[sydneysider]

Hardly, the people at the top have profited greatly, the rest still live in poverty. Countries which try and share the wealth of the oil i.e keep it a state owned affair are quickly labelled extremist and a threat to 'democracy' and 'world peace', then are bombed to oblivion. Afterwards a new puppet government is installed which allows foreign companies to come and use its oil.

[gozur88]

>Countries which try and share the wealth of the oil i.e keep it a state owned affair are quickly labelled extremist and a threat to 'democracy' and 'world peace', then are bombed to oblivion.

Oh? When did we bomb Norway?

[sydneysider]

Exception to the rule, much easier to paint the middle east or south American countries as 'the other' than your own neighbour. Also there are more types of war than just dropping bombs, maybe I should have clarified.

[gozur88]

When did we bomb Venezuela? When did we bomb Russia, or Nigeria? When did we bomb Mexico?

[coldtea]

"You" constantly threaten, pressure and influence politics and sponsor lackeys in Venezuela. You did the same to Panama, and countless other latin "Banana Republics".

The west has meddled in Nigeria since forever -- search for Shell (the oil company) and Nigeria. (Hint: on the mainstream media you'll find 1/10 of the stuff reported on independent ones without big oil corps as advertisers).

Russia? Are you kidding me? You had a full blown cold war, and tons of "proxy" peripheral wars with Russia for half a century. And the US still tries to influence Russian policy, replace their government with some friendly clown like the early Yeltsin, etc. Countless money are spent in campaigns to influence local policies there (imagine the outburst if Russia sponsored this or that US candidate, and had NGOs and groups report on the elections, gun laws, etc).

Mexico? Heck, California, Texas, etc were part of Mexico. And you don't need to bomb it, since you've controlled the place, and had friendly lackeys in power for decades.

[gozur88]

>"You" constantly threaten, pressure and influence politics and sponsor lackeys in Venezuela.

Do you have any evidence for this, beyond the crazed rantings of the late dictator?

>The west has meddled in Nigeria since forever -- search for Shell (the oil company) and Nigeria. (Hint: on the mainstream media you'll find 1/10 of the stuff reported on independent ones without big oil corps as advertisers).

So we went from "the US bombs countrise to oblivion" to "The West meddles in countries' affairs". That's quite a step down. Here we were talking about something interesting, namely bombing, and now we're at nebulous "meddling". All countries "meddle" in the affairs of other countries. What do you think OPEC countries are doing throwing around cash in Washington?

>Russia? Are you kidding me? You had a full blown cold war, and tons of "proxy" peripheral wars with Russia for half a century.

Which had absolutely nothing to do with oil.

>Mexico? Heck, California, Texas, etc were part of Mexico. And you don't need to bomb it, since you've controlled the place, and had friendly lackeys in power for decades.

Sure, California and Texas were part of Mexico before oil existed as an industry. And again, do you have any actual evidence we had "friendly lackeys" in power in Mexico? As far as I can tell, the Mexican government has a lot more influence in the US than the other way around.

[zhemao]

To be fair, we (the US) did invade Mexico several times.

[gozur88]

If by several you mean "once". Chasing a criminal isn't the same thing as an invasion.

And the war with Mexico occurred thirteen years before the US started using oil commercially.

This "wars for oil" stuff is something a lot of people repeat to themselves without really thinking about it.

[coldtea]

>This "wars for oil" stuff is something a lot of people repeat to themselves without really thinking about it.

And then you bring Venezuela, Russia, Nigeria etc as examples where these things didn't happen...

Not only forgetting all the places where those wars DID happen (all over the wider middle east for one), but also the numerous ways the west intervened in those places, from constant pressure with tons of ways (sponsoring political opponents, arming guerilla groups, helping their border states invade them, manipulating their economy, down to toppling governments).

Maybe get 2-3 good books about the subject?

Or an article to start:

http://www.latimes.com/world/middleeast/la-fg-cia-pentagon-i...

http://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=852

http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/03/18/u-s-interventions-in-...

http://www.venezuelasolidarity.co.uk/latest-wikileaks-show-f...

http://www.amazon.com/Crude-Interventions-United-States-Worl...

http://williamblum.org/chapters/freeing-the-world-to-death/u...

[zhemao]

If you don't count the hunt for Pancho Villa, then it was twice. Once during the Mexican-American War, and then the Occupation of Veracruz during the Mexican Revolution.

[maaku]

But not over oil.

[coldtea]

No, over land, and other strategic interests at the time.

[ps4fanboy]

I think you miss understand what I am saying, By them I am referring to the country, for example Food is heavily subsidized by the government in Saudi Arabia. This subsidy is funded by the huge wealth the government has earned via taxes on the exports of oil. I cant find the source but I believe the Saudi government still has trillions of USD in surplus.

[bbcbasic]

I don't see a lot of value in what you are saying, which amounts to:

A certain country that is rich as anything might get poor 50 or 100 years from now, and the majority of people in that country are of a certain religion and so a lot of people of that religion may decide to relocate and when to hey do, they may come to Europe. And if they do ... so what?

[coldtea]

>so a lot of people of that religion may decide to relocate and when to hey do, they may come to Europe. And if they do ... so what?

Imagine you favorite town. Say, NY. Imagine 20 million people of a certain religion relocating there. Could be Muslims, hardcore religious nuts from the South, whatever.

Imagine them changing the culture of the place towards their religious views and customs. E.g. persecuting gays. Enforcing strict restrictions to their women (and other women). Not in the "melting pot", ethnic-flavor cutesy way of NY, in the "we are too many of us now here and we want things a certain way".

This can happen to a place. And it has already happened to certain places, neighborhoods in Europe and elsewhere.

The inverse can happen too: a place get full of Westerners, expats, etc, and they alter its color, buy the government to do them favors, pass their own laws, even sponsor a full blown sex industry with the locals as victims, like in Thailand. Usually with them it's through influence though, from their power and wealth, not from their numbers.

[ps4fanboy]

Mass immigration is hard on everyone involved, it being a particular religion isnt really relevant. Just saying people will need to stop with the islamiphobia because its predominately Islamic people will become a major component of west/European populations when the PetroOil economy breaks down. What is the value of this post that you commented on? Value is subjective.

[bbcbasic]

> Just saying people will need to stop with the islamiphobia because its predominately Islamic people will become a major component of west/European populations

This adds the value.