I dont understand....

[ZANDOLIE]

what are those concerns

Al Qaeda... and before that Islamic fundamentalism fomented by Iran... and before that the Soviet Union.  Not to mention Israel.  Need more?

... but of course, "oil" is the sexy topic.

As usual you have absolutely no clue of what you are talking about. Oil has and always will be the story of the middle east in the 20th century. What fuelled the rise of the Al Quaeda? Islamic fundamentalism? Argue with intelligence not lame cliches about sexy oil.

One of the very first, if not THE first, operations of the CIA around 1954 was a fake anti-islamic campaign WITHIN IRAN complete with pamphlets, fake political parties, and the firebombing of the house of a highly ranked Islamic cleric by CIA operatives posing as government agents in an effort to convince the religious community that the democratically elected government of Prime Minister Mossadegh were turning against them. This directly led to the overthrow of the Prime Minister and the empowerment of the Shah, who went on to brutally crush dissent in Iran, iespecially those expressing strong conservative religious conviction.

What was the reason for this action by the CIA? because Mossadgh was threatening to nationalize the assets of British Petroleum in Iran and the British and the Americans obviously had vested corporate interests in maintaing control of Iran's energy supplies. The same British Petroleum that spun-off into Talisman energy that was alleged to have been involved in genocide in South Sudan. That same Talisman I believe is now operating in libya. Sickening. That the coup occured around 1954 places defines it as an imperialist/colonialist act, no different to what the British and French had been doing around the world for years. Are you a supporter of British colonialism as well, because I can't see much difference.

Leap forward to 26-or so brutal years under the Shah years to 1980.  Now wonder why the Islamic clerics, who suffered under the hand of the Shah were inflamed into religious fervour at the exploitation of their energy resources, the crushing of dissent, and the continued presence of the colonial powers in their country? Wonder why these same people would go on to call the united States the great satan?

If Iran plotted the overthrow of President Obama and installed a puppet who placed caps on dissent and religious freedom would you be talking the same apologist nonsense about 'harsh realities' of international politics?

[Bakes]

...and you are completely minimizing the role that non-petrochemical concerns play in driving US and to a lesser extent, Western foreign policy as it concerns the Middle East.  And no, I'm not talking about Israel either.

Yep, you're right... it's all about oil, nothing else.  I have absolutely no clue about what I'm am talking, and stand humbly chastised.

[pecan]

Zando, western hypocrisy is alive and well but not restricted to the Harper government or Canadian institutions. I know that you said 'Western' but to single out the Harper Government is not entirely fair. The liberals conveniently ignored Gaddafi when they were in power. At least better late than never.  Harper had no choice but to act publicly given recent public events.  The Liberals would have done the same thing if they were in power.

Btw: in 2010, Canada exported $246 million (vehicles, aircraft, machinery) and imported $24.6 million (chemicals) to/from Libya.  In contrast, the US exported $665 million but imported $2.1 billion (oil and energy). Trade often trumps human rights.

Yes placing blame along party lines is not fair. however my contention is that Harper himself stated that the reason for taking these actions was that the first priority of a government was 'the security and saftey of its citizens'. Yet he left all those Canadians, 'his own people', stranded in Libya forced to hitch a ride outta dey via other nations transport planes and ships. Some of them had to flee the country by their own hand. What kind of piece of sh*t leaves their own behind like that?

Now he sending JTF...obviously his FIRST priority is the protection of the assets of Suncorp, SNC and other Canadian companies operating in Libya, not the prorection of his citizens. I believe Talisman Energy is in there as well. I'm sure I don't have to tell you particular details about Talisman's long history of expoitation and violence, first as a spin-off of British Petroleum and then allegations by a Christian Church in Sudan that Talisman purchased arms used by Khartoum to commit genocide on the Southern Sudanese people.

Zando you are more in tune with the machinations of international politics than I am so I cant really address your arguments regarding the political and trade nuances.  Nevertheless, as I can only infer that that you have a strong dislike for Harper.  All I know is that they sent a plane and the plane had to leave empty because no Canadians were at the airport. It is so easy to criticize a government for failing to act expediently in the face of a crisis especially when you dislike said government.

