stvdv
Veteran Member: I Share (not Debate) my POV
Recently a friend told me a story I never heard of, but does explain things happening in Europe now. I did find a few Dutch articles but so much "fake news" nowadays, so I rather check it. I don't know much about politics but I was hoping someone on RF knows more about this [only if you have some concrete links; not "fake news" and "conspiracy theories"
]. I could not find English articles on this [so might be hoax, fake]
1973 there was an oil embargo from Iraq and Europe was in trouble. I do remember we were not allowed to drive by car on Sundays for some time.
Now I heard that from a friend that in the "THE STRASBOURG RESOLUTIONS" was something about we getting oil again if we allow Islam. There were a few lines in it. Didn't seem too much to worry. But we all know that government won't tell all to keep the sheep meek. So maybe there are some hidden parts specifying more about duty to allow Immigration.
http://nageltjes.be/wp/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Tekst-Resolutie-van-Straatsburg-8-juni-1975.pdf
Britain was till 1970 into the oil of Iraq. Britain now in EU gets lots of immigrants and suddenly wants to get out of EU. Costs them a lot, so there must be a very important reason. My thought was, they see trouble by association with EU so try to get out. EU also see trouble so let them pay the jackpot.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Eurabia
But in above link is said that this is all conspiracy. And Geert Wilders is part of the conspiracy also. I was never interested in all this stuff, but now i come across it I rather want to know what is true and what is not. It is a fact that Iraq has been exploited in the past, and the war there was of course about oil. So where smoke is there usual is fire. And I know humans enough that they rather call this conspiracy than admitting the truth. Trump his quote "ME oil belongs to us" is proof enough that there is something going on. UK exit EU is not for nothing. Trump meeting T.May telling to quit EU another hint. So if you know something....
I found an article showing how Iraq oil was exploited by UK and US. And Iraq got almost nothing [nothing on immigration in this one; I only found Dutch ones on that, that made me wonder]. The same as Trump said recently "Oil in Middle East should be given to us for the costs of the war over there; now the veterans have to live on the street". Quite some injustice, but Holland did the same in Indonesia years back. Humans are greedy we all know. So I believe that above story might have some truth in it. Karma is a ***** [link=spoiler]
https://www.theglobalist.com/britains-legacy-in-the-middle-east-iraqs-oil/
Lord Curzon famously observed that the Allied Powers of World War I had “floated to victory upon a wave of oil.” As far as the British Empire was concerned, the only problem was that the oil had come from the United States. For imperial strategists like Lord Curzon and Winston Churchill, the discovery of oil within the British Empire was a key aim.
It was in this spirit of trying to maintain the prestige and power of the British Empire that the British anxiously sought control over Iraq’s oil. This, however, led to Britain coming into direct conflict with the interests of the United States.
The Iraq Petroleum Company (IPC) was the vehicle through which Iraqi oil would be exploited. The Americans successfully acquired 25% of the company, with the Anglo-Persian Oil Company (the forerunner of BP) controlling another 25%. Calouste Gulbenkian, the so-called Mr. Five-Percent, earned his sobriquet from the stake he retained in the company.
Britain’s relationship with Iraq always revolved around the issue of oil. The initial Sykes-Picot agreement of 1916 had given Mosul, the northern province of Iraq, to France. This concession was reversed by Prime Minister David Lloyd George in 1918, however, as it was suspected that that Mosul contained valuable oil fields. (The French were allowed a participation of roughly a quarter in the IPC.)
Iraqi oil politics in the 1920s often saw Britain pitted against the interests of the United States. Even though the Americans at the time produced nearly 70% of the world’s oil, they were particularly keen to get more deeply involved in Iraqi oil.
As Walter Teagle, the president of the Standard Oil Company of New Jersey, said in an address to the American Petroleum Institute: “Our British friends… have argued that if the United States is now supplying 70% of the world’s production, we should be content with things as they are. This is an entirely fallacious view.”
Was it reasonable, Teagle asked, “to ask Americans to rush heedlessly on to the quick exhaustion of their own supply and then retire from the oil business?” The American petroleum industry could not “accept such a conclusion.” American oil interests now would be compelled to look to the “development of petroleum outside the United States.”
