It's simply about the oil

Earlier this morning, in Syria, the US backed Kurdish forces (SDF) entered and are attempting to take a large Syrian Oil field, the "Al-Omar field", adjacent to the Euphrates River.

SDF also captured the the al-Izba gas earlier this weekend. Said field was operated by Conoco before Daesh took that field in 2014. Wait a min, Conoco? Hmmm. Why does the idea of corporate sponsored war come to mind.

Anyone want to bet against the idea that the Euphrates River becomes a US enforced demarcation line between the Syrians and Kurds? (US and Russia). Hmm, I wonder who's going to buy the oil (and gas)?

https://www.apnews.com/4f2465bb92304...-field-from-IS

OK guys, the question is will the Euphrates become a demarcation line.
Thus, insults against other eccie members must be posted in Russian, and they need to be good insults.

Btw, Conoco's battle flag:
.

Historically, the territorial "wars" in that part of the world have been about water access .... You did mention the Euphrates didn't you?

If you're in the Middle East that would be the only "simple" thing there.

The U.S. now has a base in Israel. So much for saber rattling.

Or do you prefer ... "sabre"?

How ISIS is funded by black-market oil trading, illegal drugs and internet cafes

The Islamic State is being funded by black-market oil trading, illegal drugs and internet cafes, a local activist group has claimed.

(Daily Mail)

/

HOW DOES ISIS FUND ITS REIGN OF TERROR?

ISIS has taken oil fields from ... the government ... They are believed to control hundreds of wells, an important source of income for ISIS and depriving Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's government of a major source of income.

(Newsweek)

Self-funded and deep-rooted: How ISIS makes its millions

As ISIS fighters expand their control, it is in the border region, in villages like Besaslan, where the Islamic State group can make some of the money it needs to finance its wars. Oil-smuggling operations involving millions of barrels have recently been uncovered.

The oil comes from wells and refineries that ISIS has taken over inside northern Iraq and northern Syria, and until very recently it was easy to smuggle it into this quiet part of southern Turkey. One reason is that cheap, smuggled oil is a much-prized commodity in Turkey, where oil is so expensive that it almost doesn't matter who is selling it, even if it's your enemy.

(CNN)

Struggling to Starve ISIS of Oil Revenue, U.S. Seeks Assistance From Turkey

WASHINGTON — The Odumbo administration is struggling to cut off the millions of dollars in oil revenue that has made the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria one of the wealthiest terror groups in history ...

(NYT)

Good to see you guys up this early.
Interesting that the two posts already are both valid.

For LL,
Both sword words are correct and are used inter-changeably. For curved vs straight blades, there are different methods of use.
And although Xenophon preferred a curved blade for his cavalry, he also had them carry spears.

Value of Water vs. Oil is an interesting question.
The answer lies in point of view.
The folks financing the war are interested in the oil/gas.
The local, perhaps regional folks may/should be more interested in the water but they'll take the money for oil & gas, even though there are water issues there.

Value of Water vs. Oil is an interesting question.
The answer lies in point of view. Originally Posted by Unique_Carpenter

My point of view is historically ..

... as it relates to nations surviving in an arid region.

... as "opposed" to short-sighted terrorists.

The Saudis are beginning to see the relevance and comparitive differences.

The Israelis did long ago (before you and this country were born!)

Hmmm. Why does the idea of corporate sponsored war come to mind... Hmm, I wonder who's going to buy the oil (and gas)? Originally Posted by Unique_Carpenter

Yawn. I get so bored with these ignorant, anti-capitalist simpletons who always think US foreign policy is a conspiracy to drive up oil company profits. Why bother analyzing all of the myriad, complex factors behind our foreign policy when you can boil it all down to a stupid myth - "it's all about the oil".

Hey carpenter, your thinking is not very "unique" and it's easily refuted. For all the blood and treasure we spilled in Iraq, we never commandeered their oil fields or took their resources to repay ourselves. To the victor go the spoils - not! Guess who snatched up most of the big Iraqi oil concessions when they were opened up to competitive foreign bidding - the Chinese! It's only a slight exaggeration to say our warships now patrol the Persian Gulf/Straits of Hormuz to keep oil flowing to... China!

Hmmm... I guess you need to develop a more sophisticated, non-Marxist understanding of history. "It's all about the oil" doesn't cut it!

By the way, Iraq has huge oil reserves, while Syria has tiny ones.

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2013/06/0...-oil-boom.html

Lusty,

I didn't actually say company profits. My Conoco thing was a slap at Conoco for something else that's hacking folks off.

