America's real reason for wanting to attack Iran?

 Written by: Mr Majestik


have you seen syriana? really good movie about the US and middle east oil and political dealings. fictional but still very disturbing. it touches on this topic.

 Written by: Krassimir Petrov

Only the British will find themselves between a rock and a hard place. They have had a strategic partnership with the U.S. forever, but have also had their natural pull from Europe. So far, they have had many reasons to stick with the winner. However, when they see their century-old partner falling, will they firmly stand behind him or will they deliver the coup de grace? Still, we should not forget that currently the two leading oil exchanges are the New York’s NYMEX and the London’s International Petroleum Exchange (IPE), even though both of them are effectively owned by the Americans. It seems more likely that the British will have to go down with the sinking ship, for otherwise they will be shooting themselves in the foot by hurting their own London IPE interests. It is here noteworthy that for all the rhetoric about the reasons for the surviving British Pound, the British most likely did not adopt the Euro namely because the Americans must have pressured them not to: otherwise the London IPE would have had to switch to Euros, thus mortally wounding the dollar and their strategic partner.

Ah crap. Time to move to Europe

 Written by: editorial notes on the article

An excellent and thought provoking article by Krassimir Petrov! However, I think perhaps it's not entirely correct to state that "critics can’t explain why Bush would want to seize those fields." The Bush regime are probably aiming to set themselves up as policeman of the Middle East oil fields, 'protecting' oil supply to Asia and Europe in return for various advantages at any future negotiation tables. Meanwhile billions of dollars of unaccountable no-bid contracts have been handed to corporations with ties to Bush administration, and the Iraqi oil industry is set to be privatised. So the reasons for the war are rich and varied. However Petrov has given us one of the clearest explanations yet of one of the most important, and certainly least understood, motivations for the war.

 Written by: Sym


You should watch Robert Newman's 'History of oil' and read Richard Heinberg's 'The Party's Over'. Both cover the subject very well.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7374585792978336967

 Written by: neon Shaolin

Corruption? Corruption is government intrusion into market efficiencies in the form of regulations. ....

Brilliant and truthful line...

No... That would be neoliberal propagandist bullshit. Free market capitalism is not regulation free - it relies on tomes worth of regulations laid down by the WTO, IMF, World Bank, GATT, and numerous bi/multilateral trade agreements.

Free market capitalism espouses a very particular brand of regulation (which has oft proved to be highly socially detrimental to the poor), to claim these markets are regulation free is not only naive, but involves repeating the (false) claims of the dominant economic elite.

Milton Friedman may have a Nobel prize, but he's still a [censored].

 Written by: robnunchucks


mr majestik my point would be why do they have to be useing the other reasons as an excuse. couldn't they be genuienly concerned about the fact iran is potentaly developing nukes. and that may be the main reason they want to invade. the fact that it will help the US ecconmy is also a reason that simply sweetens the deal.

 Written by: Yell fire!


It's funny and ridiculous how the immediate neighbours of Iran, i.e., Russia, China, India, Pakistan, Iraq and the Gulf States have shown zero concern about Iran's nuclear programme.

 Written by: Preseident Ahmadinejad

Israel must be wiped off the map

 Written by: Preseident Ahmadinejad

the annihilation of the Zionist regime will come

 Written by: Preseident Ahmadinejad

Anyone who signs a treaty which recognises the entity of Israel means he has signed the surrender of the Muslim world

 Written by: faithinfire


just asking-hasn't iran made comments that could be considered threats at the US and Britian? if so, have they made these comments to other surrounding countries?
if so, wouldn't they make these comments because of the distance, cause if they made them to China, China could just go over and squash them quickly and easily?

 Written by: Yell fire!




As for China, I can't see Iran ever having a problem with them because China has a very civilised policy of non-interference, unlike the US and UK.

 Written by: onewheeldave


While I'm not disputing Chinas lack of interest in interfering with Iran, I would question whether that's due to a 'very civilised policy of non-interference' because such a policy was not evident when China invaded Tibet and attempted to wipe out an entire culture by violent means.

 Written by: spudmonkey


but in all fairness man dont believe everything you read on wickipedia after all i could have wrote that entry and im addicted to lsd

Tibetans living under slavery during Dalai Lama rule is historical fact documented in many places other than Wickipedia, maybe if I get really bored I'll post more reliable references.

Nike shoes being made out of Tibetan pricks on the other hand sounds like a really bad acid trip!