kangarooistan
2007-06-02 06:07:04 UTC
Both world wars started a year or so after the biggest oil fields on
earth were discovered
Any in depth study would agree it was control of oil that really
started both world wars
AND WW3 is now being fought over oil AGAIN
This time the muslims wont ever let it happen again , the west WILL
finally pay for all its war crimes IN FULL
Western media can lie if it makes them feel better
The facts speak for themselves and the muslims wont fall for the same
old tricks AGAIN
The west will bleed to death this time
www.costofwar.com
========================================
In 1911, an Anglo-German consortium (Royal Dutch Shell, the
entrepreneur C. S. Gulbenkian, the (British) National Bank of Turkey
and Deutsche Bank) secured an exclusive concession from Turkey to
exploit all the oil within the empire's borders. The Turkish Petroleum
Company (TPC), as it soon became known, merged with Anglo-Persian Oil
Company (APOC) in 1913, with the ownership shared between British,
German, Dutch and Gulbenkian interests.
In August 1914, after protracted negotiations, the British government
took a majority shareholding in the Anglo-Persian Oil Company (the
forerunner to BP, now Britain's largest corporation) for £2.2 million,
thereby gaining the oil rights to Mesopotamia as well and further
strengthening its interests in the region.
At the same time, numerous other international groups had begun to
seek oil concessions around Baghdad and Mosul.
These commercial tensions played a crucial role in precipitating
World War I at whose heart lay the division of Turkey's eastern lands.
As far as Britain was concerned, the fact that new sources of oil, a
resource so vital to the Empire, lay outside its boundaries led to the
inevitable conclusion that the Empire must be expanded.
Britain seizes control of Mesopotamia in World War I
Throughout most of the nineteenth century, British imperialism's
"Eastern Policy" had been based on propping up the bankrupt Ottoman
Empire as a bulwark against Tsarist Russian expansionism. But when
World War I broke out and Turkey joined the war on the side of Germany
and Austria, British policy underwent a complete change.
Fearing that at Germany's behest Turkey would hamper oil supplies and
trade, the British authorities in India sent an expeditionary force to
Basra to prevent Turkey from interfering with British interests in the
Gulf, particularly its interests in the oil fields in southern Persia.
This was to turn the Middle East into an important theatre of war. It
became explicit policy to break up the Ottoman Empire and bring its
Arab territories under British control.
After a series of ignominious defeats, it became clear that taking
control of the Turkish territories was not going to be a walk over.
So Britain entered into a series of cynical, fraudulent and mutually
irreconcilable agreements designed to secure Turkey's defeat and
further her own commercial and territorial ambitions in the region.
First, Britain calculated that an Arab uprising would be invaluable in
attacking and defeating the Turks from the south, and opening a route
into Europe from the east, thereby breaking the bloody stalemate in
the trenches in Flanders. Its initial contacts were with the
Hashemites, a desert dynasty in Hejaz, now part of Saudi Arabia, which
controlled the Muslim holy places of Mecca and Medina and sought to
replace Ottoman rule with their own.
Britain reasoned that such an alliance would prove useful in securing
the loyalty of its Indian Muslim conscripts in the Mesopotamian
Expeditionary Force whom it was using as cannon fodder in its war
against Germany.
The disastrous defeats at Gallipoli led the British to accept the
conditions spelt out under the Damascus Protocol: British support for
the Arabs in overthrowing Turkish rule in return for Arab independence
for the territories now known as Syria, Lebanon, Israel/Palestine,
Jordan, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia.
In 1915, they made an agreement with the Hashemite Sherif Hussein of
Mecca, promising independence in return for their support against the
Turks.
Secondly, at the same time as Britain was using the Arabs to further
its aims, it was facing rival claims from her wartime allies, France
and Russia, for control over the Ottoman Empire after the war and was
forced to cut a deal with them.
In May 1916, Britain signed the Tripartite Agreement, better known as
the Sykes-Picot Agreement, according to which Russia would get
Istanbul, the Bosphorus and parts of Armenia. France would take what
is now Syria and Lebanon while Britain would take Baghdad, Basra and
Trans-Jordan (Jordan). Britain evidently took her eye off the ball
when she ceded part of the potentially oil-rich Mosul province to
France, and spent the next period trying to bring Mosul into her own
sphere of influence.
Palestine would be separated from Syria and placed under an
international administration and its ultimate fate would be decided at
an international conference at the end of the war. Only in the most
backward and impoverished part of the region, the Arab peninsula,
would the Arabs be given independence.
