The Ghaza War is over Gas!

Welcome to the house of fun  crazy leftist conspiracy theories, ladies and gentlemen. You might have thought the Ghaza war is about Hamas loping rockets, or Kadima wanting to win elections, but thankfully, our leftist activist friends- those renegades of truth and stelwarts of resistance- have shown us the real reason why this war is taking place: GAS. Yes, The Ghaza war ia apprently the latest war of agression the Imperialists are waging to control energy resources in the middle-east. You didn't know? That's because the Imperialist jewish-controlled media didn't want you to know, sheeple. But thanks to the blogsphere, we now know.

On the bright side, the anti-war protesters can now grab those old "No Blood For Oil" signs from the Iraq war and use them in Ghaza protests. They were gathering dust anyway. Not to mention, it would be considerd a form of recycling. Ohh Goody!

Comments

  1. But thanks to the blogsphere, we now know.

    :D

  2. The “Blood for Oil” shit drives me crazy. First, we invaded Afghanistan, which doesn’t have any oil itself, but we were going to steal those sweet-ass Russian pipelines, right? That didn’t happen, so then they declared we invaded Iraq to steal their ginormous supply of oil (which actually exists, so thanks for that at least). Years later, nothing. So now we’re somehow exacerbating the Arab-Israeli situation to get oil from, eh, Persian Iran or something? The six-point master plan apparently goes:

    Step 1: Secretly blow up the WTC with fertilizer and holographic planes in order to snatch oil.

    Step 2: Invade Afghanistan. Don’t seize lucrative pipelines.

    Step 3: Invade and occupy Iraq for five years. Do not steal ocean of oil two inches below the ground.

    Step 4: Piss off Iran. Then get Palestinians and Jews to kill each other (moreso, anyway). Presumably, make some devious deal with Saudi Arabia.

    Step Five: …

    Step Six: Profit!!!

  3. Abu Sa'ar says:

    Amusingly, just now a massive natural gas field was found in the sea near Haifa. The field seems big enough to supply Israel with all of her energy needs for the next few decades (while we finish developing renewable alternative energy sources).

  4. I like it when you talk South Park to me.

  5. Again about the oil, the US doesnt need to invade countries for oil, they already have Saudi’s giving it to them basically for free for protection. The Iraqi war was NOT for oil. However It was a move by the gullible Republicans to destabilize and neutralize the biggest Arab adversary for Israel. Saddam has historiaclly been the biggest ally for the US in the middleeast, they supplied him with crap loads of weapons in the fight against Iran which he ended up using on the Kurds. The Iraqi war wasnt for liberation of the people, everybody turned a blind eye when there was genocide in Rwanda. The US befriended South American dictators that were friendly to their interests and didnt give a rats ass about how they treated their own people. It wasnt for democarcy either, Hamas is democratically elected but it wasnt exactly hailed as a breakthrough in the Arab political world.

  6. Hmm…EGY is givig gas for almost nothng to Israel (while there are local complaints of shortages in gas supplies around the country), KSA & others are constantly supporting the US w oil, Iran is also doing well in the markets…wn each of the Arab/Muslim gas & or oil producing countries was asked to even just “threaten” to cut/lower its supplies during the Gaza hell the aswer was we cant do that “no real reasons ever given” & u r telling me some among us in MENA still “think” we have control over our resources?!!!

  7. Gary Gluon says:

    Phara3on – you need to expand your sources of information to get a more accurate idea of how the world works. With all due respect, here’s a few corrections:

    The USA didn’t go into Iraq for oil. We took out Saddam because he was such an Extremely Annoying Pain In The Ass (EAPITA). The American people are slow to get annoyed (Rwanda happened too fast, a bunch of guys rampaging with machetes… it was over before most people even knew it had begun). But after years of irritation, like a buzzing mosquito, we look up from whatever we’re doing and swat the annoying creature, like we did with Saddam.

    Others, like Hugo Chavez, are also EAPITAs, but he hasn’t been bugging us for that long, and so far all he does is buzz.

    The left wingers in America always squawk when we slap down an EAPITA, because they too are EAPITAs and they side with the annoying transgressors out of solidarity.

    And Saddam wasn’t our biggest ally – Israel was and is. We only sort of liked Saddam because he killed Iranians who were worse EAPITAs.

    As for south american dictators – all the leaders in south america suck. So why not pick the scumbags who at least help us with our interests?

