Oil prices increasing? I think not

[John Edward Mercier]

Just because we aren't getting our oil from the middle east NOW doesn't mean we're not there because of oil.  If there were no oil under the sand I don't think we'd be there, but I'll admit I have no inside scoop as to any other possible reasons.  
A bit off topic but if we aren't in the middle east because of oil, why ARE we there?

Actually, compared to the rest of the world, the Middle East doesn't really HAVE that much oil--and Iraq has very little.  That's part of why Saddam invaded Kuwait--disputes over the little (relatively speaking) oil they do have.  In fact, Russia is the up and coming big oil exporter.

As for why are we there, it's really just that they provided the most plausible excuse for the neo-cons to get into a war of conquest that could be strung on for a long time, and which was "controllable"--that is, even if things do go badly, they won't be able to come over here and do anything too serious to the US--like actually turn around and conquer us.  The could commit some acts of terrorism, but they just don't have the organization or capability or logistical capacity to bring off an invasion of the US.  Essentially, they were a small target the US Gooferment bully could attack with relative impunity.  And the neo-cons KNEW they didn't have nukes--if they did, they wouldn't have been a target for invasion.

Iraq has the third largest proven reserves behind Saudi Arabia and Canada. Iran is 4th, Kuwait is 5th, the UAE is 6th... and Russia is 8th... right behind Venezuala. Russia produces more barrels/day than any... but its proven reserve life is only 17 years... followed only by the US proven reserve life of 12 years, and Mexico proven reserve life of only 10.

We're there because certain elements of OPEC have publically called for $200/barrel oil. If the Saudis believe the US weak, they will go along with the stronger ally. Barring geo-politics, you price your product at what the market will pay.

[J’raxis 270145]

Just because we aren't getting our oil from the middle east NOW doesn't mean we're not there because of oil.  If there were no oil under the sand I don't think we'd be there, but I'll admit I have no inside scoop as to any other possible reasons. 
A bit off topic but if we aren't in the middle east because of oil, why ARE we there?

Actually, compared to the rest of the world, the Middle East doesn't really HAVE that much oil--and Iraq has very little.  That's part of why Saddam invaded Kuwait--disputes over the little (relatively speaking) oil they do have.  In fact, Russia is the up and coming big oil exporter.

As for why are we there, it's really just that they provided the most plausible excuse for the neo-cons to get into a war of conquest that could be strung on for a long time, and which was "controllable"--that is, even if things do go badly, they won't be able to come over here and do anything too serious to the US--like actually turn around and conquer us.  The could commit some acts of terrorism, but they just don't have the organization or capability or logistical capacity to bring off an invasion of the US.  Essentially, they were a small target the US Gooferment bully could attack with relative impunity.  And the neo-cons KNEW they didn't have nukes--if they did, they wouldn't have been a target for invasion.

  So when do we attack Venezuela?       Are you saying if there were NO OIL there (middle east) we'd give a
  flying fuck about what goes on there?  If the Saudi's didn't have oil would we still be cozy with them?
    So we're there just to kick some ass, try out new military toys and practice beating on a weaker country?

One correlation among the countries that the U.S. has attacked or threatened to attack recently (Iraq, Iran, Venezuela) is that they've all pushed for OPEC to ditch the dollar in favor of the Euro. I don't think there's much evidence of a causative link here, but it does make for an interesting theory, doesn't it?