Needless to say, the peoples affected by this disposition would have
no say in deciding their future and the terms of the treaty were kept
secret.
After the Russian Revolution, when the Bolsheviks published the
secret agreement to expose the imperialists' conspiracies against the
oppressed peoples of the region, Sherif Hussein demanded an
explanation. But right up to the end of the war, the British and
French promised full independence to the Arabs.
"The end that France and Great Britain have in pursuing in the East
the war unloosed by German ambition is the complete and definite
freeing of the peoples so long oppressed by the Turks and the
establishment of national Governments and Administrations deriving
their authority from the initiative and free choice of the indigenous
population," stated the joint Anglo-French declaration of November 7,
1918. "France and Great Britain have agreed to encourage and assist
the establishment of indigenous Governments and Administrations....
And in the territories whose liberation they seek."
Thirdly, in November 1917, Britain, intent on stealing a march over
France and securing her own interests in the region by holding on to
Palestine, made yet another commitment under the cynical subterfuge of
humanitarian concerns for the Jews.
It issued the deliberately vague Balfour Declaration, which "viewed
with sympathy the establishment of a Jewish homeland in Palestine".
With the aid of the Arabs, the British were able to reverse their
misfortunes and take Baghdad in March 1917, and later Jerusalem and
Damascus, from the Turks. The Arab Revolt against the Turks, led by
Faisal, the son of Sherif Hussein of Hejaz, was of strategic
importance to the British. It tied down some 30,000 Turkish troops
along the railway from Amman to Medina and prevented the Turko-German
forces in Syria linking up with the Turkish garrison in Yemen.
Perfidious as ever, British military forces in Mesopotamia ignored the
Armistice signed with Turkey at Mudros on October 30, 1918, and
continued their march north, capturing the predominantly Kurdish
province of Mosul a few days later. This was because it made little
sense to keep the central and southern provinces of Mesopotamia
without the oil rich northern province. Mosul was also important as an
intermediate staging post on the route to the Russian controlled oil-
rich Caspian and Caucasian states. Britain then expropriated the 25
percent German share in the Turkish Petroleum Company, which was
planning to develop the oilfields.
Thus, by the end of 1918, British forces from Cairo had conquered
Palestine and Syria and helped to drive the Turks out of the Hejaz.
British forces from India had conquered Mesopotamia and brought Persia
and Ibn Saud of Nejd in the Arabian Peninsula into Britain's orbit.
These forces pushed north through Persia to hold the Caucasus against
the Turks, while another force moved north and fought the Red Army in
support of "independence" for the White-controlled, oil-rich states
Azerbaijan, Armenia, Georgia and Daghestan, until forced to withdraw
in 1920.
Promises of liberation prove fraudulent
With the victors forming queues to take over the former Ottoman
provinces and German and Austrian colonies in Africa and the Far East,
the British were determined to hang onto their conquests in the Middle
East to defend the trade routes to India and secure the region's oil.
They had set their sights firmly on keeping Palestine, the three
provinces of Mesopotamia, renamed Iraq, ruling Kuwait from Iraq while
maintaining their sphere of influence over Persia and the southern and
western coasts of the Arabian peninsula. The Persian Gulf and Red Sea
would thus become British lakes.
The central and southern provinces of Mesopotamia came under direct
British rule from India and were administered under military law
pending a peace settlement. Following the pattern set in India, the
British turned to the old tribal leaders, whose influence had declined
by the end of the nineteenth century, to collect the taxes and control
the predominantly rural population in return for long term security of
tenure. This only served to exacerbate landlordism, the impoverishment
of the peasantry and the deep-seated hostility to the British
occupation. They also cultivated the small but important minorities,
particularly the Christians and the Jewish community that played a key
financial role and whose relations with the British were to have
important repercussions later with the rise of Zionist-Palestinian
conflict.
The Kurds in the newly captured Mosul province took the British at
their word and immediately set up an independent state that Britain
spent nearly two years brutally suppressing with British and Indian
troops. The Royal Air Force was sent in to bombard the guerrillas and
Churchill, then Secretary of State for War, approved the use of poison
gas.
Mosul was to be incorporated into the Iraqi state, abandoning the idea
of Kurdish autonomy included in the Treaty of Sevres. In the words of
one British official, "any idea of an Arab state is simply
bloodstained fooling at present."
But Britain's plans to incorporate the Arab world into the Empire were
repeatedly thwarted. Firstly, her wartime Allies, particularly the
Americans, were determined to prevent her walking away with the lion's
share of the spoils. President Woodrow Wilson's Fourteen Points,
issued in 1917 on the eve of the US entry into the war, were the price
that Britain and France would have to pay for US support.