    As for calling Hamas democratically elected, I know it’s taking many years for people in that part of the world to understand what democracy is, but here’s a clue – when the only two parties vying in an election are thuggish militias armed to the teeth who murder any other candidates who espouse views they don’t like, then that’s not democratic. Ever notice that no peace candidates ever run in palestinian “elections”? Right. They’d get killed. Not democracy, Hamacracy!

  8. Alright Gary, I do agree with ur explanation and paraphrasing – and when I said Iraq was the biggest ally I meant to say out of the Arab States at the time, because I thought that it was taken for granted that Israel holds the position as the top US ally. America would clearly sacrifice anything for Israel even if it was against its own interests. Sure Saddam had turned into an annoying asshole, but turning Iraq from a secular dictatorship into a terrorist militia breeding ground, and a part of Iran (Shi’ia majority) is surely no wise tactic.

  9. Saddam has historiaclly been the biggest ally for the US in the middleeast, they supplied him with crap loads of weapons in the fight against Iran which he ended up using on the Kurds.

    Hard to argue with ignorance.

  10. Ok i’m writing this again and hope it goes through.
    I like your paraphrasing of what I said Gary, but what I meant is Saddam was the biggest Arab ally for the US at a time in the middleaeast, before he became an asshole; I took for granted that everyone knew that Israel is the US’ utmost priority (and treated like a part of the US rather than an ally). So much so, that the US would not hesitate to do things that are not in its self interests in order to protect Israel. Plz somebody explain how destabilizing Iraq and (unintentionally) turning it into a terrorist militia breeding ground is in America’s interests.

  11. Yea for the gas .. my ass. If the US wanted to take over the oil, it would hav just waltzed over to arabia and taken it over by force and no one cud hav done a thing about it. However in the grand scheme of things, they wanted to teach Saddam a lesson by parading his ass on tv and turning Iraq into a bombed up shithole. This plan however has its flaws as Iraq has become a breeding ground for terrorisits and is in the danger of being annexed to Iran indirectly because of their shiite bros.

  12. “Saddam has historiaclly been the biggest ally for the US in the middleeast, they supplied him with crap loads of weapons in the fight against Iran which he ended up using on the Kurds.”

    Biggest ally? wtf? Everyone knows that The US and Israel are practically butt buddys. We are giving more aid to Israel than any other nation and our intelligence agencies and military exercises are joint.

  13. Biggest ally? wtf? Everyone knows that The US and Israel…

    That’s not even the wtf-iest part. Iran was America’s closest ally in the ME (besides Israel) until Jimmy Carter took office. Iraq was WAY down the list, and was in fact a Soviet client. The US is not even in the top 10 of country’s that armed Saddam. France on the other hand, is pretty close to the top (below USSR and China, oddly enough).

    This plan however has its flaws as Iraq has become a breeding ground for terrorisits

    As opposed to…? Jordan?

    and is in the danger of being annexed to Iran indirectly because of their shiite bros.

    This is a problem, why? I doubt that will happen, but lets say that it did… how is that worse for the US, than Iraq under Saddam? Sure it isn’t what the US wanted, but… if it’s what the Iraqis want, how does that screw up the Arab world even more than it already was screwed up? How does it threaten the US?

  14. Phara3on:

    “Sure Saddam had turned into an annoying asshole, but turning Iraq from a secular dictatorship into a terrorist militia breeding ground, and a part of Iran (Shi’ia majority) is surely no wise tactic”

    It sure wasn’t – that’s what I’ve been telling Craig; the US (and EU too, for that matter!) needs to work on it’s post-war peace-building… They did so well after WW2, why can’t they do it now?!

    Picking off Saddam=good; not building up Iraq after war=bad.

  15. We in Bulgaria are now having a crisis with the (cut off) gas supplies from Russia, and a joke that a blonde woman said, “I just cannot understand why they are saying sometimes “the crisis WITH the gas” and other times “the crisis IN Gaza”!
    In Bulgarian, “the gas” and “Gaza” are pronounced identically.

  16. Maya M:

    :D Just goes to show, when you’ve got plenty of trouble yourself, other peoples’ hardships don’t seem all that important anymore…

  17. Craig @ 13 ” This is a problem, why? I doubt that will happen, but lets say that it did… how is that worse for the US, than Iraq under Saddam? Sure it isn’t what the US wanted, but… if it’s what the Iraqis want, how does that screw up the Arab world even more than it already was screwed up? How does it threaten the US?”

