Politics- where do we go next?

[Harleyman]

On the subject of Germany in the 1930s. A little history lesson here.

Germany's restoration to full employment and prosperity was soley due to the massive rearmament program under Hitler most of that program in direct violation of the Versailles Treaty. Even the construction of the aotobahns were primarily meant to move army divisions across the country in a quick and efficient manner when the time came to carry out the expansion of the Reich to the east

[Cavegirl]

We did'nt invade iraq for oil. NO oil has been taken........

 

http://au.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110101005520AAIs5Xl

 

The author of this answer appears to be much better informed about chemical weapon production than oil production in Iraq as 80% of his post related to that. I can assure you that Iraqi oil definately has been taken...

 

In 1998, three years prior to 9/11, Brzezinski wrote a very influential book called 'The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and its Geostrategic Imperatives' in which he predicted the rise of Asia, particularly China, economically and proposed that the US needed to intervene in the Eurasian region to prevent China from usurping its role as the only superpower in the world. He stated:

 

"The world's energy consumption is bound to vastly increase over the next two or three decades. Estimates by the U.S. Department of energy anticipate that world demand will rise by more than 50 percent between 1993 and 2015, with the most significant increase in consumption occurring in the Far East. The momentum of Asia's economic development is already generating massive pressures for the exploration and exploitation of new sources of energy and the Central Asian region and the Caspian Sea basin are known to contain reserves of natural gas and oil that dwarf those of Kuwait, the Gulf of Mexico, or the North Sea."

 

Immediately after the war Iraq's oil production capability was very poor, partly due to previous underinvestment in infrastructure and partly due to the almost constant attacks by insurgents.

 

Haliburton, a US company, was given the contract to improve Iraq's potential to become an international oil supplier and four US companies (Halliburton, Baker Hughes, Weatherford International and Schlumberger) now have a monopoly over drilling for oil in Iraq so they essentially control production. Since 2008 they have been selling Iraqi oil to Exxonmobil, Royal Dutch Shell, BP, Lukoil (Russia) and CNPC (China).

 

See here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/17/business/energy-environment/17oil.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

 

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/9dff8352-112e-11e2-8d5f-00144feabdc0.html#axzz298egg7lP

 

So the invasion wasn't about accessing immediate oil production so much as it was about gaining control over future production and ensuring that others couldn't benefit from it in a way that might threaten US world dominance.

 

I still stick by my original statement that the British people would not have agreed to send our troops to Iraq on this basis if we had been given the choice.

[Harleyman]

The author of this answer appears to be much better informed about chemical weapon production than oil production in Iraq as 80% of his post related to that. I can assure you that Iraqi oil definately has been taken...

 

In 1998, three years prior to 9/11, Brzezinski wrote a very influential book called 'The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and its Geostrategic Imperatives' in which he predicted the rise of Asia, particularly China, economically and proposed that the US needed to intervene in the Eurasian region to prevent China from usurping its role as the only superpower in the world. He stated:

 

 

 

Immediately after the war Iraq's oil production capability was very poor, partly due to previous underinvestment in infrastructure and partly due to the almost constant attacks by insurgents.

 

Haliburton, a US company, was given the contract to improve Iraq's potential to become an international oil supplier and four US companies (Halliburton, Baker Hughes, Weatherford International and Schlumberger) now have a monopoly over drilling for oil in Iraq so they essentially control production. Since 2008 they have been selling Iraqi oil to Exxonmobil, Royal Dutch Shell, BP, Lukoil (Russia) and CNPC (China).

 

See here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/17/business/energy-environment/17oil.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

 

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/9dff8352-112e-11e2-8d5f-00144feabdc0.html#axzz298egg7lP

 

So the invasion wasn't about accessing immediate oil production so much as it was about gaining controlling over future production and ensuring that others couldn't benefit from it in a way that might threaten US world dominance.

 

I still stick by my original statement that the British people would not have agreed to send our troops to Iraq on this basis if we had been given the choice.

 

So Tony Blair must have been secretly working for the US Government while putting Britain's interest in second place?

 

Or maybe you're suggesting that he was too thick to understand the "plot" that you came up with in the highlighted paragraph?

 

:loopy:

[southcoast]

There isn't a single insult in my post.

 

Opinions aplenty, but no insults.

 

I think we've moved a long way since the 1930s and we've no need to delve back into such a sorry chapter in human history.

 

Nation states are coming to an end. Read the writing on the wall. For Christ's sake, it is big enough.

 

Do you mean like that massive success the E U? if thats how its going no wonder the world is in dire straights.

[gnvqsos]

Do you mean like that massive success the E U? if thats how its going no wonder the world is in dire straights.

 

I think it is dire staits,SC.National Socialism required all citizens to master their native tongue-to do otherwise it debilitating and unpatriotic.

[Guest sibon]

Do you mean like that massive success the E U? if thats how its going no wonder the world is in dire straights.

 

No. That's not what I meant at all.

[andygardener]

I would think that nation states will become more and more important in the near future. As will bi-lateral relations between nations become more important than old multilateral approachs.

[southcoast]

No. That's not what I meant at all.

 

I know its late but maybe you would like to elaborate on what exactly you meant.

[southcoast]

I would think that nation states will become more and more important in the near future. As will bi-lateral relations between nations become more important than old multilateral approachs.

 

Agreed,we seem to be going back to a nationalist agenda in the west,especially Europe,its got to be better than the EU which is a failed project.

[southcoast]

I think it is dire staits,SC.National Socialism required all citizens to master their native tongue-to do otherwise it debilitating and unpatriotic.

 

 

Yes,I agree with that,the goal of National Socialism was to work for the betterment of the whole country and not allow the nation to become fractured like is here now.

Of course that meant that some individual rights had to be sacrificed for the common good,but so be it thats the price to be paid for a having job security and a flourishing state and self respect as a nation.