They signified a new world order in which America's political and
economic interests would predominate over those of the old imperial
powers. There would be no secret diplomacy or annexations by the
victors and former colonies must have the right to self-determination.
But above all else, there would have to be an Open Door policy with
respect to trade. That meant an end to exclusive rights to resources
and trade. In the context of the Middle East and Iraq, what was at
issue was the future of the oil concessions the British had extracted
from the Turks. The British viewed Wilson's policy as such a threat
that they forbade the local publication of the Fourteen Points, which
only appeared in Baghdad two years later.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright 1998-2007
World Socialist Web Site
All rights reserved
Imperialism and Iraq: Lessons from the past Part OneBritish armed
forces invaded Mesopotamia, as Iraq was then known, in 1914 with
promises ... The Anglo-Persian Oil Company discovered the first
commercially ...
www.wsws.org/articles/2003/may2003/iraq-m29.shtml - 28k -
=========================================
Green Left - Issues: Britain's first war for Iraq's oilLondon viewed
this as a challenge by its German imperialist rival to British control
over the newly discovered oil fields in Mesopotamia, as Iraq was
then ...
www.greenleft.org.au/2006/661/7096 -
Oil discovered in Saudi Arabia1938
A year later WW2 breaks out
A coincedent both world wars followed a year after the biggest oil
finds in history ??
Saudi Arabia: History, Geography, Government, and Culture ...Oil was
discovered in 1936, and commercial production began during World War
II. ... Saudi Arabia and the smaller oil-rich Arab states on the
Persian Gulf, ...
www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0107947.html - 40k - Cached - Similar pages -
Note this
KINGDOM OF SAUDI ARABIA1932 Ibn Saud forms kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
1933 American oil companies search for oil in Saudi Arabia. 1938 Oil
is discovered. ...
www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2003/030126-saudi01.htm - 16k - Cached
- Similar pages - Note this
Saudi Arabia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaIn spite of the recent
surge in its oil income, Saudi Arabia continues to .... as more oil
fields are discovered and oil recovery improves with technology. ...
www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudi_Arabia - 253k - 31 May 2007 - Cached -
Similar pages - Note this
KANGA
======
earth were discovered
Any in depth study would agree it was control of oil that really
started both world wars
AND WW3 is now being fought over oil AGAIN
This time the muslims wont ever let it happen again , the west WILL
finally pay for all its war crimes IN FULL
Western media can lie if it makes them feel better
The facts speak for themselves and the muslims wont fall for the same
old tricks AGAIN
The west will bleed to death this time
www.costofwar.com
========================================
In 1911, an Anglo-German consortium (Royal Dutch Shell, the
entrepreneur C. S. Gulbenkian, the (British) National Bank of Turkey
and Deutsche Bank) secured an exclusive concession from Turkey to
exploit all the oil within the empire's borders. The Turkish Petroleum
Company (TPC), as it soon became known, merged with Anglo-Persian Oil
Company (APOC) in 1913, with the ownership shared between British,
German, Dutch and Gulbenkian interests.
In August 1914, after protracted negotiations, the British government
took a majority shareholding in the Anglo-Persian Oil Company (the
forerunner to BP, now Britain's largest corporation) for £2.2 million,
thereby gaining the oil rights to Mesopotamia as well and further
strengthening its interests in the region.
At the same time, numerous other international groups had begun to
seek oil concessions around Baghdad and Mosul.
These commercial tensions played a crucial role in precipitating
World War I at whose heart lay the division of Turkey's eastern lands.
As far as Britain was concerned, the fact that new sources of oil, a
resource so vital to the Empire, lay outside its boundaries led to the
inevitable conclusion that the Empire must be expanded.
Britain seizes control of Mesopotamia in World War I
Throughout most of the nineteenth century, British imperialism's
"Eastern Policy" had been based on propping up the bankrupt Ottoman
Empire as a bulwark against Tsarist Russian expansionism. But when
World War I broke out and Turkey joined the war on the side of Germany
and Austria, British policy underwent a complete change.
Fearing that at Germany's behest Turkey would hamper oil supplies and
trade, the British authorities in India sent an expeditionary force to
Basra to prevent Turkey from interfering with British interests in the
Gulf, particularly its interests in the oil fields in southern Persia.
This was to turn the Middle East into an important theatre of war. It
became explicit policy to break up the Ottoman Empire and bring its
Arab territories under British control.
