North Korean Fusion

[bennmann]

Iraq has the world second largest PROVEN reserve, equal to 120 bbl of high quality and extremely cheap to produce oil.
Iraq has theoretical recoverable oil of 500 bbl!
That's 60 years worth of US consumption.

Are you still convinced that OIL is not the reason why we are in ME?

I am still convinced, yes. I endorsed the war for flimsy humanitarian reasons, but I admit they are flimsy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_reserv ... ts_awarded

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ministry_of_Oil_%28Iraq%29

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hussain_al-Shahristani

Those pages make a strong case in evidence for the Iraqi's still controlling their oil, not the US. This would not be the case if your argument were effectively carried to fruition. It is possible but highly unlikely.

North Korea on the other hand has no oil or other "expensive" natural resources.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geography_ ... d_land_use

One less thing for people to blame the US as greedy for should we intervene (not that I endorse that idea, I voted for Ron Paul - who was also against the Iraqi war).

[Giorgio]

Those links gave really no informations.
Contract are awarded to European and US company.
Oil is exported to our countries (US and Europe), so we are benefiting from it.

As for North Korea, we will not have to worry abot any war. China will not tollerate any intervention in his backyard.

[MSimon]

Us Oil reserve on the other hand are not enough.

To cover all US needs or to affect the price?

BTW reserves are calculated based on price. Also note that the cost of recovery of oil shale is now around $25 per bbl.

[MSimon]

I endorsed the war for flimsy humanitarian reasons, but I admit they are flimsy.

The Iraqis have a better life and their government is not funding jihad.

The first is good for them. The second is good for us.

[bennmann]

As I consider at least MSimon here my elder, I respectfully will leave his statement last in our conversation on the war.

[bcglorf]

I'm beginning to think your just trolling us.

You have now said this:
It's far from my mind the idea that all the source of ME problems has been "American/European meddling". It couldn't be more wrong.

And yet previously you clearly said the opposite:
I believe more that it has been and it still is European and American presence in the middle East that has screwed up and is still screwing up the ME from 1800 to our days.

Then you asked this:
Care to point what are the issues that happened before 1800 that you believe had such a big influence in today ME?
In my analisys the biggest destabilization issue in ME area has been oil money (apart the suez canal control in Egypt). What's your view?

One of the obvious answers would have to be that Islam was spread through the region prior to 1800. Islam also split between Sunni and Shia prior to 1800. You can hardly discuss Iraq without the analysis being dominated by the Sunni-Shia split. Then there's the whole original claims to Jerusalem from both Jews and Arabs that long pre-dates 1800.

But once again it seems your question is more likely simple trolling as you later observe yourself:
Not following religious rules or traditions is not allowed in those countries.
My I remember that Islam means "Submission", and this way of life is enforced in a strict way all over ME (and not only in Iran).

So it seems you yourself were also quite well aware of the importance of the regional religious divisions and entrenchments that long predated 1800.

Then when I counter your claim that American leaders are hated for being just like Saddam for the way they removed him by pointing out the irrational hatred long pre-dated Saddam's removal you snipe back with this?
Do you really think that america was not hated before Saddam hussein?
You should realize that US have not had a good reputation in ME since the 60's, when they took over role of ME dominant power from the British.

Sorry, your talking in ever longer and longer circles and I'm done with you.

[MSimon]

As I consider at least MSimon here my elder, I respectfully will leave his statement last in our conversation on the war.

I'd prefer to be just another jerk on the Internet. That elder shite don't cut it with me.

[bennmann]

Yes sir.





I kid I kid.

[Giorgio]

I'm beginning to think your just trolling us.

You have now said this:
It's far from my mind the idea that all the source of ME problems has been "American/European meddling". It couldn't be more wrong.

And yet previously you clearly said the opposite:
I believe more that it has been and it still is European and American presence in the middle East that has screwed up and is still screwing up the ME from 1800 to our days.

Either you have difficulties in understanding English or it looks like you are the one trolling here.

Let's try this again in a more basic way.

a) before 1800 they had internal problem and fights among them, so we are not the source (i.e. "origin", i.e. "starting point", i.e. "base of") of their problems.

Translation: Like any other region in the world there was conflicts and quarrels among different countries and factions in the area.
Lack of founds and of resources avoided scale up of those issues, limiting them to small border fights and internal quarrels.



b) since Europe and US Presence we have amplified and increased those issues stirring them up and screwing up the situation until today.

Translation: Since our presence in the Middle East we have poured crazy amounts of money and military resources that they was never dreaming about. This destabilized the situation by escalating local fights/quarrels to full conflicts.

Even if english is not my mother language those two statements do not look one opposite to the other, but complementary to each other.
In case of difficulties try to pick up a dictionary and look up for the definitions of "opposite" and "complementary".


And in case you still do not get the point, the conclusion is that without our financial and material presence they will still fight each other for their problems even today, but they will do this in a limited way.
Added bonus, lack of founds would have prevented even the idea of developing nuclear or mass destruction weapons.

