Protecting the petrodollar: America gears up for a long war

[webfact]

OVERDRIVE
Protecting the petrodollar: America gears up for a long war
Thanong Khanthong

BANGKOK: -- US President Barack Obama has been talking with global leaders in New York on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly, in a bid to forge a grand coalition to support his war against the Islamic State in the Middle East.

His strategy is to "degrade and destroy" the jihadist militants, and he has admitted that the war against the IS in both Iraq and Syria will take time. How much time, he didn't say, but Obama has already authorised air strikes against IS bases in Syria. British Prime Minister David Cameron will try to convince the House of Commons today to let UK forces join the campaign.

Last year the British parliament voted down a bill that would have authorised Cameron to send in forces to topple the Assad government in Syria on the grounds that it had used chemical weapons against its people. Obama suffered a similar setback to his Syria strategy at the same time. Now it seems that the US and the UK are taking charge again by picking up where they left off last year. But this time they are targeting the IS, a splinter group of al-Qaeda that emerged out of nowhere a couple of months ago.

So, are the US and the UK aiming for regime change in Syria or going after IS? What exactly is going on here?

A Daily Mail reader by the name of Aubrey Bailey wrote an interesting letter explaining the IS situation as follows:

"Are you confused by what is going on in the Middle East? Let me explain. We support the Iraqi government in the fight against Islamic State. We don't like IS, but IS is supported by Saudi Arabia, whom we do like. We don't like President Assad in Syria. We support the fight against him, but not IS, which is also fighting against him.

"We don't like Iran, but Iran supports the Iraqi government in the fight against IS. So, some of our friends support our enemies and some of our enemies are our friends, and some of our enemies are fighting against our other enemies, whom we want to lose, but we don't want our enemies who are fighting our enemies to win.

"If the people we want to defeat are defeated, they might be replaced by people we like even less. And all this started by us invading a country to drive out terrorists who weren't actually there until we went in to drive them out. Do you understand now?"

Indeed, it is very difficult to separate the good guys from the bad guys in the Middle East. Since the IS is no friend of the Syrian government, Obama is helping out Assad by going after IS jihadists. Obama has sought Congressional support to arm the anti-government rebels in Syria so they can help fight IS militants. The question now is, how can Washington separate the "good terrorists" from the "bad terrorists"? Don't they belong to the same group from the outset?

What's more clear is that the air strikes against IS targets in Syria, which started on Monday, represent a violation of the sovereignty of that country. Obama authorised the air strikes without approval from the Assad government. Five Arab nations - Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Qatar, Bahrain and UAE - are also taking part in the air campaign, and US officials says some 50 countries have pledged support to this grand coalition against the IS. Syrian diplomats are right to have asserted that the US should be relying on diplomatic and political means to deal with the militants, rather than resorting to a military option alone, which will not work. The air strikes are unlikely to "degrade" IS forces in any significant and lasting way.

Technically speaking, the US and the five Arab nations have already committed to a war of aggression against Syria. This is in violation of the UN charter, for the war against the IS was never raised at the UN Security Council. And it remains to be seen whether the coalition forces will go after IS targets alone or whether they will also hit Syrian government forces. If the latter is the case, it will certainly heat up the war in the Middle East. The fact that Obama has met with world leaders in New York shows that he is committed to a long war, which might also involve Iran. After the fall of Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya, the next country on the US list for regime change is Syria, followed by Iran.

Washington's grand strategy is to protect the petrodollar and to prevent Russia and other superpowers from securing a piece of the action in the Middle East, which still holds enormous energy resources. This being the case, the air strikes that began this week are likely only the first shots in what will be a protracted war in the Middle East. It looks inevitable that the US and its main allies will send ground forces into the region again. Islamic State militants, who actually pose no terror threat to the US, are merely the excuse Washington is using to start another war.

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/opinion/Protecting-the-petrodollar-America-gears-up-for-a--30244105.html


-- The Nation 2014-09-26

[ABCer]

A quote from OP:

* "Are you confused by what is going on in the Middle East? Let me explain.

We support the Iraqi government in the fight against Islamic State.

We don't like IS, but IS is supported by Saudi Arabia, whom we do like.

We don't like President Assad in Syria. We support the fight against him, but not IS, which is also fighting against him.

"We don't like Iran, but Iran supports the Iraqi government in the fight against IS.

So, some of our friends support our enemies and some of our enemies are our friends, and some of our enemies are fighting against our other enemies, whom we want to lose, but we don't want our enemies who are fighting our enemies to win.