What about the responsibility of the Cdn citizens for their own welfare in Libya?  I don't think anyone forced them to go work there.  Knowing the regime of the country they chose to live and work in, they they have a responsibility to ensure they have a plan to vacate given unrest.  The bottom line is that everyone got careless and mistook the last 40 years of Gaddafi rule as an indicator of a stable nation. They, the companies they work for and the government ultimately share the responsibility to allow them to be extracted from a dangerous situation.

Harper only doing what another politician would do in his position. Are there any nations in the history of civilization  that never furthered its own agenda at the expense of others? I think they are far and few between.  That is an inherent and nasty characteristic of humans in power, regardless of the nation they belong too.  If the shoe was on they other foot, all those nations that were the victims of colonialism would look no different that the Brits, American etc.

[supporter]

We are seeing a wave for change in North Africa from Tunisia,Egypt and soon to be Libya...with Yemen, Saudi,Bahrain and Iran knocking closeby.....


Although I agree a leader shouldnt have control for 40 years......


We are seeing Western pressure to get rid of their leaders whom they refer to as Dictators. Is it me or is this Western Imperialism at its finest.......

Will we see the same of Chavez, Castro and Kim Jung Il before the year is over?

It is Western Imperialism....peep this:

Obama wants Gadaffi to step down because his country is protesting and wants him out, yet Obama himself will never stand down when tea party people protest and want him out in America.

It is nothing more than Western hypocrisy.

 If they want Obama out they could just vote.  They don't have to rebel like in Libya or other places. 

Not everybody can vote.

If I lived in America even if I was born there they wouldnt allow me to vote based on my age...That isnt any different from the authoritarian dictatorship Gadaffi has.

Please stop talking shit

[truetrini]

what are those concerns

Al Qaeda... and before that Islamic fundamentalism fomented by Iran... and before that the Soviet Union.  Not to mention Israel.  Need more?

... but of course, "oil" is the sexy topic.

As usual you have absolutely no clue of what you are talking about. Oil has and always will be the story of the middle east in the 20th century. What fuelled the rise of the Al Quaeda? Islamic fundamentalism? Argue with intelligence not lame cliches about sexy oil.

One of the very first, if not THE first, operations of the CIA around 1954 was a fake anti-islamic campaign WITHIN IRAN complete with pamphlets, fake political parties, and the firebombing of the house of a highly ranked Islamic cleric by CIA operatives posing as government agents in an effort to convince the religious community that the democratically elected government of Prime Minister Mossadegh were turning against them. This directly led to the overthrow of the Prime Minister and the empowerment of the Shah, who went on to brutally crush dissent in Iran, iespecially those expressing strong conservative religious conviction.

What was the reason for this action by the CIA? because Mossadgh was threatening to nationalize the assets of British Petroleum in Iran and the British and the Americans obviously had vested corporate interests in maintaing control of Iran's energy supplies. The same British Petroleum that spun-off into Talisman energy that was alleged to have been involved in genocide in South Sudan. That same Talisman I believe is now operating in libya. Sickening. That the coup occured around 1954 places defines it as an imperialist/colonialist act, no different to what the British and French had been doing around the world for years. Are you a supporter of British colonialism as well, because I can't see much difference.

Leap forward to 26-or so brutal years under the Shah years to 1980.  Now wonder why the Islamic clerics, who suffered under the hand of the Shah were inflamed into religious fervour at the exploitation of their energy resources, the crushing of dissent, and the continued presence of the colonial powers in their country? Wonder why these same people would go on to call the united States the great satan?

If Iran plotted the overthrow of President Obama and installed a puppet who placed caps on dissent and religious freedom would you be talking the same apologist nonsense about 'harsh realities' of international politics?

Zando yuh think dis is what drove the attempted ouster of Chavez?  After he nationalized all oil in Venezuela?  Exxon suing him to this day for billions.

[ZANDOLIE]

Zando yuh think dis is what drove the attempted ouster of Chavez?  After he nationalized all oil in Venezuela?  Exxon suing him to this day for billions.

I don't know the extent of U.S./Western involvement in the coup attempt. But he obviously was/is one of the most vocal critics of  U.S. policy. Given the long and interesting history of U.S./Latin Affairs and his political bent, its easy to understand some of his criticisms. But I think he goes too far by cuddling up with any and every despot that expresses similar sentiments. He tight with Ghaddfi and gives China a starring role in Venezuela's industrial sector but is quick to criticise the U.S. on some of its historical paternalist/hemogenist leanings and support in quashing democratic and agricultural reforms.

