SwiftVets.com

[I B Squidly]

You poor grunts wandering about about the rice paddies of MACV didn't know you were fighting for oil. At least that was what the 'New Republic', the 'Atlantic' and assorted other mag's assured us. There was oil off-shore in Viet Nam and the 'Seven Sisters' had engineered the war for their benefit.

Today the Seven Sisters are gone and the myth of oil has drifted into the Philipine Sea and the Sprateley Islands (get a map [a good map]). The Sprateleys are above water only at low tide. The international jurisdiction is disputed so the PRC maintains troops there in pole huts to claim occupation.

Iraqi oil and the Arab state thereof was originally developed by BP (not one of the Seven Sisters) and damned if those contracts aren't being ignored!

[RStauch]

It seems to me that oil does figure into this fight. During the time between the Gulf War and its end (which began March 19, 2003), the French, Germans and others in the UN were busy whoring with Saddam Hussein over oil profits. It was they who convinced Saddam that the US would never start shooting again without UN approval, and they could fairly guarantee that such approval would never be given.

Boy, did they miscalculate.

The US under George Bush will never kiss the French Ring, or wait on Kofi Annan to decide what is in our best interests. John Kerry, however, is a whore of a different colour. That traitor would wait until he knew his own life was in the cross-hairs of blood-thirsty IslamoNazis before he would use the military. And then, he would expect them to save his life while they fight armed only with harsh language. Until then, they can just carry his bags.

Someone give Kerry some clean panties and send him back to Barney Franks' house.
_________________
Richard Stauch
Ft. Myers, FL

[Paul]

"and others "

The others who had illegal oil contracts with Saddam and who publicly opposed the US invasion of Iraq were the People's Republic of China and the Republic of Russia.
_________________
Paul

[RStauch]

[Paul]

You betcha Richard, you're welcome.
_________________
Paul

[Mooncusser]

Actually it was rice. It is well known that LBJ had a secret family rice krispie bar recipe. He was going to corner the rice market then release his recipe.

Very few people know this. Hanoi Jane Fonda told me about it.

I have not ate a rice krispie bar since.

[Nutso]

Maybe thats why Kerry came home, thay were waiting for the rice crop plantd in his 'cheeks' to mature.

[bamanut_aj]

If all we wanted was the oil, we'd damn sure have it by now!

[DrEntropy]

Mooncusser wrote:

[Paul]

"originally developed by BP (not one of the Seven Sisters) and damned if those contracts aren't being ignored!" {I B Squidly}

Wow, as reviled as "big oil" is, there's still no one to point out the error in stating that British Anglo-Persian Oil Company (later, and today, BP} was not one of the original "Seven Sisters"? And in an industry that Americans once pioneered and at one time led in. . . . With emphasis upon "at one time" (which may explain why this hasn't been caught, even in passing). It most certainly was one of the original "Seven Sisters."

As to so-called "contracts", then if it is "contracts" related to the old British Anglo-Persian Oil Company (later to become British Petroleum, or BP), being alluded to in Iraq (or even Iran), then it would be interesting to know what "contracts" are being referred to, since there none.

As to the "Seven Sisters" now being gone, then that's not entirely true.

Standard Oil of New Jersey changed the name of the collection of companies that formed that corporation to Exxon in the 1970s and is now ExxonMobil. The largest international oil company in the world. In fact, a huge international corporation period -- bigger than General Motors.

Royal Dutch Shell is obviously still around and also a huge international corporation, number three in size among the oil companies.

British Anglo-Persian Oil Company became British Petroleum, then it became BPAmoco (Amoco having formerly been Standard Oil of Indiana) and then very shortly after the acquisition of both it and the former US corporation ARCO (that grew out of the Atlantic-Richfield independents merger) changed its name back to British Petroleum, BP. Number two in size.

Standard Oil of New York later became Mobil, which, as shown above has now merged with Exxon to form ExxonMobil.