    What the people want is not always good for your (US) interests, so yea it would present a problem. The last thing we need is a more powerful Iran stretching deeper into the Middleeast , they could block and choke up the Hormuz strait they will probably try to attack and take over the oil rich GCC countries first because they are more valuable and easier to attack than Israel. Using oil as a weapon and developing ICBMs could present a future problem to ur interests and allies in the region.

    “That’s not even the wtf-iest part. Iran was America’s closest ally in the ME (besides Israel) until Jimmy Carter took office. Iraq was WAY down the list, and was in fact a Soviet client. The US is not even in the top 10 of country’s that armed Saddam. France on the other hand, is pretty close to the top (below USSR and China, oddly enough). ”

    I know that when the shah was in power, Iran was the most pro US ally in the ME, however im talkin about post Khomeni Iran and its decade war with Iraq.

  18. Adam B. u totally got it @ 14. I personally think that Europeans in general are more experienced and knowledgeable when it comes to understanding problems in the ME. This is due to their centuries long colonization and prescence in the region. However the US is relatively new to the global political arena because of their pre world war II isolationist policies.

  19. Phara3on, the only problem is that the US are the only ones with the oomph to do anything about anything… And even if the europeans decided to do something, they’d take years to agree on just what should be done! Frustrating!!!

    And like most europeans, I blame the french…! ;)

  20. L.A. Confidential parable…

    Bud White = USA
    Ed Exley = Europe

    :D

  21. Roman Kalik says:

    I know that when the shah was in power, Iran was the most pro US ally in the ME, however im talkin about post Khomeni Iran and its decade war with Iraq.

    Um, back then, Saddam enjoyed the (chiefly diplomatic) support of the US, Europe, and the Soviet Union, and the financial support of other Arab states – specifically, the Gulf states.

    And the Soviet Union was remained the chief supplier of arms to the socialist dictatorship of Saddam Hussein before, during, and after the Iraq-Iran war, with France being a rather distant second. All of it paid for down to the last bolt with oil money, I reckon.

    So what, precisely, did the US give Saddam Hussein’s Iraq in terms of armaments, when he actually had was Soviet T-series tanks, Soviet Mig-series jets, Soviet Mi-series and French Sa-series assault helicopters, and Soviet SCUD ballistic missiles?

  22. Roman Kalik says:

    @22 Phara3on,

    Firstly, let’s begin with the fact that you bring a very biased source to back your claim. CounterPunch pretty much defines itself by how “radical” it can get it – meaning most *left-wingers* would find it abhorrent. And Norm Dixon… well, he’s so anti-Western that he’d feel right at home with the crowd that claims that the US bombed itself in 9/11.

    He has, after all, claimed in the past that the US invaded Iraq for oil, had helped end the civil war between North and South in Sudan for oil, and has also claimed that it isn’t doing enough to stop genocide in Sudan because there’s no oil profit in it.

    But I digress. Let’s examine the actual specific claims in the article regarding how the US supported Iraq in the Iraq-Iran war, shall we? Materially, that is.

    Tactical and strategic information on Iran: Possible, even probable. The US saw Iran as the greater threat in the region, so it would have given Iraq at least *some* information from what it had – after all, Iran was a former ally and the US would have had vast information on the country’s military capabilities.

    Now, let’s move to the military equipment:

    http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iraq/ground-equipment.htm

    This is the most accurate listing of Saddam’s military capacity in terms of hardware. The article you mentioned brings up the Hughes helicopters, which us further corroborated by GlobalSecurity.

    Specifically, the Hughes 500D, the Hughes 530F, and the much older Hughes 300C.

    Of these, the Hughes 300C is a tiny little thing that can barely do search-and-rescue, least of all participate in a military campaign, but the 500D/530F lines have military models as well, so it might be possible to convert them to military use with some tech-savvy and the right armaments.

    Except that… the military models function primarily as light scouts, which *could* be armed with light armaments, but don’t actually look like much even in a bad light… those aren’t gunships.

    For that, the Iraqi army had Mi-8′s, Mi-17′s, Mi-24′s (the famous Hind – quite possibly the best and most widely-used Soviet gunship). And a few dozen PAH-1 Bo-105′s from Europe (a German/French firm, in fact) to serve for lighter assault detail, and a few dozen more various French models for the same.

    The backbone of the Iraqi gunship fleet was still the Hind for fast and furious duties, and the Mi-8′s and Mi-17′s for when they needed great big mobile aerial artillery platforms.

