Your history here is good, and there's no question that oil is what sets this part of the world apart and makes it the focus of so much attention, but I don't see anything here but pure speculation to support your conspiracy theory.

For the conspiracy to be real it would require multiple US administrations from both parties to have participated, and with all the changes in our policy towards the middle east through the period you're talking about that just doesn't make any sense. It seems much more rational to assume that US policy has had much smaller objectives and quite a number of unintended consequences.

There also remains a large factor which you and others who are looking for secret meaning behind these wars often overlook. The way the oil industry is structured, there is NO advantage to the US government controlling the oil over having that oil in the hands of any stable government. There's also no real disadvantage to having middle east oil funneled directly to China because (say it with me) oil is a fungible resource. The way the oil industry works, if the oil gets pumped the oil companies will eventually get their hands on it and make their money, and the US consumer will inevitably get their share. In fact, the only thing which interferes with this inevitable process is war, which takes oil off the market. Even if the oil is pumped by Jihadist lunatics in Iran and sold to baby killing communists in China, the oil doesn't care, and the main result is that China buys less oil somewhere else and that oil becomes available to us instead (thank you Mr. Chavez).

Dave

Pure Nalle nonsense, as usual.

Everything since the early 70s in US foreign policy has been about grabbing and controlling resources--especially petroleum and gas.

There are few governments on the planet more stable than that of Venezuela (Chavez has been elected president 4 times now, with landslide victories, and the Venezuelan people beat back the US-sponsored coup d'etat of April 2002 in 47 hours), so there is CLEARLY a difference to the US to control the resources versus having them in the hands of a stable government.

Kepp of dreaming, Nalle. But learn to do it better. [Personal attack deleted by Comments Editor]

Keep on....

Pure drivel as usual, MR. The US isn't making any efforts to stage coups in venezuela and our prior involvement there was to protect existing interests, not to seize the oil resources. That should be obvious fact even to you.

After all, as you point out, Venezuela is stable. They sell us their oil. I bought some the other day at my local Citgo. We don't need anything else from them.

The only reason to be concerned about the country at all is over the slow slide they are making into dictatorship, and that's just important to a few soft hearted folks like Clavos and I.

Dave

The US is a dictatorsjip, and that doesn't bother your fat ass one bit.

The US is spending hundreds of millions of YOUR tax dollars (not mine) trying to overthrow the government of Venezuela. That's what the Office of Transition in Caracas is all about.

Duh.

What were those "existing interests"--if they were not oil and gas?

Chavez will cut off petroleum to the US any time he feels like it. Those huge supertankers he is building jointly with China are all about that.

The Bush Gang overplayed its hand in Venezuela, and still is on its racist donkey believing that a person of color cannot outwit and outplay them.

Shit, Chavez' IQ must be at least double that of GW Bush.

so...you've got these two companies...one of them cracks oil out of shale and the other pumps it from shallow middle eastern wells

who is getting a better return on investment - ?

the war is about privatization (in all but name) -

fungible smungible

Interesting post but I think that you underestimate the smug sense of apathy that permeated US dealing with the region in the wake of the Soviet withdraw.

Once the Cold War collapsed, US funding and attention to Central Asia had pretty much dissipated, as evidenced by the short shrift the US gave Mashood and the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan during the simmering civil war against the Taliban after the Russian's fled. The US failed to make any effort to curtail the Taliban or rein-in Pakistan's overt funding and support of them. Indeed it pretty much passed on multiple opportunities to limit their influence and turned a blind eye to their activities to an extent because of the Taliban's surpression of the drug trade which was seen as a burgeoning problem.

I view the events that subsequently unfolded as less by wicked devious design and more as the inevitable byproduct of short-term, reactive politics, hypocrisy and strategic blindness.

Blowback?- definitely; controlled explosion? - not so much, more akin to Wile E. Coyote sighing and sitting on the detonator....

"Chavez will cut off petroleum to the US any time he feels like it."