Texaco, formerly The Texas Company, sold off the last of its downstream process facilities (Refining) here in the US just a couple years ago, those in plants on the west coast joined with the Shell refineries to become part of Royal Dutch Shell's newly formed Shell Oil Products US and those on the Gulf and east coasts (with the exception of Shell Deer Park Refinery in Houston which is now a Shell-Pemex joint venture) joined with a shell refinery to become Motiva Enterprises, LLC (about 900, 000 Bbl per day crude running capacity), a 50-50 joint venture between Royal Dutch Shell and Saudi Aramco that markets its products under the Shell Oil Products logos, and then merged with Chevron to form ChevronTexaco.

Standard Oil of California (Socal) became Chevron and is now ChevronTexaco.

Gulf Oil was mostly acquired by Chevron and so eventually the old Gulf assets became part of ChevronTexaco.

As to petroleum deposits in the South China Sea area, including the Gulf of Tonkin, then they're not a "myth" at all, if that's what's being referred to as being a "myth", as even the offshore production platforms demonstrate.

As to petroleum deposits in the Paracel and Spratley Islands, and elsewhere in the region, then consulting a mere chart of the region will tell one absolutely nothing. One would need to consult geophysical surveys for such information.

Short and simple, there are petroleum deposits in the region. There are ongoing international disputes between the Communist Government of Vietnam and the People's Republic of China over the islands in the Paracels and Spratleys that the PRC conquered and occupied (first after the naval battles initiated by the PRC in the Paracel Islands claimed & occupied by the Republic of Vietnam navy and army and then the naval battle for the Spratlys claimed & occupied by Communist Vietnam in the 1980s).

Vietnam still lays claim to the Islands taken from it by the PRC conquests, both those in the Paracels and the Spratlys. There are some articles about the PRC conquest and seizure of the Paracel Islands (in 1974) and Spratly Islands (in 1988) claimed as VN territory, and the ongoing dispute in the international arena, in the links to web sites with articles about the former Republic of Vietnam and its armed forces that I provided in the Little Saigon string on this form a couple weeks back, if anyone is interested.

Which, says nothing in particular at all about IBS’s particular "conspiracy theory" one way or the other. Other information would obviously be needed to sort out whatever claims anyone is making. . . . Personally, from what I see here, then I’d give more credence to, the Rice Krispie hypothesis here and like it the best.

At any rate, and I don't see it claimed by anyone here, but anyone who might happen to believe that petroleum deposits have absolutely no viable relation to geo-political security issues or armed conflicts would be a rube, as even France, Germany, Russia and the PRC demonstrated in the long haggling with the UN in 2002 / 2003 when they all opposed the US invasion of Iraq.

As to the People's Republic of China in the Paracels and Spratly's taken from and still claimed by VN, in the South China Sea, Pacific and elsewhere. . .

Beyond the petroleum and mineral deposits, the PRC’s interest in claiming these territories in the region in the South China Sea is that the PRC has been steadily building up and arming this area. It's not only huts on poles that the PRC has constructed on these small islands, but missile batteries as well.

The PRC has been quite active in filling the vacuums created by the US withdrawal of it’s military and naval forces in the southeast Asia and entire Pacific region over recent decades, including acquisition of the operations in the Panama Canal Zone and it's unsuccessful attempts to acquire interests in the former US naval facilities at Subic Bay in the Philippines and Long Beach, California (unsuccessful due to private citizens and in no way to any efforts on the part of our governement leaders or officials). The largest building on Tarawa atoll today is the PRC embassy. The People's Republic of China is a Communist nation with central governmental control. PRC Capitalist activities are the responsiblity of the People's Liberation Army (the PRC's armed forces).

Just as the PRC has been quite active in forming diplomatic ties with nations throughout the Islamic world, throughout Asia, including providing the technology for Pakistan’s development of its nuclear program, as well as to Iran, North Korea and Libya for theirs. Russia also maintains its ties to North Korea and the large PRC military and naval buildup is being conducted with a great of aid and technology from Russia, in addition to new technologies being developed such as the new Chinese battle tank that technologically speaking will be a direct challenger to the US Abrams. Via a various technology sharing agreements of the '90s via some Fast Track agreements, technology, including nuclear, has been given to the PRC via the US.