"If the people we want to defeat are defeated, they might be replaced by people we like even less.

And all this started by us invading a country to drive out terrorists who weren't actually there until we went in to drive them out. Do you understand now?"* (by some Aubrey Bailey, reader of some Daily Mail)

When I'm told that USA is fighting in every nook and cranny of the world for Democracy - I don't believe it.

When I'm told that Russians are stirring troubles in Ukraine protecting Russian-speaking ethnos - I don't believe it.

When I'm told that Israelis are the same Terrorists as the Palestinian Arabs from Gaza - I don' believe it.

When I'm told that USA takes many Muslim states as allies to fight Jihad - I don't believe this is wise or true.

When I'm told that many Muslim states join coalition to fight IS (Jihad) because they seized control of some oil wells - I believe it!

When I'm told that USA and Muslim states are in this war protecting Petrodollars - I believe it!

When I'm told that Islam is Good - I don't believe it. Even if Obama and Osama together say it.

When I'm told that we can win against Militants of any kind because we are armed with superior weapons and Political Correctness Ideology - I dont believe it.

So it looks like there is a lot of confusion in my mind.

Am I a believer or a non-believer?

I know I'm not a True Believer! Who am I?

Could somebody clear this mess in my understanding of the 'Meaning of Life'? Where are you, Aubrey?

Edited September 26, 2014 by ABCer

[ClutchClark]

^^^America likes Petroleum. It tolerates those countries that fill our addiction. We do not like any of them. Don't confuse global politics with Facebook.

[Gsxrnz]

IS - US......same same.

[manarak]

what transpires from the long-winded OP is that the USA could be toying with the idea to use the intervention against ISIS to also remove Assad from power. killing two birds with one stone - but I wonder what the US has against Assad.

[craigt3365]

A few off topic and rude posts have been removed from view. Please show other members some respect.

[tboxcar]

It's always so funny view the post that comment that America's appetite for oil drives it to fight in the Middle East and elsewhere. For those who are not 'in the know' The USA has now become the world's largets producer of Petroleum products in the world, first natural gas and soon crude oil, all due to 'fracking' (another story in itself). If America wanted oil so much it could have just stayed in Iraq, but it did not.

Now I'm certainly cautious about entering another conflict in the ME, most Americans are, but when factions and so called Islamic states excecute your citizens on video in crude fashion, you are going to get a 'cause and effect' result. Any other country would react the same way when their citizens have been harmed....

It's not 'brain surgery' but everyone has to lable every thing a country does for a conspiracy theory.

[godden]

my brain hurts.

[wilgoster]

The biggest wonderment to me is why the US is still steadfastly against Iran? I know, sore feelings after the fallout of dislodging the democratically installed Iranian government so many decades ago. But Iran offers everything the US needs in defeating IS. Perhaps defeating IS is NOT in US interests, but fighting IS is. (just thinking out loud, as it were.)

[Seastallion]

Petro dollars.

Military industry dollars.

Same sh1t different year.

[Utley]

"Washington's grand strategy is to protect the petrodollar and to prevent Russia and other superpowers from securing a piece of the action in the Middle East" - and you know this how? Nothing in the article leads to this conclusion. My guess is that this is the OP's opinion and he wrote an article around it; hardly insightful or a good example of investigative reporting.

[willyumiii]

Help!

Please wait!

My head hurts!

I am so confused!

For many years I have been told that Obama is really a Muslim!

And now you are telling me what??????

I think you just enjoy keeping me confused!

[IAMHERE]

what transpires from the long-winded OP is that the USA could be toying with the idea to use the intervention against ISIS to also remove Assad from power. killing two birds with one stone - but I wonder what the US has against Assad.

Actually it is easy to explain.

Can you name one country where USA went in to 'help' that remained strong and stable?

If you accept the unpalatable truth that USA aim is weakening and destabilizing all other states including Allies.

This is their correct policy as a World Hegemon second only to Arms build up.

South Korea

Panama

Grenada, That little island with the medical school.

Kuwait is still stable after kicking Iraq out.

All examples of where the US went in to help and good things have happened since.

[ABCer]

A quote from OP:

* "Are you confused by what is going on in the Middle East? Let me explain.

We support the Iraqi government in the fight against Islamic State.

We don't like IS, but IS is supported by Saudi Arabia, whom we do like.

We don't like President Assad in Syria. We support the fight against him, but not IS, which is also fighting against him.