Once again, you're not paying attention and talking out of your ass, mr.

To whom El Chango sells his oil doesn't matter. We will be able to buy it from whomever does buy it from him; and if not them, then from whomever they sell it to.

One more time, mr:

OIL IS A FUNGIBLE RESOURCE.

And you are some kind of fungus.

While Chavez, bless his big heart, is GOD.

Please TRY to remember, clavos, that I am NEVER wrong.

Nor, for that matter, is Chavez.

He said oil would be selling for 80 bucks a barrel before October.

Ignorant fuckheads like you said he was talking out his ass.

Maybe it's just his ass that's GOD....

I am NEVER wrong.

But what if you're wrong about that...?

"But what if you're wrong about that...?"

She is.

Never.

And I never will be wrong.

Somrthing hard for a cromagnon like clavos--who has never been RIGHT--to grasp.

It's all about power.

Whistling past the graveyard....

The problem with this article is that any of the countries' names could be changed and it would still hold true. Foriegn policy is about juggling priorities: multiple conflicting national interests and (one hopes) national principles. The US isn't unique in having policies come back and bite them, and it doesn't mean that the original policies were wrong.

Let's take France, Turkey, China, and Venezuela. I just chose those because they have no obvious connections. Every one of them has national/cultural values, and has had leadership toggling between several of those values. They've had national interests, which sometimes have led to former allies becoming enemies. They've been aggressors and isolationists. They've had policy changes over time, and sudden regime changes.

It's silly to single out the US as the only country who has changed foriegn policy. We can be proud that our policies have generally coincided with our principles. But at times we have to choose the lesser of two evils. Which evil is lesser will change over time, both in our perception and in reality.

Liam - You are one of the "awake" ones who really has been able to see what America has become. Read "Dark Ages America" and it gets more into this exact subject. America does always need an enemy, its easy, its the only way to justify the money that is expended on our military. And of course it is the easiest way to control the stupid ones of the population. Put them in a constant state of fear and war. America has become an imperial power, wake up donkeys. This country needs a slap in the face and a wake up call. We can't just invade any country with oil, people in power are not that stupid, the motives cannot be that obvious. There are other countries out there watching us. This country is going to get what's coming to it unless we change our actions and leaders soon.

Dee is how u pronounce the first letter in deluded. But good point in the universality of the problems any nation deals with, baronius.

This is not a war for dwindling resources. Why the hell do people dance around this subject. The problem is population, we are breeding like rats and its soon going to force us into killing each other, and yet you never hear that mentioned.

"...we are breeding like rats and its soon going to force us into killing each other, and yet you never hear that mentioned."

Maybe because birth rates in most of the world, especially the developed countries, are actually going down?

Were it not for immigration, the USA's population would actually be decreasing, and Europe's IS decreasing.

Even China's birth rate is slowing rapidly.

clavas [Personal attack deleted by Comments Editor] dude believe whatever you want to believe but overall the TOTAL population is increasing every year... that's a fact... tis true that some countries are decreasing in population but the human species population is getting larger every year... [Personal attack deleted by Comments Editor]

Read a book titled "The Population Bomb", dee; you can find it in your library.

Read it, then try to learn how to reason (as opposed to name-calling), if you succeed, we can debate then.

500,000,000 or bust - !

Clavos,

You are correct certain segments of the world population are flat or even in decline. The Western nations is in decline and China's population is in flattening out, but overall population is increasing. There are some theories that population globally will begin to level off, but until it happens it will remain a theory.

Russia just had a "fertility day" where workers got the day off to go home and make a good little Russian. I suspect you're going to see more of this from the declining populations. While this make help to reverse the trend of declining populations in Western nations it will add to the congestion.

You mentioned China's decline, but there decline may come with a down side with much darker results than the good they hope to achieve by reducing their population. A generation of boys with no females are going to be very unhappy. What form that unhappiness takes is yet to be seen.