Anyway, call me a pedant if you will, this original post reminded me of some left-wing types I knew a few years back who were whining that the reason that the US did not get involved in Indonesia at the time was 'very simple': "no oil."

It was a grossly ignorant (to the point of effectively stupid) statement to make about Indonesia, not only the nation with the world’s largest Muslim population, dwarfing that of the combined Arab states, but one of the largest oil producers in the world and a member of OPEC.
_________________
Paul

[Paul]

"If all we wanted was the oil, we'd damn sure have it by now!"

You're right. The "cheap oil" argument is absurd. And not just a matter that we'd have it by now, but also that we had it. Inexspensive Iraqi crude was being run in some US refineries prior to the invasion. It wasn't, and isn't, a secret. It damn sure isn't inexpensive now.
_________________
Paul

[Paul]

The US under George Bush will never kiss the French Ring, or wait on Kofi Annan to decide what is in our best interests" {Rstauch}

Hi Richard:

I have to respectfully disagree with you. At the very least the statement is misleading, it's most certainly highly questionable and easily questioned.

The United States has made overtures to both France and Germany during the post-invasion occupation of Iraq (or whatever our armed forces under the command of the interim government there at the moment is being called. . . ) and most certainly to the UN as well.

As to anything about "our best interests" mentioned in the same post as invading Iraq, and not being led by others, then I most certainly strongly disagree.

As to kissing anything belonging to foreign leaders, then it’s the butts of the leaders of the PRC and Russia, not to mention North Korea, that have probably been 'kissed', euphemistically speaking of course (if one prefers the US Kow Towing to them instead, then I won’t object), the most, throughout 2002 and through to today.

Given the US groveling to North Korea and the PRC in 2002 and since and at least one effectively belligerent response of the PRC to the United States, and numerous by North Korea, in response, then there's no reason to be impressed with the US response to either the PRC, the Republic of Russia, France or Germany over the invasion of Iraq, nor even the invasion itself, and for numerous reasons, THEN or now, and many sound reasons not to be.

The United States dinked around almost a full year, most of which arguing in the UN Security Council, before attacking the weakest nation of the three nations identified as the so-called “axis of evil” and the one with the least history of the three of supporting international terrorist movements and that presented no immediate or near-term threat directly against the United States.

When our armed forces FINALLY began the invasion. There was no "shock" and there's certainly been no "awe." Attacking weaklings only frightens other weaklings, and only those weaklings who are isolated and alone.

If Iraq had posed a direct threat against the United States of America, or was tied to the September 11, 2001 assault against us, then to be sure, the pitiful display of months spent arguing irrelevancies in the UN are not an impressive response to either.

Attacking weakling Iraq may be a windfall for others, but it was a bad move for the United States of America, not the least of which for having set a quite unsound and novel precedent in our nation’s history that is completely contrary to our previous US wartime precedents.

Iran probably has one of the longest and best documented histories of support of NGO Para-military movements and organizations, Islamic, nihilist, nationalist, . . . that engage in terrorist activies, including the first generation of middle east organizations that engaged in terrorist activities against American citizens from about 1979 until the assaults against Americans by them decreased and then stopped 1990/91.

In 2002 Iran was designated the nation that was the number one supporter in the world of International Terrorism by our own State Department.

North Korea is a rogue state that has supported NGO Para-military organizations and movements, nationalist, Marxist, nihilist, . . . that engage in Terrorist tactics and attacks, in the past. Illegal North Korean arms shipments were interdicted in the middle east in 2002 while the arguments over irrelevancies were being made in the UN as well.

North Korea has now openly admitted in the 3rd round of talks in June of this year, that their nuclear program does have a military component to it. They do possess ballistic missiles capable of reaching the United States with nuclear warheads. The PRC and Republic of Russia maintain diplomatic, economic and weapons sales and technology ties with North Korea. Marxist President Chavez of Venezuela openly states his admiration of North Korea, as does the new Marxist President of Brazil and Fidel Castro of Cuba, as did Pol Pot before them when he reigned in Cambodia.