Even though oil was the dominant consideration, this did not prevent colorful characters like Gertrude Bell, an Oxford graduate, archaeologist and adventurer, from getting involved in colonial administration. Other British dignitaries on the Iraqi scene included Percy Cox — a military man of whom it was said “he could keep silence in a dozen languages” — and Lawrence of Arabia himself.
Indeed, it was T.E. Lawrence’s friend from the days of World War I, Faisal I, who was installed as Iraq’s first king in 1921. Faisal was a Hashemite, descended from the Prophet Mohammad himself. The Hashemites were notoriously pro-British in their attitudes and style. and it was no surprise when Faisal sent his son, Ghazi, to Harrow School in the 1920s. To James Morris (later Jan Morris, after having gender reassignment surgery), the historian the Iraqi monarchy had been a “parasitical fake.”
The obvious pro-British tendency of the Iraqi monarchy was a contributing factor in its brutal extinction in the Iraqi revolution of 1958. The perception was that while the royal family, their cronies and Western businessmen were growing rich, the vast bulk of the Iraqi people saw no improvement in their living standards. This had, of course, always been the standard anticolonial complaint. The violent revolution of 1958 was in many ways simply an anticolonial uprising.
As a consequence of the monarchy’s demise, Iraq ended up with a nationalist government, most powerfully epitomized by Saddam Hussein. Saddam became vice president of Iraq in 1968, and by the early 1970s was the most dynamic figure on the Iraqi scene. He nationalized the IPC in 1972 and, as a consequence of Iraq’s oil revenues flowing directly into the Iraqi Treasury, saw a huge windfall when oil prices quadrupled in 1973.
A torrent of wealth flowed into the country, as Iraq’s oil revenues increased from $500 million in 1972 to over $26 billion in 1980, an increase of nearly 50 times in nominal terms. It was this dramatic increase in revenue which allowed Saddam to expand the country’s military forces and, especially after he assumed full control as the new president in 1979, to pose a serious threat to regional stability.
Editor’s note: This article is an excerpt from Ghosts of Empire: Britain’s Legacies in the Modern World by Kwasi Kwarteng (PublicAffairs). Published with permission of the author. Copyright © 2012 by Kwasi Kwarteng.
]. I could not find English articles on this [so might be hoax, fake]1973 there was an oil embargo from Iraq and Europe was in trouble. I do remember we were not allowed to drive by car on Sundays for some time.
Now I heard that from a friend that in the "THE STRASBOURG RESOLUTIONS" was something about we getting oil again if we allow Islam. There were a few lines in it. Didn't seem too much to worry. But we all know that government won't tell all to keep the sheep meek. So maybe there are some hidden parts specifying more about duty to allow Immigration.
http://nageltjes.be/wp/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Tekst-Resolutie-van-Straatsburg-8-juni-1975.pdf
Britain was till 1970 into the oil of Iraq. Britain now in EU gets lots of immigrants and suddenly wants to get out of EU. Costs them a lot, so there must be a very important reason. My thought was, they see trouble by association with EU so try to get out. EU also see trouble so let them pay the jackpot.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Eurabia
But in above link is said that this is all conspiracy. And Geert Wilders is part of the conspiracy also. I was never interested in all this stuff, but now i come across it I rather want to know what is true and what is not. It is a fact that Iraq has been exploited in the past, and the war there was of course about oil. So where smoke is there usual is fire. And I know humans enough that they rather call this conspiracy than admitting the truth. Trump his quote "ME oil belongs to us" is proof enough that there is something going on. UK exit EU is not for nothing. Trump meeting T.May telling to quit EU another hint. So if you know something....
I found an article showing how Iraq oil was exploited by UK and US. And Iraq got almost nothing [nothing on immigration in this one; I only found Dutch ones on that, that made me wonder]. The same as Trump said recently "Oil in Middle East should be given to us for the costs of the war over there; now the veterans have to live on the street". Quite some injustice, but Holland did the same in Indonesia years back. Humans are greedy we all know. So I believe that above story might have some truth in it. Karma is a ***** [link=spoiler]
https://www.theglobalist.com/britains-legacy-in-the-middle-east-iraqs-oil/
Lord Curzon famously observed that the Allied Powers of World War I had “floated to victory upon a wave of oil.” As far as the British Empire was concerned, the only problem was that the oil had come from the United States. For imperial strategists like Lord Curzon and Winston Churchill, the discovery of oil within the British Empire was a key aim.
