ac982000: Oh YAY, just what was needed another war over oil

Hey, multinational contractors and arms dealers are people too!

vernonFL: ac982000: Oh YAY, just what was needed another war over oil

This time, can we at least get some oil???

Large, private oil companies got access to the oil last time. They will again should we go down this particular rabbit hole of stupidity.

The fallacy people fall into is that they think these kind of wars are waged to procure resources for the American people, when in fact they are a way for stateless private entities to loot resources and raid public coffers to boot.

nekom: ac982000: Oh YAY, just what was needed another war over oil

Except this one actually WOULD be over oil.

yeah Iraq was just coincidentally sitting on 100+ billion barrels of sweet crude.

ac982000: Oh YAY, just what was needed another war over oil

I disagree.

BravadoGT: A naval battle between the US and Iran would be like a tank battle between the US and Iraq.

[dmn.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com image 640x430]

No doubt we have military superiority over Iran but the Iraqi army was set up to fight well Iran actually. Where in this case you'd think between making sure there are no gays in Iran they have also set up their defenses to combat our military specifically. The strait at it's narrowest is like 30 miles wide, probably even narrower is the actual shipping lane. And keeping something working is always harder than breaking it.

ac982000: Oh YAY, just what was needed another war over oil

well, the thing is that though we've had 40+ years to limit our need for foreign oil, during which time we did nothing. ok, not nothing, but pretty much nothing. thus, we need oil. unfortunately, god has a funny sense of humor and put all of our oil under land controlled by religious lunatics who hate us because we support dictatorish douchenozzles that will sell us oil.

/see france and japan for examples of nations who decided relying on foreign wasn't worth it.
//that could have been us.

Did subby drop his/her colon?

Sid_6.7: I'm pretty sure it would go like this:

Iranians: We have blocked the Strait!

US: *fires anti-ship missiles and torpedoes from planes and subs*

Iranians: Our navy has been turned into a minor navigational hazard in the Strait! Take that!

I would think they would threaten to fire torpedoes/missiles at any oil tanker trying to navigate the strait not actually line up across the horizon to physically block them. A single oil tanker can carry like 3 million barrels of oil.

In that case what does the US do? do you try to send a tanker through the strait an call their bluff?

I'm sure cutting off the main source of funding that allows the dictatorship to stand in Iran would be good for the dictatorship in Iran. Perhaps they should ask their friends in Syria how that's working out for them.

Headso: The strait at it's narrowest is like 30 miles wide, probably even narrower is the actual shipping lane. And keeping something working is always harder than breaking it.

especially given the fact that the newest ultratankers are farking huge (up to 1250ft long - that's almost quarter mile, 220ft wide, 80ft draft) they essentially have to stay in a narrow ass channel. let's just say, empty or full, these beasts don't exactly turn on a dime. that's a difficult target to protect. sink just one of those and you probably block the channel for awhile.

nekom: Why haven't we taken it then?

We tried. Excerpt:

Rather than giving foreign oil companies control over Iraqi reserves, as the U.S. had hoped to do with the Oil Law it failed to get the Iraqi parliament to pass, the oil companies were awarded service contracts lasting 20 years for seven of the 10 oil fields on offer - the oil will remain the property of the Iraqi state, and the foreign companies will pump it for a fixed price per barrel.

Turns out that when everyone in the country is trying to kill you, your designated puppets have a little leverage on you and won't do exactly as ordered all the time.

Iraq was about a personal vendetta Bush had ala "He tried to kill my pa!" and possibly Cheney egging him along in that to get his friends in defense contracting more work, I'm not sure about the latter but from all I'm seen I'm reasonably certain of the former, at least in part.

Iraq was a golden opportunity for the people who profited from it for a number of reasons:

1) Aforementioned Bush craziness

2) Country mobilized for war by 9/11

3) Political benefits to those in power ("Hey look, I'm a war president!" etc.)

4) Ready-made support base in jingoistic bible-thumpers who think if we stir up enough shiat in the Middle East that Jesus will come back

All of these, though, were enabling factors, each not enough in itself to motivate the war on its own. Many different parties stood to gain from this, but what really pushed it...

If that was supposed to be about oil, it was pretty farking dumb not to take their oil afterwards.

As I pointed out above, it's a fallacy to think of this as the US literally going and grabbing Iraq's oil. The desired scenario (detailed above) was close, but would have involved entities like BP and Shell owning the oil. But what you have is still effective control of the Iraqi oil supply by foreign (largely Western) multinationals. Yeah, they're on contracts, but what is the Iraqi government going to do without them? Pump it themselves? We destroyed all their goddamn infrastructure and unleashed a civil war. They'll have to rely on the Dutch and the English and the Russians and the Chinese.

And this brings it all to the central premise: this was not a war fought for American companies. This was a war fought for the multinational business community, which owes allegiance to no one. This idea that what's dominating American politics is American business needs to be discarded. Corporations dominate American politics, but these corporations are not neatly contained within any one country's borders, and that's by design.

So yes, America did not get Iraq's oil. That was never the point. But oil indeed was the point.

"Closing the Strait of Hormuz is very easy for Iranian naval forces," Adm. Habibollah Sayyari told state-run Press TV.

Keeping it closed might be a little tougher.

nekom: Why haven't we taken it then?

I burned Iraqi oil in my gas tank today to get to work. The world market did take it, the oil for food program up until 1999 allowed for a relatively small amount of oil to be sold then restrictions were lifted but they still exported much less than they do now.

DAR: Dear subby, 5th Fleet is based out of Bahrain

And where are the other four?

Marcus Aurelius: You don't need a huge navy to lay down a few hundred mines. And no oil tanker in the world is going anywhere near those straits if there's mines floating around. So while rattling the sabers may feel good, it's not going to accomplish much of anything unless we go in with a few dozen mine sweepers.

See: TF52, part of 5th Fleet.

But Ron Paul is racist so it's worth starting World War III.

/President Peace Prize to the Rescue!

CanisNoir: Yup, I'm sure that a decade of "Regime Change in Iraq" as official US Policy combined with constant violations of the Cease Fire Agreement and Sadaam playing "Hide and go f*ck yourself" with UN Inspectors while firing at our air craft and offering the families of terrorists money, had absolutely nothing what so ever to do with the decision.

considering many non exporting nations commit similar shenanigans without the world police gathering a coalition of the willing to invade and occupy for a decade you are right that it "had absolutely nothing what so ever to do with the decision."

EasyWind: the U.S. Navy is "always ready to counter malevolent actions to ensure freedom of navigation."

OR

the U.S. Navy is always ready to clear their guns to ensure oil tankers get through.

Your powers of rather basic reading comprehension are amazing. Your point is what, exactly? That a military firing on unarmed civilians, causing an ecological disaster in the process, is justified if those unarmed civilians happen to be transporting oil?