Then you asked this:
Care to point what are the issues that happened before 1800 that you believe had such a big influence in today ME?
In my analisys the biggest destabilization issue in ME area has been oil money (apart the suez canal control in Egypt). What's your view?

One of the obvious answers would have to be that Islam was spread through the region prior to 1800. Islam also split between Sunni and Shia prior to 1800. You can hardly discuss Iraq without the analysis being dominated by the Sunni-Shia split. Then there's the whole original claims to Jerusalem from both Jews and Arabs that long pre-dates 1800.

You clearly do not know a lot about these arguments.

Sunni and Shia split started right after Muhammad death, and it consolidated in the following 50 year. By 680 AD it was done.
From than and until 1500 (with Shia conquers of Persia) there was no real religious conflict between Shia and Sunni. Few quarrels, but nothing that escalated.
In the wake of 1800 and until practically the 1980's the Sunni and Shia positions even got partially united against the secularism threat coming from colonialist Europe and secularist Muslims.

Suni-shia split and conflicts in iraq deepened way after WWII which (surprise surprise) is not before 1800.
Enough to say that in 1920, the revolt of Iraq people against British control was mastered and fought by Sunni and Shia united.

But once again it seems your question is more likely simple trolling as you later observe yourself:
Not following religious rules or traditions is not allowed in those countries.
My I remember that Islam means "Submission", and this way of life is enforced in a strict way all over ME (and not only in Iran).

So it seems you yourself were also quite well aware of the importance of the regional religious divisions and entrenchments that long predated 1800.

Then when I counter your claim that American leaders are hated for being just like Saddam for the way they removed him by pointing out the irrational hatred long pre-dated Saddam's removal you snipe back with this?
Do you really think that america was not hated before Saddam hussein?
You should realize that US have not had a good reputation in ME since the 60's, when they took over role of ME dominant power from the British.

Sorry, your talking in ever longer and longer circles and I'm done with you.

You logic is awful, and your lack of knowledge about religious influence in life in ME prior to modern era (1800 onward) is so huge that I will not even try to correct it.

I asked you a very easy question that you clearly did not reply:

Care to point what are the issues that happened before 1800 that you believe had such a big influence in today ME?
In my analisys the biggest destabilization issue in ME area has been oil money (apart the suez canal control in Egypt). What's your view?

If you are not able to reply with arguments we have nothing to discuss.

[Giorgio]

Us Oil reserve on the other hand are not enough.

To cover all US needs or to affect the price?

BTW reserves are calculated based on price. Also note that the cost of recovery of oil shale is now around $25 per bbl.

I agree that it will affect the price as request of Oil from ME countries will drop.

And if Oil shale is indeed at 25$ bbl there is really no need to drill anywhere else, as proven reserves can keep US self sustained for the next 50 years at least.

If they are not using this reserve there is probably something we are not aware of.

[MSimon]

And if Oil shale is indeed at 25$ bbl there is really no need to drill anywhere else, as proven reserves can keep US self sustained for the next 50 years at least.

If they are not using this reserve there is probably something we are not aware of.

What you are unaware of is the pernicious action of the US Government making oil shale development off limits. This has been driven by our American Green Party - the Democrats.

The leaders of that party are evil (well more evil than the Republicans) and the followers of the party are stupid.

[MSimon]

In my analisys the biggest destabilization issue in ME area has been oil money

Yep.

And WW2 was in part (or mostly) our first oil war. Look at the actions of Japan and the US in the opening phase of our involvement.

Or German meddling in the ME (to deprive Brits of their oil resources).

The sooner we can get off oil (economically) the better.

I fear we are going to get cured of our stupidity (humans generally not just the developed world) the hard way: war and revolution.

[Giorgio]

The sooner we can get off oil (economically) the better.

I fear we are going to get cured of our stupidity (humans generally not just the developed world) the hard way: war and revolution.

Yes, I agree on both points 100%.

[TallDave]

One of the obvious answers would have to be that Islam was spread through the region prior to 1800. Islam also split between Sunni and Shia prior to 1800. You can hardly discuss Iraq without the analysis being dominated by the Sunni-Shia split. Then there's the whole original claims to Jerusalem from both Jews and Arabs that long pre-dates 1800.

Don't forget too the longstanding ethnosectarian tensions between Arabs and Persians, Kurds and Arabs, Kurds and Persians, Alawites and Sunni, Druze and everyone...

The region had issues even before Islam.

The issue with Iraq's oil wasn't so much that we needed the oil -- any regime was going to sell it -- but what a Stalinist dictatorship could do with trillions of dollars in oil. Saddam fought his wars with Iran and Kuwait by borrowing against that oil, and by now would likely have nukes as well absent U.S. intervention.

[KitemanSA]

"Well the Catholics hate the Protestants
and the Protestants hate the Catholics,
and the Hindus hate the muslims, and
everybody hates the Jews...
well this is NATIONAL BROTHERHOOD WEEK!"

with kudos to Tom Lehrer.