"We don't like Iran, but Iran supports the Iraqi government in the fight against IS.

So, some of our friends support our enemies and some of our enemies are our friends, and some of our enemies are fighting against our other enemies, whom we want to lose, but we don't want our enemies who are fighting our enemies to win.

"If the people we want to defeat are defeated, they might be replaced by people we like even less.

And all this started by us invading a country to drive out terrorists who weren't actually there until we went in to drive them out. Do you understand now?"* (by some Aubrey Bailey, reader of some Daily Mail)

When I'm told that USA is fighting in every nook and cranny of the world for Democracy - I don't believe it.

When I'm told that Russians are stirring troubles in Ukraine protecting Russian-speaking ethnos - I don't believe it.

When I'm told that Israelis are the same Terrorists as the Palestinian Arabs from Gaza - I don' believe it.

When I'm told that USA takes many Muslim states as allies to fight Jihad - I don't believe this is wise or true.

When I'm told that many Muslim states join coalition to fight IS (Jihad) because they seized control of some oil wells - I believe it!

When I'm told that USA and Muslim states are in this war protecting Petrodollars - I believe it!

When I'm told that Islam is Good - I don't believe it. Even if Obama and Osama together say it.

When I'm told that we can win against Militants of any kind because we are armed with superior weapons and Political Correctness Ideology - I dont believe it.

So it looks like there is a lot of confusion in my mind.

Am I a believer or a non-believer?

I know I'm not a True Believer! Who am I?

Could somebody clear this mess in my understanding of the 'Meaning of Life'? Where are you, Aubrey?

Do you know why propaganda is so successful?

Because everyone reacts before they take a proper gander.

No, my friend. I think propaganda is so successful because very few people go to the trouble of thinking for themselves.

On the other hand it is so successful because too many people are 'easy' believers.

Agencies controlling and spreading propaganda are professionals. They always appeal to the lowest common denominator among people.

And these are usually the lowest thoughts and emotions like:

Greed, Envy, Hate, Intolerance, Group/Crowd/Herd/Pack Mentality, Fear of anything New, Different and so on.

Propaganda is not new. And people's susceptibility to propaganda is not new.

It was used by Commies, Nazis, Liberals, All Religions - and always successfully. And always to the detriment of the people.

[Loptr]

what transpires from the long-winded OP is that the USA could be toying with the idea to use the intervention against ISIS to also remove Assad from power. killing two birds with one stone - but I wonder what the US has against Assad.

Provided without comment...

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-09-25/look-inside-secret-deal-saudi-arabia-unleashed-syrian-bombing

[seedy]

Who was the US President who had a sign on his desk ...

"The business of America is Business" ??

All rhetoric aside, I believe this is the root cause.

Waging war - any war, anywhere - because it is a money maker.

The election process takes big bucks. Whoever gets elected needs to repay their backers, who have the big bucks and paid for the campaign.

Until election reforms happen, the Status Quo will remain.

And it will not happen in my lifetime, or my childrens, or theirs.

Edited September 26, 2014 by seedy

[NeverSure]

So, the old "petrodollar" and "oil" tinfoil hat stuff again, huh? If the US was in it for oil, it would have taken Iraq's oil.

The US is in it to kill Islamists. It has been ever since 9/11 when the entire country had to watch on colored television as many people jumped from extreme heights out of those buildings rather than being burned to death.

All 535 members of the US Congress got to vote on this new campaign and the majority in both Houses said "yes." They have to run for re-election, and getting re-elected is job #1. Their constituents, the American people, want these attacks so the answer is politics.

The American people don't like wars with boots on the ground against people who avoid defeat by staying out of uniform and hiding among civilians. But they do like these air strikes against these Islamists.

9/11. Never forget.

[NeverSure]

Hardcore US weapons that ISIS should fear.

LINK

The US’s most sophisticated fighter jet, the Stealth F-22 Raptor made its debut in these new strikes in Syria.

Same Link.

[Thaiready]

what transpires from the long-winded OP is that the USA could be toying with the idea to use the intervention against ISIS to also remove Assad from power. killing two birds with one stone - but I wonder what the US has against Assad.

Actually it is easy to explain.

Can you name one country where USA went in to 'help' that remained strong and stable?

If you accept the unpalatable truth that USA aim is weakening and destabilizing all other states including Allies.

This is their correct policy as a World Hegemon second only to Arms build up.