I also think he is a hawk when its comes to geo-political activsm in calling for tighter OPEC supply in order to advance his anti-imperialist agenda around the world, another reason why the U.S. may want to be rid of him. Interestingly he is at opposite ends of the spectrum with none other than King Abdullah. So nationalization of energy assests could be only the tip of the iceberg with Chavez. 

[mukumsplau]

cameroon may be next...my brother works across there and said things may get sticky real soon...

[ribbit]

I also think he is a hawk when its comes to geo-political activsm in calling for tighter OPEC supply in order to advance his anti-imperialist agenda around the world, another reason why the U.S. may want to be rid of him. Interestingly he is at opposite ends of the spectrum with none other than King Abdullah. So nationalization of energy assests could be only the tip of the iceberg with Chavez. 

zando, this has to do with oil production costs more than agendas. venezuela has a heavier oil that costs more to refine so they need a higher price. saudi oil has relatively low production costs.

[ZANDOLIE]

I also think he is a hawk when its comes to geo-political activsm in calling for tighter OPEC supply in order to advance his anti-imperialist agenda around the world, another reason why the U.S. may want to be rid of him. Interestingly he is at opposite ends of the spectrum with none other than King Abdullah. So nationalization of energy assests could be only the tip of the iceberg with Chavez. 

zando, this has to do with oil production costs more than agendas. venezuela has a heavier oil that costs more to refine so they need a higher price. saudi oil has relatively low production costs.

Chavez has consistently formed alliances within OPEC with Iran and Libya and has publicly stated that he wishes to use oil as an anti imperialist tool, specifically against the United States. Not just on price alone, but opening up strategic alliances with China and the developing world. Remember the price of oil dropped as low as $13/barrel just ten or so years ago and then rose to record breaking highs. And some analysts are calling for $150-200 oil in the forseeable future.  Beside the advent of the BRIC as a powerful source of demand, a significant factor in that rise is the aggressive stance of OPEC's more hawkish members, led predominantly by Venezuela and Iran. And Chavez has decreased exports to the West and increased export to China tenfold in the last 6-7 years.

Clearly, steeper production costs are not the sole factor in $100++ oil....

Why do you think he is an icon of evil in the United States? Because he is socialist? Bolivia, Brazil etc. were/are being led by leaders of that inclination during Chavez's tenure, so that is obviously not the case. Morales is perhaps even more lefty than Chavez.

Saudi Arabia on the other hand has consistently adopted a concilliatory tone with regard to
production limits, its strategic alliances etc. It is NOT just price. Its a tangible difference in philosphy...its most telling that while Chavez lauds the use of oil as a weapon, King Abdullah stated that the primary purpose of oil production should not serve geo-political interests but increase the wealth of the state. IMO two very opposing views, one content with hegemony in world affairs and the other insisting on, as Chavez calls it...a multipolar world...organized around OPEC, Mercado del Sur and other trade blocs that level the historical inequties between the West and the South Hemisphere.






 

[truetrini]

I also think he is a hawk when its comes to geo-political activsm in calling for tighter OPEC supply in order to advance his anti-imperialist agenda around the world, another reason why the U.S. may want to be rid of him. Interestingly he is at opposite ends of the spectrum with none other than King Abdullah. So nationalization of energy assests could be only the tip of the iceberg with Chavez. 

zando, this has to do with oil production costs more than agendas. venezuela has a heavier oil that costs more to refine so they need a higher price. saudi oil has relatively low production costs.

Venezuela has many grades of oil..Mesa is lighter than Merey 16 which is a very heavy sour crude...however, Venezuela also blends crude like Hamaca 26 which is  lighter than even Mesa.

Chavez did exactly what PM  Mossadgh of Iran wanted to do.  He nationalized oil and that has led to huge lawsuits from mulitnationals..Exxon has sued Venezuela in holland, UK and US courts cuz dey lost oil contracts there.

also, the oil is easier to get to as it is shallower than lighter crude but any benefits are offset due to refinng costs...heavy oils such as vene oil is discounted due to high sulfur content

[ribbit]

I also think he is a hawk when its comes to geo-political activsm in calling for tighter OPEC supply in order to advance his anti-imperialist agenda around the world, another reason why the U.S. may want to be rid of him. Interestingly he is at opposite ends of the spectrum with none other than King Abdullah. So nationalization of energy assests could be only the tip of the iceberg with Chavez. 

zando, this has to do with oil production costs more than agendas. venezuela has a heavier oil that costs more to refine so they need a higher price. saudi oil has relatively low production costs.