After a series of ignominious defeats, it became clear that taking
control of the Turkish territories was not going to be a walk over.
So Britain entered into a series of cynical, fraudulent and mutually
irreconcilable agreements designed to secure Turkey's defeat and
further her own commercial and territorial ambitions in the region.
First, Britain calculated that an Arab uprising would be invaluable in
attacking and defeating the Turks from the south, and opening a route
into Europe from the east, thereby breaking the bloody stalemate in
the trenches in Flanders. Its initial contacts were with the
Hashemites, a desert dynasty in Hejaz, now part of Saudi Arabia, which
controlled the Muslim holy places of Mecca and Medina and sought to
replace Ottoman rule with their own.
Britain reasoned that such an alliance would prove useful in securing
the loyalty of its Indian Muslim conscripts in the Mesopotamian
Expeditionary Force whom it was using as cannon fodder in its war
against Germany.
The disastrous defeats at Gallipoli led the British to accept the
conditions spelt out under the Damascus Protocol: British support for
the Arabs in overthrowing Turkish rule in return for Arab independence
for the territories now known as Syria, Lebanon, Israel/Palestine,
Jordan, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia.
In 1915, they made an agreement with the Hashemite Sherif Hussein of
Mecca, promising independence in return for their support against the
Turks.
Secondly, at the same time as Britain was using the Arabs to further
its aims, it was facing rival claims from her wartime allies, France
and Russia, for control over the Ottoman Empire after the war and was
forced to cut a deal with them.
In May 1916, Britain signed the Tripartite Agreement, better known as
the Sykes-Picot Agreement, according to which Russia would get
Istanbul, the Bosphorus and parts of Armenia. France would take what
is now Syria and Lebanon while Britain would take Baghdad, Basra and
Trans-Jordan (Jordan). Britain evidently took her eye off the ball
when she ceded part of the potentially oil-rich Mosul province to
France, and spent the next period trying to bring Mosul into her own
sphere of influence.
Palestine would be separated from Syria and placed under an
international administration and its ultimate fate would be decided at
an international conference at the end of the war. Only in the most
backward and impoverished part of the region, the Arab peninsula,
would the Arabs be given independence.
Needless to say, the peoples affected by this disposition would have
no say in deciding their future and the terms of the treaty were kept
secret.
After the Russian Revolution, when the Bolsheviks published the
secret agreement to expose the imperialists' conspiracies against the
oppressed peoples of the region, Sherif Hussein demanded an
explanation. But right up to the end of the war, the British and
French promised full independence to the Arabs.
"The end that France and Great Britain have in pursuing in the East
the war unloosed by German ambition is the complete and definite
freeing of the peoples so long oppressed by the Turks and the
establishment of national Governments and Administrations deriving
their authority from the initiative and free choice of the indigenous
population," stated the joint Anglo-French declaration of November 7,
1918. "France and Great Britain have agreed to encourage and assist
the establishment of indigenous Governments and Administrations....
And in the territories whose liberation they seek."
Thirdly, in November 1917, Britain, intent on stealing a march over
France and securing her own interests in the region by holding on to
Palestine, made yet another commitment under the cynical subterfuge of
humanitarian concerns for the Jews.
It issued the deliberately vague Balfour Declaration, which "viewed
with sympathy the establishment of a Jewish homeland in Palestine".
With the aid of the Arabs, the British were able to reverse their
misfortunes and take Baghdad in March 1917, and later Jerusalem and
Damascus, from the Turks. The Arab Revolt against the Turks, led by
Faisal, the son of Sherif Hussein of Hejaz, was of strategic
importance to the British. It tied down some 30,000 Turkish troops
along the railway from Amman to Medina and prevented the Turko-German
forces in Syria linking up with the Turkish garrison in Yemen.
Perfidious as ever, British military forces in Mesopotamia ignored the
Armistice signed with Turkey at Mudros on October 30, 1918, and
continued their march north, capturing the predominantly Kurdish
province of Mosul a few days later. This was because it made little
sense to keep the central and southern provinces of Mesopotamia
without the oil rich northern province. Mosul was also important as an
intermediate staging post on the route to the Russian controlled oil-
rich Caspian and Caucasian states. Britain then expropriated the 25
percent German share in the Turkish Petroleum Company, which was
planning to develop the oilfields.
Thus, by the end of 1918, British forces from Cairo had conquered
Palestine and Syria and helped to drive the Turks out of the Hejaz.