But, for Iraq, here's a US Gov chart, from the Energy Dept that shows zero oil from Iraq to the US in the mid90s, but over 200,000,000 barrels a few years after that fun, tapering off but still well over 100,000,000 barrels in 2016.

https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/Le...s=mttimiz1&f=a

What I find amusing is the amount of none researched бессмыслица (nonsense) you guys put up sometimes.

I haven't seen any dinosaurs around lately, thus, control over a finite resource to benefit one group of people is something that causes bullets (or spears) to fly. Arguments and wars over tribal resources and grounds have been going on for thousands of years. Why would it stop?

Btw, the current Syrian wars, yes plural due to multiple factions, remind me of the Ndwandwe–Zulu wars of the early 1800's with which I'm well acquainted. Interesting that British battle formation tactics were used by the Zulus. This degenerated into multiple tribes being involved, although the Zulu's prevailed and later went against the Brits. Of course the concept of military advisers also dates back thousands of years. Why do you think Mercenary's hire themselves out?

Good to see you guys up this early.
Interesting that the two posts already are both valid.

For LL,
Both sword words are correct and are used inter-changeably. For curved vs straight blades, there are different methods of use.
And although Xenophon preferred a curved blade for his cavalry, he also had them carry spears.

Value of Water vs. Oil is an interesting question.
The answer lies in point of view.
The folks financing the war are interested in the oil/gas.
The local, perhaps regional folks may/should be more interested in the water but they'll take the money for oil & gas, even though there are water issues there. Originally Posted by Unique_Carpenter

To correct you, a saber(sabre) is a curved blade used for slashing usually from a mounted position. Don't forget camels. A straight bladed weapon can be a sword, an epee, a foil, a rifle bayonet (1600-1900), a short sword, but is usually not called a saber. This a western definition. The middle east has the curved scimitar and the far east has the katana or samurai sword.

As Tony Montana said....."first you get money, then you get the power, and then you get the women".

Change it a tad......."first you get the money, (oil), then you get the power, and then you can buy all the water you need"

To correct you, a saber(sabre) is a curved blade used for slashing usually from a mounted position. Don't forget camels. A straight bladed weapon can be a sword, an epee, a foil, a rifle bayonet (1600-1900), a short sword, but is usually not called a saber. This a western definition. The middle east has the curved scimitar and the far east has the katana or samurai sword. Originally Posted by the_real_Barleycorn

Bc,
Actually, the US Army is quite proud (was and still is) of its Model 1913 straight saber designed by Lt. Patton (yes later a general).

I know I don't post in this forum much, but I would think the things I do post on, would clue you guys in, that I know a fair bit on military history. How many of you guys are aware that Patton taught swordsmanship at Fort Riley, KS?

Hey carpenter, your thinking is not very "unique" and it's easily refuted. For all the blood and treasure we spilled in Iraq, we never commandeered their oil fields or took their resources to repay ourselves. To the victor go the spoils - not! Guess who snatched up most of the big Iraqi oil concessions when they were opened up to competitive foreign bidding - the Chinese! It's only a slight exaggeration to say our warships now patrol the Persian Gulf/Straits of Hormuz to keep oil flowing to... China! Originally Posted by lustylad

It will be just fine as long as they are paying for it in US dollars, lassie.


http://pubtheo.com/page.asp?pid=1181

It will be just fine as long as they are paying for it in US dollars, lassie.


http://pubtheo.com/page.asp?pid=1181 Originally Posted by andymarksman

Hahahaha... little nazi boy is back! And jumping right in on another topic that is way over his head!

Lemme get this straight - so you believe the US invaded Iraq back in 2003 in order to stop OPEC and other oil exporters from switching to payment in Euros instead of dollars? Seriously?

The OP is new to me, and I may have over-hastily misjudged his intellectual depth. But not yours, little nazi boy!

As Tony Montana said....."first you get money, then you get the power, and then you get the women".

Change it a tad......."first you get the money, (oil), then you get the power, and then you can buy all the water you need" Originally Posted by Jackie S

... not in the Middle East. The Israelis almost perfected the saline conversion system and "re-invented" the "cherry tomato" to accommodate the growing process in that environment. Using "salty water" for irrigation?

Tribes and agrarian economies depended on their access to water. Controlling the "water" was power. Do you recall how important it was for the dams in Iraq not to be blown?

Duplicate Edit

... agrarian economies depended on their access to water. Controlling the "water" was power. Do you recall how important it was for the dams in Iraq not to be blown? Originally Posted by LexusLover

Exactly. And, access to the Jordan river is why the Israelis will never cede control over the West Bank. And also why the 94 treaty line was placed on the river. Btw, the treaty contained a water rights agreement with Jordan that covered other water issues as well.

And for the US, we are so dependent on oil, that the US "supports" friendly governments that will make "reasonable" business deals with the US.