    As for the Bell 214ST’s, which the article claims were sold to Iraq as “crop-spraying” heli’s as part of some implied conspiracy, Bell actually sold Iraq the military transport models, actually. At least I hope that Wikipedia can manage to get aircraft registrars right when it uses them as sources. They’re medium-load transports, have no weapon capacity whatsoever, and I have no idea how one would equip them for crop spraying, especially the armored transport variety.

    That’s because you use light aircraft for crop-spraying rather than heavy, either light rotor planes or light utility helicopters with single-seat capacity.

    And Iraq had quite a horde of transport helis. The Mi-6 alone could serve as a fantastic beast of burden, and the Mi-4, along with the SA-series transports from France/Germany (again, a jointly owned firm) already covered a large portion of the Iraqi transport/multipurpose heli fleet.

    So, what do we have so far? Medium transports and light scouts, right? Noted. Moving on…

    Looks like we’re done with allegations of military hardware sale for now, so you can read this rather long Wiki entry. It’s long for a reason – it details all the military hardware, financial aid, and advisers the Soviet Union gave Iraq.

    And it covers nearly all of Iraq’s armament.

    Ah, in the next part of the article, we have discussions of loans, the covering of, and small-time exports…. what did it amount to, then, a few million dollars in private loans, some with a US governmental cover in case Iraq couldn’t pay, and exports of which few ever saw military use.

    Now, compare this to Saudi financial aid – Saudi Arabia alone gave Iraq over 20 Billion dollars in the first two years of the war. That’s a Billion a month. Kuwait gave Iraq similar sums in loans – and its wish to collect on those huge loans later brought Saddam to the decision that the best creditors were the ones under your boot.

    And that’s comparable to 5 Billion dollars over nine years? Ouch.

    And I’d be most interested in reading the actual Senate report from 1994 which the article brings as a source, because I doubt it mention “weapon production plant plans”. Maybe it mention plans for the production of chemicals, period. In any case, several civilian US companies were investigated at the time for illegal trade with Iraq – Alcolac, for example, was found guilty of illegally exporting weapons-grade chemicals.

    The US Department of Commerce *did* approve the sales of specific bugs – which could be used both for medical research and weapons research, and Iraq claimed the former use for them. While I believe this was a bad error, considering Iraq’s potential use for them, Saddam never did use them as a weapon.

    And all of the above, from helicopter sales to small-time loans to equipment sales approved by the US Department of Commerce… all of that doesn’t even amount to a 1% of what Saddam Hussein got from all the other countries he received aid from, be it financial, military, or in favorable trade.

    To overtly focus on the US as if it was even a major player in this particular issue is a bit silly, quite biased, and self-defeating.

    Oh, and there’s a reason for why the Soviet Union got such a brief mention in that article. CounterPunch and Dixon have a very skewed world view – and in it, the Soviet Union was the good guy. The US was the imperialist and the Soviet Union was the worldwide revolutionary savior.

  23. Roman Kalik says:

    Oh, and to add to the above listing of Saddam’s ground units…

    http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iraq/air-force-equipment.htm
    http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iraq/ships.htm

    Take a good look at the air-force page, Phara3on. Migs, Sukhuis, Tupolevs…The Iraqi Air-Force had a red star stamped on it – and in more than one way, as Iraq had a presence of Soviet flight trainers (like Egypt used to have), and even the not-so-official presence of Soviet pilots flying as Iraqis at times (again, just like Egypt used to have).

  24. What the people want is not always good for your (US) interests, so yea it would present a problem. The last thing we need is a more powerful Iran stretching deeper into the Middleeast , they could block and choke up the Hormuz strait they will probably try to attack and take over the oil rich GCC countries first because they are more valuable and easier to attack than Israel. Using oil as a weapon and developing ICBMs could present a future problem to ur interests and allies in the region.

    Phara3on, I acknowledge the validity of that argument. I just don’t subscribe to it. I don’t think Iran is necessarily worse for the US than Arabs are. The nuclear weapon threat is a major problem, but it whether or not Iraq becomes an Iranian proxy/ally/whatever doesn’t really have much impact on that, in my opinion.

    Also, I think it would be a major strategic error for Iran to try to annex Iraq (either directly or indirectly). They would find themselves in major conflict with Arabs almost immediately, and would be exposing themselves to having major world powers waging a proxy war against them, which Iran has never had to try to deal with before, and has no experience with. And that’s the least of what Iran would have to worry about. I think Iran will be satisfied with having a neighbor that it is on friendly terms with, but I could be wrong :)