Chavez has consistently formed alliances within OPEC with Iran and Libya and has publicly stated that he wishes to use oil as an anti imperialist tool, specifically against the United States. Not just on price alone, but opening up strategic alliances with China and the developing world. Remember the price of oil dropped as low as $13/barrel just ten or so years ago and then rose to record breaking highs. And some analysts are calling for $150-200 oil in the forseeable future.  Beside the advent of the BRIC as a powerful source of demand, a significant factor in that rise is the aggressive stance of OPEC's more hawkish members, led predominantly by Venezuela and Iran. And Chavez has decreased exports to the West and increased export to China tenfold in the last 6-7 years.

Clearly, steeper production costs are not the sole factor in $100++ oil....

Why do you think he is an icon of evil in the United States? Because he is socialist? Bolivia, Brazil etc. were/are being led by leaders of that inclination during Chavez's tenure, so that is obviously not the case. Morales is perhaps even more lefty than Chavez.

Saudi Arabia on the other hand has consistently adopted a concilliatory tone with regard to
production limits, its strategic alliances etc. It is NOT just price. Its a tangible difference in philosphy...its most telling that while Chavez lauds the use of oil as a weapon, King Abdullah stated that the primary purpose of oil production should not serve geo-political interests but increase the wealth of the state. IMO two very opposing views, one content with hegemony in world affairs and the other insisting on, as Chavez calls it...a multipolar world...organized around OPEC, Mercado del Sur and other trade blocs that level the historical inequties between the West and the South Hemisphere.

zando, fact is EVERY developing nation have a relationship with china in today's world. chavez eh doing anything different from other developing nations. china is the global driver for growth in the developing world and have money for investment. the larger point i'm trying to make is that practical considerations are at the heart of the apparent ideology, not the other way around.

btw: abdullah's talk doh line up with he actions so much. they have a real demographic problem in de middle east - alot of unemployed youth getting state handouts - look more like social pacification than social investment.

[ZANDOLIE]

zando, fact is EVERY developing nation have a relationship with china in today's world. chavez eh doing anything different from other developing nations. china is the global driver for growth in the developing world and have money for investment. the larger point i'm trying to make is that practical considerations are at the heart of the apparent ideology, not the other way around.

btw: abdullah's talk doh line up with he actions so much. they have a real demographic problem in de middle east - alot of unemployed youth getting state handouts - look more like social pacification than social investment.

With all due respect, ‘practical considerations’ is a catch-all phrase that is simultaneously overarching and completely devoid of meaning. I take it you mean economic and to some extent security gain, but it can also be used to describe almost any accrued benefits.

My point here is that conflict within OPEC is not solely the result of disagreements over price levels, i.e. revenues. The new tone of discussion we are hearing from OPEC that they are concerned only with the business of oil production comes mainly from the Saud camp…take that for what it is. The reality is that levels of extraction, production, distribution (supply), and therefore price, are also driven by geo-political considerations, and contrasts in geo-political considerations that can affect these factors, and therefore price, is most discernable in the positions of Saudi Arabia and the Venezuela/Libya/Iran bloc

Saudi Policy: Maintain stability, manage risk, sustain demand in the face of non-OPEC competition, maintain Saudi Arabia’s global market share, act as a buffer against conservative Shia fiscal policies especially in Iran, stabilize the U.S. dollar, increase the wealth of individual Saudis. …..As one Saudi avisor put it “OPEC has to do with oil; it cannot solve the world's problems with a political agenda. It would be putting its bread and butter at risk.''

Venezuelan policy: Actively recruit non-OPEC nations to OPEC, more emphasis on inter OPEC cooperation and formation of mutally beneficial OPEC/non-OPEC trade blocs in developing nations, less emphasis on competitiveness of each state in maintaining market share, use OPEC as a pulpit to call for the U.S. dollar to replaced by a basket of currencies and derivatives as the worlds reserve currency, enhance wealth of global citizenry at large. Best summarized by the old mantra…A rising tide lifts all boats.


If practical considerations drive the production and distribution of petrochemicals and derivatives then why all the baccanal?? Surely the Saudis have a good thing going on with 10,000,000 barrels of oil a day @ $100/barrel yes?  Why don't they just kick back and drink rum and chase women all day? Why the need for the 'social pacification' of the youth as you say? Why does the Saudi aristocracy say one thing in public and then finance insurgency against the Western world particularly the United States, with the same money that the U.S. pumps into their economies?