South Korea

Panama

Grenada, That little island with the medical school.

Kuwait is still stable after kicking Iraq out.

All examples of where the US went in to help and good things have happened since.

Don't forget the whole of Europe.....some people have a short memory.

[Robby nz]

It's always so funny view the post that comment that America's appetite for oil drives it to fight in the Middle East and elsewhere. For those who are not 'in the know' The USA has now become the world's largets producer of Petroleum products in the world, first natural gas and soon crude oil, all due to 'fracking' (another story in itself). If America wanted oil so much it could have just stayed in Iraq, but it did not.

Now I'm certainly cautious about entering another conflict in the ME, most Americans are, but when factions and so called Islamic states excecute your citizens on video in crude fashion, you are going to get a 'cause and effect' result. Any other country would react the same way when their citizens have been harmed....

It's not 'brain surgery' but everyone has to lable every thing a country does for a conspiracy theory.

Not the oil its self mate it is that oil is traded in $$$$ and the dollar must be protected at all coats.

That is why Saddam had to go he was wanting Euros for his oil and Gaddafi was in the process of arranging for his to be paid for in gold.

Now Russia and China are trading in their own currencies and their larger alliance is watching carefully.

The dollar must be protected and with the US being the second biggest producer and exporter of war weapons it sure helps the economy to have as many wars as possible.

[pmarlin]

The OP quotes the Daily Mail. Aren't they blocked here in Thailand ?

[ProThaiExpat]

So often, including this thread, discussions regarding alignment of middle east governments flourish without mentioning which countries are predominantly Sunni and which are predominantly Shia. Those two branches of Islam have been at each other's throats for centuries and they continue to bitterly oppose each other. Perhaps the media practices what they feel is Political Correctness by not often mentioning these diametrically opposed religious branches of the Muslim faith as motivation for a countries actions.

Take a map of the middle east and put Sunni or Shia next to the countries name and a great deal of what is going on in the Middle East will be easier to understand.

The most obvious example was the bitter and long war between Shia Iran and Sunni controlled Iraq when Sadam was in charge. Once he was out and the predominately Shia population was able to establish its own Shia government, the two countries are now buddies.

[Ulysses G.]

It's always so funny view the post that comment that America's appetite for oil drives it to fight in the Middle East and elsewhere. For those who are not 'in the know' The USA has now become the world's largets producer of Petroleum products in the world, first natural gas and soon crude oil, all due to 'fracking' (another story in itself). If America wanted oil so much it could have just stayed in Iraq, but it did not.

Now I'm certainly cautious about entering another conflict in the ME, most Americans are, but when factions and so called Islamic states excecute your citizens on video in crude fashion, you are going to get a 'cause and effect' result. Any other country would react the same way when their citizens have been harmed....

It's not 'brain surgery' but everyone has to lable every thing a country does for a conspiracy theory.

Not the oil its self mate it is that oil is traded in $$$$ and the dollar must be protected at all coats.

That is why Saddam had to go he was wanting Euros for his oil and Gaddafi was in the process of arranging for his to be paid for in gold.

Now Russia and China are trading in their own currencies and their larger alliance is watching carefully.

The dollar must be protected and with the US being the second biggest producer and exporter of war weapons it sure helps the economy to have as many wars as possible.

As NeverSure said above. This is tinfoil hat stuff. America never seems to end up with much oil out of these deals and loses money instead.

Edited September 26, 2014 by Ulysses G.

[rickirs]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

The biggest wonderment to me is why the US is still steadfastly against Iran? I know, sore feelings after the fallout of dislodging the democratically installed Iranian government so many decades ago. But Iran offers everything the US needs in defeating IS. Perhaps defeating IS is NOT in US interests, but fighting IS is. (just thinking out loud, as it were.)

1) Iran's support for terrorists

2) Iran's support for the Asaad Government

3) Iran's aim to develop nuclear weapons capability

4) Iran's aim to destroy Israel.

5) etc.

US alone cannot defeat ISIS without putting boots on the ground. ISIS is a Middle East issue and must be dealt with by the Middle Eastern countries. And that is why the US is working to form and maintain a M.E. Coalition to do so.

[ClutchClark]

IS - US......same same.

IS summarily executes people by beheading without a trial and their only crime is being non-muslim.

Your post reveals more about you than I can possibly add here and remain within the rules.

[ABCer]

Hardcore US weapons that ISIS should fear.

LINK

The US’s most sophisticated fighter jet, the Stealth F-22 Raptor made its debut in these new strikes in Syria.

