Tuesday, October 24, 2006

"No Blood for Oil" - The Cliff's Notes

It happens.

You’re at a party. (And by party we mean 8 of you in a basement playing beer pong and drinking shots of Jaeger.) People are drunk. (And by drunk we mean puking in Skelly’s hair.) They start talking about politics. (And by talking, we mean yelling. Especially us.)

Then someone drops it. “The Iraq war is all about oil.”

Now, as you know, we here at the Awkward Toad have no political affiliation. We have no beliefs, doctrines, or ideals, outside of being really awkward and really toad.

We did, however, put together something we are referring to as the “No Blood for Oil” Cliffs Notes.

It is a quick synopsis of the Western-oil-domination theory and the history surrounding it.

Read it.

And next time your party is threatened by an “Iraq War argument”…

...you can put the liberal hippie douche in his place...

...or show the ignorant red-neck asshole how dumb he is...

...or impress a drunk girl or guy with how smart you are...

...or shut everyone up so you can get back to the beer pong game and run the table. (Unless we're playing, in which case you are toast. Toast.)

Here it is, quick and easy, just the way she tells me she likes it.

(Remember, this is not the work of a reporter, it is the work of a toad. If there are minor details that are wrong, we apologize. And we know, it is overly simplified and we aren't saying we believe it. Just that this is a brief account of the theory. Please don't write "Love it or leave it" in the comments section.)

"NO BLOOD FOR OIL" - The Cliff's Notes

In the 1950's all was well in Iran.

Unfortunately, its anti-Western leader threatened to nationalize the Iranian oil industry.

The CIA (this is not disputed by our government) engineered a revolution in Iran, overthrew Mussadeq and installed a man named Mohammed Reza Pahlevi as Shah (or King).

The Shah was much better for the U.S. He was a pro-Western, liberal ruler that encouraged free-trade. (He also consolidated wealth at the top and treated the general Iranian population like garbage. But whatever.)

In the 1970’s, the Iranian people, led by the Ayatollah Khomeini revolted against the Shah and installed an Islamic Republic. In general, they were nicer to the Iranian people, unless you were a women and wore a short skirt.

They nationalized the oil industry and cut out the United States.


In 1963 the Kassan regime in Iraq threatened to nationalize part of their oil industry.

They also were overthrown. Somehow.

Saddam Hussein’s Baathist’s party took control for good in 1968 and immediately began gassing the shit out of the Kurds in northern Iraq. (Keep in mind, this was what he was eventually put on trial for after the U.S. invasion.)

A few years after the Islamic revolution in Iran, Saddam decided it would be a good idea to go to war with them.

Somebody with a lot of available weapons (I wonder who it could be) must have agreed because he was able to carry out massive assaults on the Iraqi-Iranian border through almost the entire decade of the 80’s.

(Oh yeah, in 1982 the U.S. officially took Saddam’s Iraq off the terrorism watch list, which effectively removed trade sanctions b/n our countries. This was while he was using mustard gas and other chemical weapons.)

Iran managed to resists Saddam’s offensive and continued to develop their Islamic government.

Saddam continued to be rich and gas Kurds. He also did something he should have known better than to do. He threatened to nationalize his oil industry AND start trading oil in euros instead of dollars. (This may have been good for the Iraqi people, or at least the Iraqi people Saddam liked, but it would not have been good for other people in the world, like me.)

There is a lot of oil in Kuwait. People in Iraq believe part of Kuwait (the part with the oil) actually belongs to them. Saddam threatened to invade Kuwait.

The U.S. issued what appeared to be a statement of neutrality regarding the issue.

Saddam is supposedly on record as saying he believe the U.S. was giving him the greenlight, just as it had with his Iran invasion.

Saddam invades.

The U.S. attacks.

Operation Desert Storm. (Remember we saw it on TV. With the lights in the sky. Pretty cool.)

The U.S. beats Saddam back.

They prompt the Shiite majority of Iraq to revolt.

They revolt.

The U.S. does not back them.

They get slaughtered.

(People believe there was not enough political capital behind funding a revolution because there was too much of a chance the Shiites, if successful, would join with Iran and form a giant anti-Western Islamic republic. Perhaps part of the reason it is so damn hard to establish an Iraqi government today?)

The war ends.

The U.S. under Bill Clinton puts heavy sanctions on Iraq, which decimates the country’s population.

The U.S. government establishes No-Fly Zones in Iraq, which allows them to drop bombs on just about any target at just about any time. (Like say, for instance, the morning after you are in trouble for getting a blow job from some hot, or, well, at least young, girl.)

George W. Bush is elected President in the U.S.

A bunch of dudes from Afghanistan hijack airplanes and run them into the WTC.

Saudi Arabia, for the first time, begins bowing to outside Islamic influence.

The United States invades Iraq and arrests Saddam Hussein.

So, the theory goes that there was a long term strategy to neutralize Iraq so the U.S. could topple Saddam and set up a pro Western government that would allow free trade and perhaps break apart the beguiling Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC).

The events of 9/11 sped up a plan that was already in place. Anytime a nation in the Middle East threatens to nationalize their oil industry we respond with force. That's the theory.


At 2:58 PM, Blogger SMangat said...

"Somebody with a lot of available weapons (I wonder who it could be) must have agreed because he was able to carry out massive assaults on the Iraqi-Iranian border through almost the entire decade of the 80’s."
--This could've been the Israelis or the Russians. Both had/have a ton of weapons. This would keep Iranian heat off the Jews and a focus and Iraq. The Reds were having problems in Afghanistan with the mujahadeen (Osama) who were def funded by the Americanos and perhaps funded by the Iranians. The Russkies, don't forget, bordered Iran at the time to the northeast and northwest. Just an idea, but never, ever trust the Russians. They have facist/autocratic tendencies now and their past has little to give anyone a reason to trust them. Ask Neil.

"Saudi Arabia, for the first time, begins bowing to outside Islamic influence."
--The Saudis are kinda weird in terms of Islam b/c I think that they're Wahabbist which is some weird shit that I can't remember about. Don't forget that lots of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudis as is Osama. The Saud Royal Family only cares about money and staying in power so they may sway a bit but they are not going to bow to Islamic pressure. Their citizens may, but not the government. Also, it's doubtful that Iran will unite the Islamic world very well b/c not many trust them. Iranians are Persians not Arabs to begin with. If you think the people of that region are intolerant about inter-religious differences (Sunni/Shia/Wahabbi), just imagine their racial intolerance (ie - Kurdish, Armenian, Hazara massacres/pogroms) Also Iran is big and the surrounding countries don't want Iran come to dominate the region with all its people, power (perhaps soon-10yrs-to be nuclear) and money.

just don't forget not to trust the Russians


Post a Comment

<< Home