British forces from India had conquered Mesopotamia and brought Persia
and Ibn Saud of Nejd in the Arabian Peninsula into Britain's orbit.
These forces pushed north through Persia to hold the Caucasus against
the Turks, while another force moved north and fought the Red Army in
support of "independence" for the White-controlled, oil-rich states
Azerbaijan, Armenia, Georgia and Daghestan, until forced to withdraw
in 1920.
Promises of liberation prove fraudulent
With the victors forming queues to take over the former Ottoman
provinces and German and Austrian colonies in Africa and the Far East,
the British were determined to hang onto their conquests in the Middle
East to defend the trade routes to India and secure the region's oil.
They had set their sights firmly on keeping Palestine, the three
provinces of Mesopotamia, renamed Iraq, ruling Kuwait from Iraq while
maintaining their sphere of influence over Persia and the southern and
western coasts of the Arabian peninsula. The Persian Gulf and Red Sea
would thus become British lakes.
The central and southern provinces of Mesopotamia came under direct
British rule from India and were administered under military law
pending a peace settlement. Following the pattern set in India, the
British turned to the old tribal leaders, whose influence had declined
by the end of the nineteenth century, to collect the taxes and control
the predominantly rural population in return for long term security of
tenure. This only served to exacerbate landlordism, the impoverishment
of the peasantry and the deep-seated hostility to the British
occupation. They also cultivated the small but important minorities,
particularly the Christians and the Jewish community that played a key
financial role and whose relations with the British were to have
important repercussions later with the rise of Zionist-Palestinian
conflict.
The Kurds in the newly captured Mosul province took the British at
their word and immediately set up an independent state that Britain
spent nearly two years brutally suppressing with British and Indian
troops. The Royal Air Force was sent in to bombard the guerrillas and
Churchill, then Secretary of State for War, approved the use of poison
gas.
Mosul was to be incorporated into the Iraqi state, abandoning the idea
of Kurdish autonomy included in the Treaty of Sevres. In the words of
one British official, "any idea of an Arab state is simply
bloodstained fooling at present."
But Britain's plans to incorporate the Arab world into the Empire were
repeatedly thwarted. Firstly, her wartime Allies, particularly the
Americans, were determined to prevent her walking away with the lion's
share of the spoils. President Woodrow Wilson's Fourteen Points,
issued in 1917 on the eve of the US entry into the war, were the price
that Britain and France would have to pay for US support.
They signified a new world order in which America's political and
economic interests would predominate over those of the old imperial
powers. There would be no secret diplomacy or annexations by the
victors and former colonies must have the right to self-determination.
But above all else, there would have to be an Open Door policy with
respect to trade. That meant an end to exclusive rights to resources
and trade. In the context of the Middle East and Iraq, what was at
issue was the future of the oil concessions the British had extracted
from the Turks. The British viewed Wilson's policy as such a threat
that they forbade the local publication of the Fourteen Points, which
only appeared in Baghdad two years later.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright 1998-2007
World Socialist Web Site
All rights reserved
Imperialism and Iraq: Lessons from the past Part OneBritish armed
forces invaded Mesopotamia, as Iraq was then known, in 1914 with
promises ... The Anglo-Persian Oil Company discovered the first
commercially ...
www.wsws.org/articles/2003/may2003/iraq-m29.shtml - 28k -
=========================================
Green Left - Issues: Britain's first war for Iraq's oilLondon viewed
this as a challenge by its German imperialist rival to British control
over the newly discovered oil fields in Mesopotamia, as Iraq was
then ...
www.greenleft.org.au/2006/661/7096 -
Oil discovered in Saudi Arabia1938
A year later WW2 breaks out
A coincedent both world wars followed a year after the biggest oil
finds in history ??
Saudi Arabia: History, Geography, Government, and Culture ...Oil was
discovered in 1936, and commercial production began during World War
II. ... Saudi Arabia and the smaller oil-rich Arab states on the
Persian Gulf, ...
www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0107947.html - 40k - Cached - Similar pages -
Note this
KINGDOM OF SAUDI ARABIA1932 Ibn Saud forms kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
1933 American oil companies search for oil in Saudi Arabia. 1938 Oil
is discovered. ...
www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2003/030126-saudi01.htm - 16k - Cached
- Similar pages - Note this
Saudi Arabia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaIn spite of the recent
surge in its oil income, Saudi Arabia continues to .... as more oil
fields are discovered and oil recovery improves with technology. ...
www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudi_Arabia - 253k - 31 May 2007 - Cached -
Similar pages - Note this
KANGA
======