Same Link.

NeverSure, I admire the weaponry. I wish USA every possible success and victory.

But mind my words: No superiority in weapons field will solve the problems with Terrorism as long as USA and Western countries are suffering from wrong Ideology.

The Terrorists are not afraid to die. And they are ready to let their women and children die. And they grow in numbers in the West. All Western countries must change their Attitude.

Than and only than can they win. And by winning I mean containing the spread of Islam Ideology.

The alternative is to be conquered by Islam. This problem is by no means new. It has a History going back for 1400 years.

Despite the minor victories in many battles the West is losing the War thanks to idiotic obsession with Political Correctness and Multiculturalism Ideology.

I am sorry to say this, but it is true.

[ABCer]

It's always so funny view the post that comment that America's appetite for oil drives it to fight in the Middle East and elsewhere. For those who are not 'in the know' The USA has now become the world's largets producer of Petroleum products in the world, first natural gas and soon crude oil, all due to 'fracking' (another story in itself). If America wanted oil so much it could have just stayed in Iraq, but it did not.

Now I'm certainly cautious about entering another conflict in the ME, most Americans are, but when factions and so called Islamic states excecute your citizens on video in crude fashion, you are going to get a 'cause and effect' result. Any other country would react the same way when their citizens have been harmed....

It's not 'brain surgery' but everyone has to lable every thing a country does for a conspiracy theory.

Not the oil its self mate it is that oil is traded in $$$$ and the dollar must be protected at all coats.

That is why Saddam had to go he was wanting Euros for his oil and Gaddafi was in the process of arranging for his to be paid for in gold.

Now Russia and China are trading in their own currencies and their larger alliance is watching carefully.

The dollar must be protected and with the US being the second biggest producer and exporter of war weapons it sure helps the economy to have as many wars as possible.

As NeverSure said above. This is tinfoil hat stuff. America never seems to end up with much oil out of these deals and loses money instead.

The money is not lost. It is redistributed the wrong (right?) way. Big difference!

[ClutchClark]

It's always so funny view the post that comment that America's appetite for oil drives it to fight in the Middle East and elsewhere. For those who are not 'in the know' The USA has now become the world's largets producer of Petroleum products in the world, first natural gas and soon crude oil, all due to 'fracking' (another story in itself). If America wanted oil so much it could have just stayed in Iraq, but it did not.

Now I'm certainly cautious about entering another conflict in the ME, most Americans are, but when factions and so called Islamic states excecute your citizens on video in crude fashion, you are going to get a 'cause and effect' result. Any other country would react the same way when their citizens have been harmed....

It's not 'brain surgery' but everyone has to lable every thing a country does for a conspiracy theory.

I retired from O&G in the US so I know quite well what you speak of and also that you are incorrect in your conclusion.

Please refer to this website to see how much oil we imported into the US in 2013--approximately 2,800,000,000 barrels of Crude.

http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=MCRIMUS1&f=A

Here is another page that breaks down where those petroleum products come from (please take note of Mid-East at the top):

http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_move_impcus_a2_nus_ep00_im0_mbbl_m.htm

We do not go to War because a couple of our citizens are killed. That is an amazing over-simplification. If we did as you suggest then why did we not go to War with Libya after our US personnel were killed in Benghazi? In fact, US military personnel actually left the country this past June 2014 and the US had to pay quite alot of money to the enemy just to get safe passage for all of our vehicles and equipment.

We go to War to keep oil flowing not only for ourselves but for our Allies.

[squarethecircle]

what transpires from the long-winded OP is that the USA could be toying with the idea to use the intervention against ISIS to also remove Assad from power. killing two birds with one stone - but I wonder what the US has against Assad.

Actually it is easy to explain.

Can you name one country where USA went in to 'help' that remained strong and stable?

If you accept the unpalatable truth that USA aim is weakening and destabilizing all other states including Allies.

This is their correct policy as a World Hegemon second only to Arms build up.

South Korea

Panama

Grenada, That little island with the medical school.

Kuwait is still stable after kicking Iraq out.

All examples of where the US went in to help and good things have happened since.

Feel free to add Thailand to the list. The defeat of the Communist insurgency in the north was a huge gift for the Kingdom, and wouldn't have happened without US support in the counter-insurgency effort.

[Crazy chef 1]

the entire US economy is based on building up arms-they need always a war and as said before it is not about to win the war it is about to keep the war going!