I'm completely stealing this idea from someone I won't name, but I think it's worth throwing out there. Probably I'm getting it a little wrong, but here goes.
First, assume the U.S. knows that Saudi Arabia is going to fall (sooner or later, but probably sooner.)
Assume that the war in Iraq is largely to secure enough oil in preparation for this eventuality.
The idea is that we take Baghdad and the oil fields in the north. We pump this oil out through Turkey.
And we let Iran take the south and those oil fields. Maybe we pretend to protest at this, maybe not. But the point is, we will use Iran as a buffer between our northern occupation, and the scary fundamentalist regime that will have sprung up in Saudi Arabia.
I find this to be a very compelling theory.
Iraq gives us another basing option; one that is less likely to offend the Islamists.
What about Mary Cheney, the human (lesbian! thank you, dyke dove )shield, in Baghdad; did you factor that in? What if she frags her old man's ass in Amman. I find this to be a very compelling theory.
By the way, it's clear to me they tried to kill Wellstone in Columbia but he wouldn't step far enough away from our ambassador Ann to get a clear shot in. Yo & before any liberal hawks out there chews us some new ass holes ; try flying outside the fucking bubble for once & see how the other half dies. Narco News is worth a look today. Now there's a war that got won,eh?
Well the Saudis have asked the US to remove their forces from their turf soon. (It made the front page of the NY Times a month or two ago). Would the oil companies give up the Gulf oilfields to Iran or some hypothetical post-Saudi regime without a fight? Probably not, but controling the Kirkuk and Mosul field at least gives you an alternative source of high-quality crude without, as you say, offending the Islamists.
frank man you gotta smoke some of this iraqi oil with me, it's good shit, it'll help you see more clearly
re the Iran takes the south concept...while I do find the notion intriguing, I don't see _why_ the US would do this. if we had our own troops in southern iraq, why would we need iran (a hostile power themselves and the largest state sponsor of terrorism in the world) to act as a "buffer"?
if the regime in iran changed to one somehow more friendly to the us, I could perhaps see something like this, though - let there be a shiite superstate to balance the wahabis...interesting notion
I used to bemoan the "mistakes" made in drawing lines, e.g. the haphazard partition of India and Pakistan. And Kurdistan being split between Iran, Iraq, Turkey and Syria. Now, I'm quite certain that these lines are drawn in ways that exacerbate old rivalries, specifically to benefit the world powers that draw the lines. In that light, it makes sense to keep the Shiites split. But the Shiite vs. Wahabi play is an interesting gambit. I think that would create an imbalance by giving Iran too much oil, territory and poplulation (66M now). (vs. Saudi Arabia at 24M, including 5M non-nationals) And it would leave Kuwait feeling kind of exposed.
data from ... http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/
Hey now...let's not get crude. I say we burn a couple of those fat yellow French fags over a hearty prayer-breakfast... I mean I'm sure those Joint Chiefs are all about Manifest Density.
Wow, I get it, its like an elaborate game of Risk or Civilization, right? I propose the Australian gambit. So really, back a few weeks ago when some of you were discussing the Israeli -- Jordan -- Northern Iraq gambit Jim proposed for the, ugh, 4th Armored Division, when Turkey refused passage, who forgot about the existence of the Suez Canal?
The Cheney-Rumsfeld crew don't want to give up the Gulf or Saudi Arabia, and they sure as hell don't want Iran to move in and create a Shi'ite super-state. But they might want to plan for it happening, just in case things turn out that way. That's why having an alternative source (i.e. Iraq) and exit route (via a Turkishs pipeline) could be handy. I mean if you've got a post-Saudi regime in Riyadh and Iran has nukes, how are you going to get oil-tankers in and out of the Gulf? At the very least the price of Gulf crude will soar. That's the general idea, anyway.....
A "liberated" Syria could be another route to get the oil out.
|
First, assume the U.S. knows that Saudi Arabia is going to fall (sooner or later, but probably sooner.)
Assume that the war in Iraq is largely to secure enough oil in preparation for this eventuality.