My point however, was not the increase in population. In the article dwindling resources are a large part of his argument, however the obvious flip side to that coin is population which he didn't mention. Why was it left unspoken? Is it because the population boom is coming from third world minority nations, and to note it, would be considered racist? How can we confront a problem that we feel we can't even discuss in polite conversation.

Those breeding prolifically are as always those least qualified to breed: the stupid, the ignorant, the uneducated, the slackers, the lowest classes - because they're too ignorant & stupid to appreciate why they should keep their pants on & have fewer offspring. The educated & intelligentsia have always opted for fewer offspring & limited breeding, knowing that concentrating resources on fewer children increases the chances of those kids growing up to have not just lives, but QUALITY lives, of their own. Ironically, they then proceed to non-breed themselves into an endangered state, while the 'rats' breed on: regardless of race etc. it's always the lowest classes that spawn like cockroaches. It's an educational level thing. Once educated, most populations tend to slow their incessant & mindless breeding.

Sounds pretty damn racist to me, Nancy.

How would you like it if all fat people were declared lumpen?

Those breeding prolifically are as always those least qualified to breed: the stupid, the ignorant, the uneducated, the slackers, the lowest classes

Please take a basic demographic and population study course before you sound off on subjects you obviously know nothing about.

Population growth tends to be significantly higher in the developing world for a number of reasons related to basic demographics - not to anyone's "qualifications".

Advances in medical technology(i.e. immunizations etc.), sanitary conditions (clean water, sewage systems), and improved nutrition result in longer average lifespans and lower mortality rates. The drop in the high death rates coupled with a high birth rate creates strong population growth trends.

Significant reductions in child mortality rate also impact across social and econmic lines. It used to be having a large number of children was a necessity because birth control was non-existent and children were, for lack of a better term, a retirement investment. You needed to have 10 kids as several would die in childhood of disease, malnutrition, war etc., and others would probably die before they were 20. If you had 10 kids, 6 might survive to adulthood and bluntly, you needed that available labour to work the farm or care for the family. Prolific breeding had very little to do with it - it was economic and social necessity.

The reasons you now see high growth levels in developing nations is that there is a time lag between the death rate and birth rate. Mortality rates plummeted in the last 50 years across most of the globe while birth rates stayed high, still operating on the old norms which often become culturally ingrained and take several generations to change.

As birth control options expand and, more importantly, as the social necessity for large numbers of children drops (more are surviving to adulthood), birth rates typically fall rapidly. In developed countries such as North America and Europe, population growth is flat or negative for exactly that reason.

Yes, MR, even stating butt-obvious facts can sometimes sound racist. But it would take someone to make a connection between Nancy's "the stupid, the ignorant, the uneducated, the slackers, the lowest classes" and racial characteristics. Since YOU are making the connection, it's actually YOU who sound racist. Bleagghh.

Were it not for immigration, the USA's population would actually be decreasing

And it should be pointed out that at an average of 2.3 kids per couple, even those Mexican immigrants are barely breeding in the positive.

Dave

duane:

Boy are you stretching.

There is little or no difference between classism and racism, but then a low class person like yourself might not recognize that.

How does it feel, fatso?

To be on your own, with no direction home....

Fatso? Moi? Hehe.

Thanks for the Dylan.

Here's one fer you:

Then this blackhearted bird shouts down my happy fancy into frown,
By the grave and stern decorum of the affect she wore,
`I see thy mind be worn and craven, thou,' I said, `art sure no maven.
Ghastly grim and ancient raven refuting the logic she abhors -
Tell me what pathetic name is on the Night's Plutonian shore!'
Quoth Moonraven, `I'm a boor.'

You should have supplied a clothespin for my nose/beak.

Whew--talk about stinking the place out!

Adolescent humor, I suppose, [Personal attack deleted by Comments Editor].

Ah, Moonraven, you are to prose as dancing is to walking.

I believe you were TRYING to write poetry, not prose.

Try learning English. It always helps to be fluent in the language when TRYING to write poetry.

On that note: It's hammock time!

See you around, suckers.