Another power struggle over oil?

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by diamond geezer, Feb 25, 2004.

  1. diamond geezer macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2004
    #1
    http://www.janes.com/regional_news/europe/news/fr/fr040129_1_n.shtml

     
  2. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #2
    very interesting. i'll need to have a look at a map to see where that pipeline will run.

    i was in istanbul about 10 years ago. the bosphorus is pretty darn wide. it was "full" of ships, but they weren't at all stacked on top of each other.

    i agree that it's a political ploy. i wonder how much influence the US is having on that ploy.
     
  3. Desertrat macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #3
    Yeah, even a flat map of the world helps to try and understand what's going on, and why.

    Quite a few places lack stable governments, and achieving them is a strong desire in many other places than the White House.

    Political unrest has screwed up oil production in Venezuela and Colombia. East to west arcross Afghanistan is a major pipeline route, and pipelining through the Balkans is the only real reason we got involved in that mess.

    I imagine a lot of scrambling is going on to develop Caspian Sea oil and also other sources, given the fears that the Saudi regime might crumble...

    'Rat
     
  4. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #4
    The other reason we got involved in the Balkans is that the conflict threatened to spill over into neighboring countries -- in particular, Greece.
     
  5. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #5
    Oh, that's right; but we went into Iraq for purely humanitarian reasons, no?
     
  6. Desertrat macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #6
    "Oh, that's right; but we went into Iraq for purely humanitarian reasons, no?"

    The problem word is "purely". My answer, natch, is "Of course not." Saddam provided a wonderful multi-reason argument for our going in. Brutality on the one hand, and oil on the other.

    Every now and then I wonder what would happen if those governments and oil companies which meddle in mideastern governments and their own oil dealings, just quit. Just let whatever happens happen. I play this "what if" stuff a lot.

    What if we hadn't done anything about Kuwait in Gulf War I? What if we'd left Saddam alone? What would have happened to Saudi Arabia, between the Al Qaeda hostility and Saddam's future dreams of Kingship? What would Iran have done, insofar as its export of its religious fervor?

    Or, what if we hadn't gone into Afghanistan? Or Iraq, now?

    What if pipeline crews couldn't complete the projects, or oil couldn't continue to flow without sabotage?

    Were oil to hit $100 a barrel, what would our own economy do? Or Europe's or Japan's?

    I have speculations, but no real answers. I do know that we need the awl-bidness folks an awful lot, whether or not we like how they operate. And for way too many folks, the availability of oil and its byproducts means food on the table...

    'Rat
     

Share This Page