The idea is that we take Baghdad and the oil fields in the north. We pump this oil out through Turkey.
And we let Iran take the south and those oil fields. Maybe we pretend to protest at this, maybe not. But the point is, we will use Iran as a buffer between our northern occupation, and the scary fundamentalist regime that will have sprung up in Saudi Arabia.
I find this to be a very compelling theory.
- jim 3-26-2003 1:42 am
Iraq gives us another basing option; one that is less likely to offend the Islamists.
- mark 3-26-2003 2:49 am
What about Mary Cheney, the human (lesbian! thank you, dyke dove )shield, in Baghdad; did you factor that in? What if she frags her old man's ass in Amman. I find this to be a very compelling theory.
By the way, it's clear to me they tried to kill Wellstone in Columbia but he wouldn't step far enough away from our ambassador Ann to get a clear shot in. Yo & before any liberal hawks out there chews us some new ass holes ; try flying outside the fucking bubble for once & see how the other half dies. Narco News is worth a look today. Now there's a war that got won,eh?
- frank 3-26-2003 3:14 am
Well the Saudis have asked the US to remove their forces from their turf soon. (It made the front page of the NY Times a month or two ago). Would the oil companies give up the Gulf oilfields to Iran or some hypothetical post-Saudi regime without a fight? Probably not, but controling the Kirkuk and Mosul field at least gives you an alternative source of high-quality crude without, as you say, offending the Islamists.
- bruno 3-26-2003 8:52 am
frank man you gotta smoke some of this iraqi oil with me, it's good shit, it'll help you see more clearly
- big jimmy 3-27-2003 10:53 am
re the Iran takes the south concept...while I do find the notion intriguing, I don't see _why_ the US would do this. if we had our own troops in southern iraq, why would we need iran (a hostile power themselves and the largest state sponsor of terrorism in the world) to act as a "buffer"?
if the regime in iran changed to one somehow more friendly to the us, I could perhaps see something like this, though - let there be a shiite superstate to balance the wahabis...interesting notion
- big jimmy 3-27-2003 10:55 am
I used to bemoan the "mistakes" made in drawing lines, e.g. the haphazard partition of India and Pakistan. And Kurdistan being split between Iran, Iraq, Turkey and Syria. Now, I'm quite certain that these lines are drawn in ways that exacerbate old rivalries, specifically to benefit the world powers that draw the lines. In that light, it makes sense to keep the Shiites split. But the Shiite vs. Wahabi play is an interesting gambit. I think that would create an imbalance by giving Iran too much oil, territory and poplulation (66M now). (vs. Saudi Arabia at 24M, including 5M non-nationals) And it would leave Kuwait feeling kind of exposed.
data from ... http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/
- mark 3-27-2003 12:40 pm
Hey now...let's not get crude. I say we burn a couple of those fat yellow French fags over a hearty prayer-breakfast... I mean I'm sure those Joint Chiefs are all about Manifest Density.
- frank 3-27-2003 7:02 pm
Wow, I get it, its like an elaborate game of Risk or Civilization, right? I propose the Australian gambit. So really, back a few weeks ago when some of you were discussing the Israeli -- Jordan -- Northern Iraq gambit Jim proposed for the, ugh, 4th Armored Division, when Turkey refused passage, who forgot about the existence of the Suez Canal?
- jeff 3-28-2003 1:29 am
The Cheney-Rumsfeld crew don't want to give up the Gulf or Saudi Arabia, and they sure as hell don't want Iran to move in and create a Shi'ite super-state. But they might want to plan for it happening, just in case things turn out that way. That's why having an alternative source (i.e. Iraq) and exit route (via a Turkishs pipeline) could be handy. I mean if you've got a post-Saudi regime in Riyadh and Iran has nukes, how are you going to get oil-tankers in and out of the Gulf? At the very least the price of Gulf crude will soar. That's the general idea, anyway.....
- bruno 3-28-2003 1:46 am
A "liberated" Syria could be another route to get the oil out.
- mark 3-28-2003 1:53 am