I fully agree with those who warned Publicly in 2002, but who were either completely ignored or derided members of the administration and such as the pseudo-Marxist "neo-con" cheerleaders when they did, including during the interminably long debate in the UN over such as un-enforced UN Security Council Resolutions against Iraq and other issues irrelevant to the attack upon the United States on September 11, 2001, that tying up US forces in Iraq would provide a "windfall" for the People's Republic of China and others and would be unlikely to do anything at all substantial toward engaging and defeating the enemies who have attacked our nation or in securing our nation against future attacks. The "windfall" is being demonstrated by the tying up of the bulk of our armed forces in Iraq at the moment. Given that it was almost eight years between the 1993 and 2001 assaults upon the US inside our own nation, then the lack of any in the past three years of this inept campaign means nothing. I agree with Sore Loser's statement [in the US Didn't Lose in Vietnam thread on this forum] that the US can expect further such attacks in the future (one among a number of reasons that I don't understand his personal support of these numerous bad policies of the past three years that have led to attacking the wrong target and fail to address aggressively attacking so as to win against those enemies who have already waged such devastating attacks directy against us since 1993).

And now our armed forces on the ground are not even being sufficiently supported. If our military's estimate of 20,000 insurgents in Iraq (up from the estimate of 5,000 earlier this year) that has recently been reported by the AP is reasonable, then it is highly doubtful that the US has sufficient forces in the country.

The extended rotation tour of our people is one among a number of BAND AID 'fixes' being employed on the matter of manning levels in Iraq (not to mention the many UN operations US personnel are committed to around the world) or troop rotation. The administration is waning both in action (deed) and even in some statements on Iraq. They are dangerous signals to send given the current situation of numerous growing insurgencies.

Tough blowhard sloganeering elsewhere will DO NOTHING. If after having cut loose all of the forces now responsible for the chaos in Iraq and Iraq is allowed to be abandoned, then it will be a disaster for the United States. One more example of lack of will or staying power of the US and its ephemeral population in addition to the others that men such as Osama Bin Laden have routinely spoken directly about in his public declarations.

As to assaults against us by those who have openly declared war upon us and acted upon those declarations, then the effort against them appears to remain weak and unfocused. Nothing whatsoever has been done to secure our borders and it was through our disastrous immigration services that the 9-11 attackers entered this nation (and as regards concrete meaningful support given them to do their job and to protect themselves, our Border Patrol personnel are as poorly supported as are our armed forces personnel in Iraq). The Immigration and trade policies being championed by our government and by the Kerry Campaign will further weaken national security and endanger the nation.

The debate at the moment is next to worthless, including that of John Kerry who as a US Senator voted in support of invading Iraq, and as a member of our Congress is therefore equally accountable for the US having invaded Iraq. The nonsense about arguing the 2002 Congressional approval only further underscores the bad consequences of the cowardly leadership by our Executive and Congressional branches and their failure to procure a formal declaration of war. As a nation we've been through this before. We obviously learned nothing and don't appear to be learning now either; rather, only "experiencing" it once again.

Given the likelihood of a Kerry or Bush victory, then I continue to strongly believe that this is a lose-lose year for the nation, where the Presidential election is concerned: especially for our people in Iraq for a host of reasons, and in the matter of mobilizing our nation to seek out and annihilate those who have attacked us. In other words, to fight our enemies so as to WIN.
_________________
Paul

[Paul]

The US under George Bush will never . . . wait on Kofi Annan to decide what is in our best interests" {Rstauch}

Don't forget. This year, the United States ceased its objection to US servicemen being tried for war crimes by the International Criminal Court and did not seek to even raise the annual debate and renewal of that position in the Security Council. It's now dead.

I don't look for our people being tried. . . anytime soon anyway. This bad precedent may not be acted upon for decades yet. . . But it has been set.
_________________
Paul

[I B Squidly]

Whoa....
With a hair up my butt I started this thread in the wee hours borrowing an old leftest screed. The current anti-war chant grated. It seems to have struck others the same way. It certainly raised Paul's hackles.