The old conception about economics being solely at the heart of everything should have been tossed into the toilet right after 911.

[Pointman]

We are seeing a wave for change in North Africa from Tunisia,Egypt and soon to be Libya...with Yemen, Saudi,Bahrain and Iran knocking closeby.....


Although I agree a leader shouldnt have control for 40 years......


We are seeing Western pressure to get rid of their leaders whom they refer to as Dictators. Is it me or is this Western Imperialism at its finest.......

Will we see the same of Chavez, Castro and Kim Jung Il before the year is over?

It is Western Imperialism....peep this:

Obama wants Gadaffi to step down because his country is protesting and wants him out, yet Obama himself will never stand down when tea party people protest and want him out in America.

It is nothing more than Western hypocrisy.

Is that the same thing??? 

[ribbit]

zando, fact is EVERY developing nation have a relationship with china in today's world. chavez eh doing anything different from other developing nations. china is the global driver for growth in the developing world and have money for investment. the larger point i'm trying to make is that practical considerations are at the heart of the apparent ideology, not the other way around.

btw: abdullah's talk doh line up with he actions so much. they have a real demographic problem in de middle east - alot of unemployed youth getting state handouts - look more like social pacification than social investment.

With all due respect, ‘practical considerations’ is a catch-all phrase that is simultaneously overarching and completely devoid of meaning. I take it you mean economic and to some extent security gain, but it can also be used to describe almost any accrued benefits.

My point here is that conflict within OPEC is not solely the result of disagreements over price levels, i.e. revenues. The new tone of discussion we are hearing from OPEC that they are concerned only with the business of oil production comes mainly from the Saud camp…take that for what it is. The reality is that levels of extraction, production, distribution (supply), and therefore price, are also driven by geo-political considerations, and contrasts in geo-political considerations that can affect these factors, and therefore price, is most discernable in the positions of Saudi Arabia and the Venezuela/Libya/Iran bloc

Saudi Policy: Maintain stability, manage risk, sustain demand in the face of non-OPEC competition, maintain Saudi Arabia’s global market share, act as a buffer against conservative Shia fiscal policies especially in Iran, stabilize the U.S. dollar, increase the wealth of individual Saudis. …..As one Saudi avisor put it “OPEC has to do with oil; it cannot solve the world's problems with a political agenda. It would be putting its bread and butter at risk.''

Venezuelan policy: Actively recruit non-OPEC nations to OPEC, more emphasis on inter OPEC cooperation and formation of mutally beneficial OPEC/non-OPEC trade blocs in developing nations, less emphasis on competitiveness of each state in maintaining market share, use OPEC as a pulpit to call for the U.S. dollar to replaced by a basket of currencies and derivatives as the worlds reserve currency, enhance wealth of global citizenry at large. Best summarized by the old mantra…A rising tide lifts all boats.


If practical considerations drive the production and distribution of petrochemicals and derivatives then why all the baccanal?? Surely the Saudis have a good thing going on with 10,000,000 barrels of oil a day @ $100/barrel yes?  Why don't they just kick back and drink rum and chase women all day? Why the need for the 'social pacification' of the youth as you say? Why does the Saudi aristocracy say one thing in public and then finance insurgency against the Western world particularly the United States, with the same money that the U.S. pumps into their economies?
The old conception about economics being solely at the heart of everything should have been tossed into the toilet right after 911.

first thing by "practical considerations" ah mean a pragmatism has become the way to manage/govern in these times. unlike the beginning of the last decade (i.e. post 9/11) which was marked by sharp ideological contrast (jihad vs neoconservatism), this decade has been dominated by a financial reckoning grounded in economic common sense (for instance: you should not loan money to people who are broke to buy house). economics eh dead.

second, the saudi govt have a demographic problem which they cannot afford to ignore. there is a huge gap in unemployed male youth and jobs which is a recipe for social upheaval (something like 10 million jobs short of what is required in the sunni-dominated middle east as a whole). the demographics been known for decades and de saudis eh do much about it. other places (c.f. africa) with similar male youth/job gaps have descended into civil war.

[rotatopoti3]

where brother Chavez in all ah dis...he on holidays??