It was in this spirit of trying to maintain the prestige and power of the British Empire that the British anxiously sought control over Iraq’s oil. This, however, led to Britain coming into direct conflict with the interests of the United States.
The Iraq Petroleum Company (IPC) was the vehicle through which Iraqi oil would be exploited. The Americans successfully acquired 25% of the company, with the Anglo-Persian Oil Company (the forerunner of BP) controlling another 25%. Calouste Gulbenkian, the so-called Mr. Five-Percent, earned his sobriquet from the stake he retained in the company.
Britain’s relationship with Iraq always revolved around the issue of oil. The initial Sykes-Picot agreement of 1916 had given Mosul, the northern province of Iraq, to France. This concession was reversed by Prime Minister David Lloyd George in 1918, however, as it was suspected that that Mosul contained valuable oil fields. (The French were allowed a participation of roughly a quarter in the IPC.)
Iraqi oil politics in the 1920s often saw Britain pitted against the interests of the United States. Even though the Americans at the time produced nearly 70% of the world’s oil, they were particularly keen to get more deeply involved in Iraqi oil.
As Walter Teagle, the president of the Standard Oil Company of New Jersey, said in an address to the American Petroleum Institute: “Our British friends… have argued that if the United States is now supplying 70% of the world’s production, we should be content with things as they are. This is an entirely fallacious view.”
Was it reasonable, Teagle asked, “to ask Americans to rush heedlessly on to the quick exhaustion of their own supply and then retire from the oil business?” The American petroleum industry could not “accept such a conclusion.” American oil interests now would be compelled to look to the “development of petroleum outside the United States.”
Even though oil was the dominant consideration, this did not prevent colorful characters like Gertrude Bell, an Oxford graduate, archaeologist and adventurer, from getting involved in colonial administration. Other British dignitaries on the Iraqi scene included Percy Cox — a military man of whom it was said “he could keep silence in a dozen languages” — and Lawrence of Arabia himself.
Indeed, it was T.E. Lawrence’s friend from the days of World War I, Faisal I, who was installed as Iraq’s first king in 1921. Faisal was a Hashemite, descended from the Prophet Mohammad himself. The Hashemites were notoriously pro-British in their attitudes and style. and it was no surprise when Faisal sent his son, Ghazi, to Harrow School in the 1920s. To James Morris (later Jan Morris, after having gender reassignment surgery), the historian the Iraqi monarchy had been a “parasitical fake.”
The obvious pro-British tendency of the Iraqi monarchy was a contributing factor in its brutal extinction in the Iraqi revolution of 1958. The perception was that while the royal family, their cronies and Western businessmen were growing rich, the vast bulk of the Iraqi people saw no improvement in their living standards. This had, of course, always been the standard anticolonial complaint. The violent revolution of 1958 was in many ways simply an anticolonial uprising.
As a consequence of the monarchy’s demise, Iraq ended up with a nationalist government, most powerfully epitomized by Saddam Hussein. Saddam became vice president of Iraq in 1968, and by the early 1970s was the most dynamic figure on the Iraqi scene. He nationalized the IPC in 1972 and, as a consequence of Iraq’s oil revenues flowing directly into the Iraqi Treasury, saw a huge windfall when oil prices quadrupled in 1973.
A torrent of wealth flowed into the country, as Iraq’s oil revenues increased from $500 million in 1972 to over $26 billion in 1980, an increase of nearly 50 times in nominal terms. It was this dramatic increase in revenue which allowed Saddam to expand the country’s military forces and, especially after he assumed full control as the new president in 1979, to pose a serious threat to regional stability.
Editor’s note: This article is an excerpt from Ghosts of Empire: Britain’s Legacies in the Modern World by Kwasi Kwarteng (PublicAffairs). Published with permission of the author. Copyright © 2012 by Kwasi Kwarteng.