SEVEN SISTERS
By means fair and foul J D Rockefeller virtually monopolized oil production and distribution in the US. His Calvinist ethic ultimately lead to kerosine being sold for 99 cents a barrel when TR's Justice Dept broke it up under the anti-trust rules. The spinoffs became the Seven Sisters: ' of New Jersey (Exxon), ' New York (Mobile which then developed the first gasoline patent), ' Ohio (SOHIO), ' So. Calif (Chevron) and the spider at the center of this web, Chase Manhatten Bank. Atlantic Ritchfield (ARCO) and Royal Dutch (as in east Indies) Shell were honorary members that rounded out the count. BP was a rival as were the later Texas discoveries that created Texaco and Gulf. Also rans, Conoco, Sinclair, Marathon, Occidental, etc found niches. Today they've permutated and recombined beyond recognition. Some of their assets were nationalised. They have been the elephant in the room of geo-politics this past century and have had a dirty finger in every major conflict. That influence will continue for the forseeable future. (some dirty fingers: Exxon fuels both sides in the Battle of Britain and charges the Brits extra for the German patent on AV fuel; ARCO fuels the u-boats from Venezuela; Chase Manhatten accepts jewish gold for Ploesti production; Nelson Rockefeller's protege, Henry Kissinger urges the Shah to raise oil prices to fund his arms build up) My line about BP contracts was a throw-away.

Paul has gone on into a broad ranging argument of geo-politics. We're wasting time on the weakest of the 3 members of the Axis of Evil and China is the ultimate boogey man. I agree with the premise but can't agree with the strategy.
All the arguments for war in Iraq aside it was plain that we've been playing a losing hand in the mid-east for decades and it was time to turn over the table. Sadam was a useful idiot that laid himself open for 'regime change' and allowed us a more forceful presence. Force levels could be higher but we've the smallest military since 1940 and that's a domestic political issue that can't be changed with the likes of Kerry and the Great Society entitlement culture. If our force levels are inadequate how can you than argue we should be after bigger enemies?
The Mullahs of Iran can still muster suicide squads bur there's enough Irani's who can remember a better time and the signs of unrest grow. Containment seems more efficacious than attack.
North Korea is a thinly veiled stalking horse for the PRC. It has so many bigger problems closer to home than picking a nuclear confrontation with the US. To come at us she has to climb over the South, Russia and Japan. It would be the last act of that mad man's regime. Unfortunately it could also trigger the Big One with China.
China is of course the bugaboo. The sleeping dragon is a awakening. She's dominated asia before and in this next century will strive for global reach. Any discussion of pre-emptively attacking the problem now is madness on par with General Jack Ripper. Her economic growth will upset many markets but we can hope that it dries up the ready pool of peasants that fodder the PLA and like Japan sees economic dominance as more pragmatic than armed conquest. Otherwise, it's World War III at mid-century. It was mentioned that Viet Nam and the Phillipines stand opposed. Not alone: India, all the Dominos in reverse, Taiwan, Japan South Korea, Russia and the AnZacs will return violence for violence. All hope is not lost yet. I agree, the Dems should stop trading technology for campaign contributions!

[Paul]

"Paul has gone on into a broad ranging argument of geo-politics. We're wasting time on the weakest of the 3 members of the Axis of Evil and China is the ultimate boogey man. I agree with the premise but can't agree with the strategy."

Hi IBS:

Actually, none of this post was related to your initial post at all, but was a response to Richard’s post on Geo-politics that was Richard’s response to your initial post. Hence it being begun by the quote by him and my address of “Hi Richard. . . ”

No. I don't say that the PRC is an the “ultimate ‘boogey man.’ "

I don’t have a clue precisely what “premise”, never mind what “strategy” that you’re disagreeing with. Accept maybe your own that follows your statement. Because nothing following this statement is any “strategy” proposed by me.

No strategy other than directing our efforts against those who have actually declared war against us and attacked us is proposed by me. The only other strategy addressed by me was some of the unsound and many contradictory aspects of the ‘strategy’ and application of it in the so-called "GWAT," especially in 2002 through to today.
_________________
Paul