05/2018 at 17:46
I think you have summarised things pretty well.

The US has had a hit list of 7 countries to be "changed" in 5 years. See Gen Wesley Clarke.


Thank you. I heard the Clarke list. Didn't quite understand some of them, but I'll take another look. 

>>>>> 12th season in exile <<<<< 

New Back To Top

theotherphantom

User Image

12835 posts
First used 09/01/17

Group
Hull City

#9
01/05/2018 at 19:33

Quote Quote by essexgull on 01/05/2018 at 18:25
If anything, regarding oil alone, the US benefits from peace in the ME because the oil price drops putting most of the oil producing countries in the faecal matter and their debts/ensuing poverty makes them ripe for regime change.


So why would they be bothered about regime change? 

Post edited on 01/05/2018 at 19:37 by theotherphantom

>>>>> 12th season in exile <<<<< 

New Back To Top

essexgull

8980 posts
First used 12/01/17

#10
01/05/2018 at 20:35

Quote Quote by theotherphantom on 01/05/2018 at 19:33


So why would they be bothered about regime change?


I'm guessing because of strong political alliances with Saudi Arabia and Israel, if we are discussing Iran. Oil is a secondary factor nowadays. The US sells hundred of billions dollars worth of weapons to SA and SA owns hundreds of billions dollars worth of US treasuries/government debt. The two countries are inextricably linked and danger to one is a danger to the other.


ESSEX GULL

New Back To Top

TedLloyd

2819 posts
First used 09/01/17

Group
Hull City

#11
02/05/2018 at 15:55

For a long time the Middle East seemed as straight forward as an Arab v Jew conflict with the USA backing Israel. Its now far more complicated. There are fundamental splits within Islam between Sunni & Shia muslims and moderates & extremists. Saudi are Sunni and Iran are Shia. There are power struggles within the house of Saud. Isis are not quite defeated and the Syrian Civil War is not over. Russia still back Assad. Turkey are bombing the Kurds who were prominent in pushing Isis back yet still don't have a recognised nation state. Are the Iraqi/Syrian oil fields even functioning? Yemen Civil War? Is any of it safe enough to rebuild? How long before the remnants of Al Queda/ISIS morph in to a new terror group?



 

New Back To Top

candw

User Image

26502 posts
First used 09/01/17

#12
02/05/2018 at 18:39

Good post Ted.  

New Back To Top

theotherphantom

User Image

12835 posts
First used 09/01/17

Group
Hull City

#13
06/05/2018 at 03:22

Quote Quote by essexgull on 01/05/2018 at 20:35


I'm guessing because of strong political alliances with Saudi Arabia and Israel, if we are discussing Iran. Oil is a secondary factor nowadays. The US sells hundred of billions dollars worth of weapons to SA and SA owns hundreds of billions dollars worth of US treasuries/government debt. The two countries are inextricably linked and danger to one is a danger to the other.


ESSEX GULL


How about if the aim after war/regime change is to eventually gain control of a defeated country's resources? 

>>>>> 12th season in exile <<<<< 

New Back To Top

essexgull

8980 posts
First used 12/01/17

#14
06/05/2018 at 08:41

Quote Quote by theotherphantom on 06/05/2018 at 03:22


How about if the aim after war/regime change is to eventually gain control of a defeated country's resources?


Who exactly has this aim. The US administration and political establishment is at war with each other, do you think that they put their deep-seated animosity towards each other aside to co-join in an agreed aim to gain control of Iran's reserves?

The US is aligning itself with their biggest ally/lender/buyer in the region which places them against Iran. The US is effectively being dragged into this by Saudi Arabia - shown by Clinton's aggression towards Iran in the election campaign and last decade together with her financial and political links to SA.

The US gains more with Iran, a huge economic power in the region, as a customer than under their control - the cost of 'controlling' a country in the region, with all the religious and political schisms, costs more than they will gain from the resources. The British Empire, and it's collapse under the cost of administration, highlighted this... as has Iraq in more recent years. See also Chinese 'aid' and investment in infrastructure in Africa. All about opening up new markets for the increasing middle income class around the world, who are leaving poverty behind.


EG 

New Back To Top

candw

User Image

26502 posts
First used 09/01/17

#15
06/05/2018 at 10:28

Quote Quote by essexgull on 06/05/2018 at 08:41


Who exactly has this aim. The US administration and political establishment is at war with each other, do you think that they put their deep-seated animosity towards each other aside to co-join in an agreed aim to gain control of Iran's reserves?

Oh, yes. Easily. The US administration is a bought entity. It is bought by those who would gain directly from stealing others' resources. It is very doubtful that the "left wing thuggish cyber warriors" could do anything about it. They would wake, like us, to an Iran saturated with US and Israeli missile strikes. Done deed.

The US is aligning itself with their biggest ally/lender/buyer in the region which places them against Iran. The US is effectively being dragged into this by Saudi Arabia - shown by Clinton's aggression towards Iran in the election campaign and last decade together with her financial and political links to SA.

After overthrowing Mossadeq and installing their Shah, the religious upheavals from the Hostage Situation onward has left the US with a lot of revenge to catch up on. I will have to do it if Israel insists.

The US gains more with Iran, a huge economic power in the region, as a customer than under their control - the cost of 'controlling' a country in the region, with all the religious and political schisms, costs more than they will gain from the resources. The British Empire, and it's collapse under the cost of administration, highlighted this... as has Iraq in more recent years. See also Chinese 'aid' and investment in infrastructure in Africa. All about opening up new markets for the increasing middle income class around the world, who are leaving poverty behind.

US doesn't want a customer that could refuse its terms. It would have to be an Iran "friendly" to the US. It is being punished and blamed for 9/11; an act carried out by Saudi and other Sunni terrorists, despite being Shia. That's the level of what it must overcome. Iran is up against that level of stupidity.

It must be admitted that Iran/KSA are both Islamic fundamentalist nations, hating each other over some silly schism, so rationality is not in great abundance.
 

42 posts. < 1 2 3 > Show 15 30 50
Hull City Forum >> CI Football Plus >> Middle East, Any experts on here?