[Grovenet] New to me.

Fri Aug 4 16:14:47 PDT 2006

Hmmm... Britain did what Britain felt they had to do when they were the ONLY
ones facing the Nazis. (We in America were still 'neutral' with a large
number of people openly in support of Hitler during the first terrifying and
brutal years of the war in England). The British went to the Arabs and said
that if they'd side with them in helping to keep the Germans from getting
the middle eastern oil, they'd ensure a free, Arab Palestine after the war
was won. 

Then they went to the Jews and told them that they'd ensure a sovereign
Jewish state in Palestine if they'd help battle the Germans and keep them
away from middle eastern oil. 

Both sides did their part, and one of the reasons we didn't have to fight
Hitler on our eastern seaboard and the war didn't last into the 1950's was
that he couldn't get to the middle eastern oil. 

After the war both the Arabs and the Jews asked the British to pay up: give
them their free reign over all of Palestine. 

It's never nice when the check comes and one doesn't have the money to pay.
At that time the British sided with the Arabs. After all, they controlled
the oil. The British tried to keep the Jews out of Palestine. There was a
flood of Jews headed that way because many of them had heard about the deal
and they no longer had any homes in Europe and many of them had no families
left either. A strong influx of Jews had migrated to Palestine ever since
the late 1800's when Jews fled the pogroms in Russia. 

A old friend of mine was a teenager when he escaped the German camps at the
end of the war and snuck into Palestine around the British blockade. Then he
fought against the British, and later fought against the Arabs after
independence. He was a tank commander in the six-days war and now his kids,
girls, have each fought in combat against the Arabs at one time or another.

And arrogant bunch? You bet! I'm surprised at their ability to control
themselves after they have all lost close families to the idiot politicians
who allowed them to be gassed 'just because' and then who betrayed them in
war and now they've lived for decades surrounded by countries who openly
claim that all Jews must die and that there should be on Jewish state. 

I wonder how we'd react if Mexico or Canada went on public record as saying
that their national purpose was to kill every American and see the United
States wiped off of the face of the earth? 

That's what the people of Israel have lived with for decades.

9/11 was the obvious cumulative effect of American foreign policy for
decades, as will be all the future 9/11's we face.

I'm not supporting the Israelis any more than I'm condemning them. I choose
not to judge their choices. I do mourn the effect of their choices, just as
I mourn the effect of the choices of our administration and the choices of
millions of Muslims; including those who hijacked the planes on 9/11.

As someone observed, "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind". 

2000 years ago a man walked the earth with just that message. Even today,
every week millions of people get down on their knees and profess to be His
followers, then they get up and walk out of the door of their sanctuaries or
Mosques and keep doing the same things He railed against in ancient Judea.
The only thing that seems to have changed is that now many of them, Arab and
Christian alike, claim that the God of Abraham told them to do it. Before
Jesus, it was Zeus or whoever the 'deity du jour' happened to be. 

Have we really changed so little over two millennia? 

Ron D'Eau Claire 

-----Original Message-----

From: Steven [mailto:NoSpam03 at comcast.net] 
Sent: Monday, July 31, 2006 9:39 AM
To: Forest Grove local interests list
Subject: RE: [Grovenet] New to me.

the guy before the shaw was a 'communist' and nationalized the fields. A
similar situation has been in place for diamonds. Only so many sold each
year to keep prices up. So it could have happened. But the logic of any
recourse such as oil is that you would want the most you can for your
supply. So I don't put much credence in the British mandate thing. The
overthrow was to keep oil in the west instead of Russia. On a side note, I
was told that Jews were moving to Palestine after WWI. Only after WWII did
Brittan move to make it a state because nobody wanted the Jews around. The
guy telling me blames Israel's current action on the British.

-----Original Message-----
From: grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com [mailto:grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com]On
Behalf Of Eric Canon
Sent: Monday, July 31, 2006 8:54 AM
To: grovenet
Subject: [Grovenet] New to me.

I was talking with a friend about oil, the middle
east, oil companies and the Bush administration,
and he said something that was new to me. I know
next to nothing about the subject, and I distrust
hearsay, which is what my friend shared. And yet,
the rationale behind what we are doing in the
middle east has never struck me as rational from
any perspective, until my friend opened his
mouth, so I share this with this list in hopes
someone (anyone!) might agree, or disagree, or
otherwise shed some light on this perplexing
subject.

My friend told me that when the British set up
Iraq, and Iran, they gave specific instructions
to the installed rulers that they could pump only
so much oil. They didn't say to them, "Pump all
you can so that the price stays low". Rather,
they wanted the amount pumped to be finite so
that the price would stay up.

In Iran, democracy installed a regime that wanted
to defy this British mandated limit. I don't
remember the name of the president of Iran or the
exact year (1954?), but it was the regime that
was supplanted by the Shaw. The Shaw, as is
widely known and accepted, came to power as a
result of a CIA coup, which Iranians resent to
this day. This happened in the Eisenhower years.
And the Shaw pumped oil at the rate acceptable to
the oil interests, with an eye on keeping the
price up.

When Saddam came in, he was also told to pump at
this controlled rate, and initially he did. He
was our ally, friend to Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld and
that group, willing to work for us, until he got
arrogant and greedy and went for Kuwait.

The idea that was new to me, and that provided an
explanation for the behavior of the current
administration (which has mystified me), is that
the price of oil needs to be *high* so that these
folks can suck money from our pockets at an
acceptable rate.

Please tear this to shreds, as I post it to
learn, not to assert something that may be false.
I know we have some folks on this list who, if
they have the interest or inclination, could
agree or disagree with a factual and accurate
knowledge of the history, politics and dynamics
of this area. Perhaps they will share with us a
more complete perspective than I am able to offer.
_______________________________________________
GroveNet mailing list
GroveNet at rdrop.com http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet