Western Forces in Middle East

[practicaldreamer]

Why are we there ?

Should we be there ?

[1715069066]

1715069066

[1715069066]

1715069066

[1715069066]

1715069066

[1715069066]

1715069066

[1715069066]

1715069066

[criptix]

I will quote Peter Struck our Minister of Defense a.D. (2002-2005):

"Deutschlands Freiheit wird am Hindukusch verteidigt."

A decade later we are defending it in iraq and syria.
I hope we wont be in Japan in 2050  

[Snail2]

Why are we there ?

Should we be there ?

We are there for oil and pipelines of course.

Soon we will not have any other choice if we don't want to fight this war at home

[practicaldreamer]

I will quote Peter Struck our Minister of Defense a.D. (2002-2005):

"Deutschlands Freiheit wird am Hindukusch verteidigt."

"The security of Germany is also defended in the Hindu Kush"

Did Mr. Struck ever define "security" ?

[Emersonnets]

Because of oil and the war that's going on in the Middle East

Everyone in the West wants peace over there, but because there's no peace over there the united nations started going over there

There are a lot groups and organizations involved, not counting the West, you got the rebels, Assad, the kurds, ISIS.

There are a bunch of disagreements between these groups.

[Swordsoffreedom]

Why are we there ?

Should we be there ?

Why are we there ?

To take oil and gas cheaply, destabilize the region and build up ISIS through funding rebels to topple other government heads like Al Assad.

Should we be there ?

That depends

If your pro Israel a weaker middle east allows it to expand its territory with relative ease.
If your job is in the military and you get work for building weapons to fight then there would be no jobs see American budget on military spending, and the idea of war investments for peace.

If your trying to create peace in the Middle East
(NO you'll only make it worse killing the dictators there they are what creates meta-stability in that chaotic environment destroying them creates a serious power vacuum where more radical elements moderated by these dictators can now thrive in)

And if your a corporation less government to deal with less tax = a better bankroll, hiring a few thugs to keep an oil area safe is cheaper than taxes on production.

[RJX]

Why we there? Because we need oil. Should we be there? Yes, if not they come to us as they recently did and that left quite a mess.

Rather messy overthere then in beautiful streets of Paris.

[bryant.coleman]

Why are we there ?

There are a number of reasons. Protecting the American allies (such as Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Qatar) from Iran is one of the reasons. Protecting the US owned oil infrastructure is another.

Should we be there ?

IMO, the answer is Yes. Without the Petrodollar and the OPEC, the United States will cease to be a superpower.

[practicaldreamer]

Protecting the US owned oil infrastructure ..... Without the Petrodollar and the OPEC, the United States will cease to be a superpower.

I thought we were promoting and protecting Freedom and Democracy ?  Thats what I'm being told anyhow.

You mean to say, we aren't actually there for their interests, we are, in fact, there for ours ?

[saddampbuh]

we should not be there, and muslims should not be here

[Gronthaing]

If your trying to create peace in the Middle East
(NO you'll only make it worse killing the dictators there they are what creates meta-stability in that chaotic environment destroying them creates a serious power vacuum where more radical elements moderated by these dictators can now thrive in)

A lot of the dictators there are in power because of the support of the west. And because the west killed or helped them kill the moderate forces. And topple democratic movements in several countries. Peace in the middle east is possible if we let it happen. But that would interfere with the west trying to control the world.

[Swordsoffreedom]

If your trying to create peace in the Middle East
(NO you'll only make it worse killing the dictators there they are what creates meta-stability in that chaotic environment destroying them creates a serious power vacuum where more radical elements moderated by these dictators can now thrive in)

A lot of the dictators there are in power because of the support of the west. And because the west killed or helped them kill the moderate forces. And topple democratic movements in several countries. Peace in the middle east is possible if we let it happen. But that would interfere with the west trying to control the world.

Not at all in fact US policy is to have those dictators destroyed not supported, if you were to compare strategy it would be similar to putting up Puppet Governments in Latin America in the 1970's like Pinochet to keep them under a tight leash instead of uncontrolled elements like the Dictators in the Middle East unfortunately they discovered they were far less worse than the Extremists.

Lets look at Libya the richest African Nation prior to their revolution with a solid infrastructure system and large projects like the Great Man Made River which would address Libya's water problems for decades to come, it was peaceful if tense under that dictatorship and the relationships between feuding parties under Gadaffi were under control now we just see a mess as the moderate elements were wiped out and ISIL came into the power vacuum (Islamic State of Libya), I'll concede Gadaffi funded terrorism as a way to keep the element in check and stabilize the country but we can see that compared to the funding they can acquire now and the land they gained that was a pittance to keep the region in check.

Russia is supporting Syria and Basshar Al Assad the West is trying to wipe him out and remove any role he has in Syria despite the problem that is ISIS putting him as an even greater threat priority wise, while he is a dictator and crazy his dictatorship kept Syria stable the power vacuum that has emerged is completely due to US intervention that allowed them to gain territory (Islamic State of Syria) were a major part of the Rebel elements the US gave weapons to in the Arab Spring.

Iraq - As everyone knows now had no Weapons of Mass Destruction but it was used as a major reason to invade the country and destroy Saddam Hussein along with 9/11. Prior to that historically there was the Shah but they haven't really had much influence their since the Iranian revolution of 1979.

Iran - Under Obama trying to make a partner there and peacefully disarm nukes then do a Gadaffi in the future, under other governments particularly Bush trying to destroy the country economically through boycotts, starving the people and sabotaging their nuclear abilities to keep Israel as the only Middle-Eastern Nuclear/Non Nuclear power.

[zenitzz]

Because of oil and the war that's going on in the Middle East

Everyone in the West wants peace over there, but because there's no peace over there the united nations started going over there

There are a lot groups and organizations involved, not counting the West, you got the rebels, Assad, the kurds, ISIS.

There are a bunch of disagreements between these groups.

oil without it there would just be desert and the west wouldn't even care what went on there they buy western weapons on mass who's complaining well everybody now they are turning them westward

[RealPhotoshoper]

i see this http://www.news.com.au/world/middle-east/australia-should-not-respond-to-paris-attacks-with-more-troops/news-story/f9457c46ce42716fd87ad22882c2981a
a former chief of the Australian Army and a senior military commander in the Middle East have warned against any increase to Australia’s military presence in Iraq or Syria in the wake of the deadly Paris attacks.

[vero]

Why we there? Because we need oil. Should we be there? Yes, if not they come to us as they recently did and that left quite a mess.

Rather messy overthere then in beautiful streets of Paris.

fundamentalists are trying to make the whole world live by their standards, and people don't want to, plus, oil, oil, and more oil. Don't think for one minute that if Canada and Argentina cut off the oil to US, there wouldn't be American troops here/there too.

[Gronthaing]

Not at all in fact US policy is to have those dictators destroyed not supported, if you were to compare strategy it would be similar to putting up Puppet Governments in Latin America in the 1970's like Pinochet to keep them under a tight leash instead of uncontrolled elements like the Dictators in the Middle East unfortunately they discovered they were far less worse than the Extremists.

I don't agree. On several things. What you're saying is the old people in the middle east don't know how to live in democracy. If they don't have western backed dictators in power, they have radical fundamentalists. But american policy is to make governments open to its influence. And open to us companies. Doesn't matter if it's dictators or fundamentalists or whatever in power. Not to remove dictators and spread democracy or prevent worst people getting in power. Saddam was a major us ally in the region for a long time. Before he tried to interfere with western control of kuwait. Iran had a democracy before they tried to nationalize their oil company. The west immediately moved to prevent that and get an obedient dictator in power. When the population rebelled against him the west helped saddam attack iran. Even helped iraq use chemical weapons in the war. Afghanistan had a more or less progressive society before the us funded, trained and supported fundamentalists destroy the country. Support for saudi arabia and their oppressive regime is well known. And so is the spread of their radical ideology in the region. You know building terrorist training camps in other countries with the consent of the west. And in all these countries and many others one of the first things done is remove moderate forces. Send them to prison, terrorize them or kill them and their family. Not very fair to now say it's their own fault. In latin america it was the same thing. The excuse used to go there was the same used in the middle east: russians, socialists and communists. So there was huge support for dictators there too. But countries in latin america managed to integrate and cooperate between themselves and resist us control up to some point. So now you see some progress there. Though the us still tries to interfere like they did with the coup against chavez for example.

[Swordsoffreedom]

Not at all in fact US policy is to have those dictators destroyed not supported, if you were to compare strategy it would be similar to putting up Puppet Governments in Latin America in the 1970's like Pinochet to keep them under a tight leash instead of uncontrolled elements like the Dictators in the Middle East unfortunately they discovered they were far less worse than the Extremists.

I don't agree. On several things. What you're saying is the old people in the middle east don't know how to live in democracy. If they don't have western backed dictators in power, they have radical fundamentalists. But american policy is to make governments open to its influence. And open to us companies. Doesn't matter if it's dictators or fundamentalists or whatever in power. Not to remove dictators and spread democracy or prevent worst people getting in power. Saddam was a major us ally in the region for a long time. Before he tried to interfere with western control of kuwait. Iran had a democracy before they tried to nationalize their oil company. The west immediately moved to prevent that and get an obedient dictator in power. When the population rebelled against him the west helped saddam attack iran. Even helped iraq use chemical weapons in the war. Afghanistan had a more or less progressive society before the us funded, trained and supported fundamentalists destroy the country. Support for saudi arabia and their oppressive regime is well known. And so is the spread of their radical ideology in the region. You know building terrorist training camps in other countries with the consent of the west. And in all these countries and many others one of the first things done is remove moderate forces. Send them to prison, terrorize them or kill them and their family. Not very fair to now say it's their own fault. In latin america it was the same thing. The excuse used to go there was the same used in the middle east: russians, socialists and communists. So there was huge support for dictators there too. But countries in latin america managed to integrate and cooperate between themselves and resist us control up to some point. So now you see some progress there. Though the us still tries to interfere like they did with the coup against chavez for example.

I think we might be agreeing but interpreting it differently, in the end I meant that they are supporting Dictators that benefit US interests, the list of examples you used illustrate that the name changes but the concept is the same we must take out the bogeyman and build up a puppet state to support our internationals.

As for the old people in the Middle East it's not that they don't recognize democracy it's just that their democracy leans towards fundamentalist elements and if it does not and people try to introduce modernist elements more chaos occurs from the radical elements who disagree, the citizens there just want a semblance of normalcy to their daily lives instead of fearing bomb runs. Your right about Saddam he was strong US ally until their interests diverged.

The main difference between the Middle East and the Latin American dictatorships were that the rebel forces in Latin America remained internal in their conflicts and rarely spread out to target the Western backed powers, those of the Middle East also include external targets to their list, primarily toward those groups that are supporting the civil war in their countries, to this day there are still many people in Latin America that do no like the United States because of all the atrocities it supported over there in the past and Western influence has declined over the years except for a few holdouts which is why were starting to see some growth as many countries align to China.

If a person loses their brothers sisters and parents to bombing runs by Western Powers and has basically nothing to live for then they have no reason not to join those fundamentalists and declare war (Jihad) on those that made their life crap.
Following that line of reasoning one can understand the even us calling ISIS cowards could be retorted by saying Americans Use drones, bomb their homes and don't even see the people they are harming innocent civilians or not, weapons make the army and it's like fighting with a stick against a rocket when comparing weaponry.

[avw1982]

we should not be there, and muslims should not be here

I don't think so your thoughts are good. we all are human beings only, We should not see the people with religion or other discriminating things. we are considering ISIS as Muslims. Islam telling peace is first index for humans. we are welcome to middle east all Asian countries with full heart.

[mohsin qureshi]

This might be not fhe fight against terrorism, but to protect the rights of some counties. Westren countries seems that the power of oil musf be in their control, otherwise terrorist used against them. On the other hand terrorist thought ones they got all the power they must destroy there countries as westren countries had done in the past. So it is the meanless war but the results might be more horrible then the world seems today.

[Nemo1024]

Russia finally started doing what USA should have done 2-3 years ago IF USA was fighting ISIS - bombing oil wells and oil infrastructure, used by ISIS to supply dirt-cheap oil through Turkey.

USA is livid that their pet project is dismantled at every level, so quite expectedly, Russia is hit by a retaliatory blow below the belt:

https://futuristrendcast.wordpress.com/2015/11/19/hybrid-war-in-sports-doping-and-demands-to-ban-russia-from-2016-summer-olympics/

And no, Western forces should not be there, as they were not invited. Russian forces (30 war planes only!) and Iranian ground forces that participate in the anti-ISIS operation are there by a direct request from the country's government, calling upon these specific countries for help.

UPDATE: Actually, 69 planes as of today:
http://ren.tv/novosti/2015-11-20/shoygu-rossiyskaya-aviagruppirovka-v-sirii-uvelichena-v-dva-raza

[practicaldreamer]

USA is livid that their pet project is dismantled at every level, so quite expectedly, Russia is hit by a retaliatory blow below the belt:

https://futuristrendcast.wordpress.com/2015/11/19/hybrid-war-in-sports-doping-and-demands-to-ban-russia-from-2016-summer-olympics/

Yes - so true.

I personally believe that the furor over corruption within FIFA, also,had more to do with it awarding Russia the 2018 World Cup than anything else. The irony is, the US don't even play football !!

Your other points were spot on also IMHO.

[anthonycamp]

all the east and west need to gather forces against terror soo we need bomb a bit the infra of separatists and terrorists cells in order for them to fear real love power of force

[Nemo1024]

USA is livid that their pet project is dismantled at every level, so quite expectedly, Russia is hit by a retaliatory blow below the belt:

https://futuristrendcast.wordpress.com/2015/11/19/hybrid-war-in-sports-doping-and-demands-to-ban-russia-from-2016-summer-olympics/

Yes - so true.

I personally believe that the furor over corruption within FIFA, also,had more to do with it awarding Russia the 2018 World Cup than anything else. The irony is, the US don't even play football !!

Your other points were spot on also IMHO.

The article above has a passage on FIFA too. Your intuition does not deceive you.

FIFA Scandal, World Cup and Joseph Blatter

In it I gave and example of the FIFA scandal and the ousting of its long-time president Joseph Blatter. The thing is that corruption within the organization notwithstanding, Blatter was a friend of Russia. Just before the scandal broke out he visited Russia and Putin. He was also a big proponent of the 2018 World Cup in Russia and supporter of the development of the Russian sport.

Russia never hosted World Cup, which is considered the Olympics of football. I personally am indifferent towards football (US: soccer), but many in Russia are ardent supporters and the country at large has been ecstatic to host the world’s most important football competition. This has to do with national pride, but also with the love of the sport. Regardless of how one feels about football or sport in general, my goal is always to present a balanced, truthful and complete picture.

And the truth is this: naturally and in line with their proclaimed goal of expanding the world of football and giving nations that never hosted the chance, FIFA, and Blatter personally, wanted to award World Cup to Russia and other countries that showed enthusiasm and dedication.

Knowing how well received World Cup was by Russians, the FIFA scandal was timed in such a way as to try to take the hosting rights away from Russia. THIS was really the reason for the whole FIFA scandal. The idea was to throw a lot of loud accusations in corruption and bribery and see if they would stick – if they could be pinned on Russia. If it was possible to prove that Russians got the 2018 World Cup via bribery, then the next step would begin: humiliate Russia by stripping it of the championship – and vilify, vilify, vilify on all levels possible.

The plan didn’t work. It turned out that the bribes were not Russian. They came from Qatar, which was awarded 2022 World Cup. The thing is that FIFA votes and awards two consecutive World Cups in one meeting. So, Russia 2018 and Qatar 2022 were awarded together.

According to witnesses, Qatar representatives carried with them envelopes stuffed with $20,000 each and just gave them away to everyone in the audience as ‘mementos.’ Just imagine what was going on behind the scenes and how much money was passed under the table, if $20,000 multiplied by thousands of participants were given out like little trifles.

But Qatar wasn’t the target here – Russia was.

Despite the obvious failure, Western MSM and politicians continued howling that Russia (notice – not Qatar) should be stripped of World Cup hosting. FIFA, which under Blatter conducted independent policies, refusing to bow to the Anglo-American bosses, refused to transfer it from Russia. Blatter stood firm and the scandal died down. No one demanded that Qatar be stripped of its 2022 World Cup.

The result was the ousting of Blatter under bogus and falsified pretexts as a lesson to others to toe the line.

[Slark]

Why are we there ?

Should we be there ?

In't it a bit late asking abut that now? Western interventions are disturbing shaky peace of the Middle East since few decades now.
Personally I think the best option is to let Arabs take care of their own business and deal with their own problems. But it may be too late for it now with ISIS around.

[Gronthaing]

As for the old people in the Middle East it's not that they don't recognize democracy it's just that their democracy leans towards fundamentalist elements and if it does not and people try to introduce modernist elements more chaos occurs from the radical elements who disagree, the citizens there just want a semblance of normalcy to their daily lives instead of fearing bomb runs.

Only thing I disagree with is this. And the examples I gave were to illustrate why. Don't believe their democracies naturally lean towards fundamentalism. Just as it doesn't in latin america. People in the middle east can be as progressive as from anywhere else. And were in the past in some of the examples I posted about. But fundamentalism was helped out by killing the moderates. And by funding extremists, arming them, training them, etc. Radical elements exist in every society. But they didn't appear in the numbers and with the power they have in the middle east from nowhere.

[practicaldreamer]

OK - consensus seems to be the big oil cartels are there, well, for oil. And western military forces are there in their service. Its not nice to think I have relatives out there who, unbeknowns to them, are actually in the employ of ExxonMobil - they've been told they are out there to rid the world of terror, when they are actually paying Rex Tillerson his $40.3 mil salary 

Next question is then, I suppose, can the west do without the cheap oil ?   How much of a hit to living standards would we be prepared to take (when we were no longer able to dictate the price of the oil we consumed) ?

[Spendulus]

OK - consensus seems to be the big oil cartels are there, well, for oil. And western military forces are there in their service. Its not nice to think I have relatives out there who, unbeknowns to them, are actually in the employ of ExxonMobil - they've been told they are out there to rid the world of terror, when they are actually paying Rex Tillerson his $40.3 mil salary 

Next question is then, I suppose, can the west do without the cheap oil ?   How much of a hit to living standards would we be prepared to take (when we were no longer able to dictate the price of the oil we consumed) ?

Your approach is nonsensical.  Oil is a FUNGIBLE commodity.  We don't "GET" the oil from the middle east, it goes on the global market.  That's in opposition to a pipeline, where it goes exactly where the pipeline leads. 

Oil companies of course have gone into third world nations and bought land, developed the resource, made deals with the governments, etc.  Those governments don't exactly have people that can build a refinery, or who can operate it.  So of course they make deals with companies that do this stuff all day long.

[practicaldreamer]

Oil companies of course have gone into third world nations and bought land, developed the resource, made deals with the governments, etc.  

Oh - I see.

It all sounds so amicable.

We don't "GET" the oil from the middle east, it goes on the global market.

The Iraq War has cost the US about $1.1 trillion of taxpayers money in military spending [in addition to this between 1976 and 2007 the total cost of maintaining the US. military in the Persian Gulf was about $7 trillion]

ExxonMobil pulls out around $2.5 billion pa profit from its interests in Iraq - not least from the $4.2 billion sales, yes, you've guessed, back to the US military. Again, paid for by the taxpayer.
Seems like a pretty direct transference of wealth a) from the nation and people of Iraq to ExxonMobil  and   b) from the nation and taxpaying public of the US to ExxonMobil.
EM aren't the only ones.

And I'll not go into the human costs.


Yes, there's a market price of oil, which is currently being kept low via overproduction (punishing Putin) - but this isn't really the point I was making.



Are you saying that you think we are in the Middle East fighting a war on terror ?

[erickimani]

it is a global world and we cant live alone. the only thing that is bad is that the west think they are the best and should determine the peace of others. they think that they are the most humane. but it is good trying to maintain peace all over the world because if not so, the whole world and world of business could crumble down because of some few brain washed fellows.

[Spendulus]

Oil companies of course have gone into third world nations and bought land, developed the resource, made deals with the governments, etc.  

Oh - I see.

It all sounds so amicable.

We don't "GET" the oil from the middle east, it goes on the global market.

The Iraq War has cost the US about $1.1 trillion of taxpayers money in military spending [in addition to this between 1976 and 2007 the total cost of maintaining the US. military in the Persian Gulf was about $7 trillion]

ExxonMobil pulls out around $2.5 billion pa profit from its interests in Iraq - not least from the $4.2 billion sales, yes, you've guessed, back to the US military. Again, paid for by the taxpayer.
Seems like a pretty direct transference of wealth a) from the nation and people of Iraq to ExxonMobil  and   b) from the nation and taxpaying public of the US to ExxonMobil.
EM aren't the only ones.

And I'll not go into the human costs.


Yes, there's a market price of oil, which is currently being kept low via overproduction (punishing Putin) - but this isn't really the point I was making.



Are you saying that you think we are in the Middle East fighting a war on terror ?

Excuse me?  I only noted the obvious.  Are you on some kind of vendetta against Exxon?  And "market price is being kept low?"  Sez who, exactly?  I don't know of any fracking fields where someone up high is telling them how much to sell for.  Last I heard price was low because Saudis were making a futile effort to drive US frackers out of business.

I think you are confusing two separate issues entirely.  Not saying they do not overlap at times, but there's no conspiracy theory there.

You really think Exxon is basically a warmonger?  Any idea how quickly people in Houston working for Exxon would laugh at that?

[criptix]

Oil companies of course have gone into third world nations and bought land, developed the resource, made deals with the governments, etc. 

Oh - I see.

It all sounds so amicable.

We don't "GET" the oil from the middle east, it goes on the global market.

The Iraq War has cost the US about $1.1 trillion of taxpayers money in military spending [in addition to this between 1976 and 2007 the total cost of maintaining the US. military in the Persian Gulf was about $7 trillion]

ExxonMobil pulls out around $2.5 billion pa profit from its interests in Iraq - not least from the $4.2 billion sales, yes, you've guessed, back to the US military. Again, paid for by the taxpayer.
Seems like a pretty direct transference of wealth a) from the nation and people of Iraq to ExxonMobil  and   b) from the nation and taxpaying public of the US to ExxonMobil.
EM aren't the only ones.

And I'll not go into the human costs.


Yes, there's a market price of oil, which is currently being kept low via overproduction (punishing Putin) - but this isn't really the point I was making.



Are you saying that you think we are in the Middle East fighting a war on terror ?

Excuse me?  I only noted the obvious.  Are you on some kind of vendetta against Exxon?  And "market price is being kept low?"  Sez who, exactly?  I don't know of any fracking fields where someone up high is telling them how much to sell for.  Last I heard price was low because Saudis were making a futile effort to drive US frackers out of business.

I think you are confusing two separate issues entirely.  Not saying they do not overlap at times, but there's no conspiracy theory there.

You really think Exxon is basically a warmonger?  Any idea how quickly people in Houston working for Exxon would laugh at that?

before the US and friends liberated iraq, saddam was owning the oil-wells. who do you think owns them now?
did you hear about the "food for oil" programm?

also not only oil-producers like Exxon made a killing (pun intended) over there in iraq - look at security and constructions companies.
you will see a lot (it is really a lot) of them have connections to bush senior and junior in one or another way.

there should be enough articles @theguardian about it. (i will edit them tommorow - too lazy now)

[Spendulus]

Oil companies of course have gone into third world nations and bought land, developed the resource, made deals with the governments, etc. 

Oh - I see.

It all sounds so amicable.

We don't "GET" the oil from the middle east, it goes on the global market.

The Iraq War has cost the US about $1.1 trillion of taxpayers money in military spending [in addition to this between 1976 and 2007 the total cost of maintaining the US. military in the Persian Gulf was about $7 trillion]

ExxonMobil pulls out around $2.5 billion pa profit from its interests in Iraq - not least from the $4.2 billion sales, yes, you've guessed, back to the US military. Again, paid for by the taxpayer.
Seems like a pretty direct transference of wealth a) from the nation and people of Iraq to ExxonMobil  and   b) from the nation and taxpaying public of the US to ExxonMobil.
EM aren't the only ones.

And I'll not go into the human costs.


Yes, there's a market price of oil, which is currently being kept low via overproduction (punishing Putin) - but this isn't really the point I was making.



Are you saying that you think we are in the Middle East fighting a war on terror ?

Excuse me?  I only noted the obvious.  Are you on some kind of vendetta against Exxon?  And "market price is being kept low?"  Sez who, exactly?  I don't know of any fracking fields where someone up high is telling them how much to sell for.  Last I heard price was low because Saudis were making a futile effort to drive US frackers out of business.

I think you are confusing two separate issues entirely.  Not saying they do not overlap at times, but there's no conspiracy theory there.

You really think Exxon is basically a warmonger?  Any idea how quickly people in Houston working for Exxon would laugh at that?

before the US and friends liberated iraq, saddam was owning the oil-wells. who do you think owns them now?
did you hear about the "food for oil" programm?

also not only oil-producers like Exxon made a killing (pun intended) over there in iraq - look at security and constructions companies.
you will see a lot (it is really a lot) of them have connections to bush senior and junior in one or another way.

there should be enough articles @theguardian about it. (i will edit them tommorow - too lazy now)

who do you think owns them now?

I would hope the OWNERS give contracts for operation of their wells to competent international firms, US or otherwise.

[practicaldreamer]

During Chinas unprecedented recent economic development they too were in need (are in need) of the black gold. They too looked towards Venezeula - a country with the 2nd largest reserves of crude on the planet. They too noted that the reserves were in the hands of the nation of Venezeula, via the Petróleos de Venezuela, S.A.
  Do a bit of reading and compare and contrast the approaches of China vs. the US, with regards their respective foreign policy re. Venezeula - cos I think there might be an important lesson to learn here.

You really think Exxon is basically a warmonger?  Any idea how quickly people in Houston working for Exxon would laugh at that?

The Execs in Houston would be laughing at one of us and it wouldn't be me. They know the score as well as I do - as does the oil baron family of the Bushes who were responsible for invading Iraq in the first place.

[Spendulus]

During Chinas unprecedented recent economic development they too were in need (are in need) of the black gold. They too looked towards Venezeula - a country with the 2nd largest reserves of crude on the planet. They too noted that the reserves were in the hands of the nation of Venezeula, via the Petróleos de Venezuela, S.A.
  Do a bit of reading and compare and contrast the approaches of China vs. the US, with regards their respective foreign policy re. Venezeula - cos I think there might be an important lesson to learn here.

You really think Exxon is basically a warmonger?  Any idea how quickly people in Houston working for Exxon would laugh at that?

The Execs in Houston would be laughing at one of us and it wouldn't be me. They know the score as well as I do - as does the oil baron family of the Bushes who were responsible for invading Iraq in the first place.

Liberal delusional thinking, and more that of the 1980s than today.

Let's hear it.  Who do you think OWNS the oil fields?

Do you have a problem with an OWNER of an oil field hiring competent international companies to run it for maximum profit?

If so, who would you exclude from their bidder list and why?

[BADecker]

Why are we there ?

Should we be there ?

Western forces are doing a very complex job over there.

1. They need to look reasonably good... well, not too bad.
2. They need to keep the oil and profits flowing.
3. They need to keep from killing off too many people.
4. They need to maintain control.

Thanks to the help of shrew people from Israel, they are doing quite a good job.

[practicaldreamer]

During Chinas unprecedented recent economic development they too were in need (are in need) of the black gold. They too looked towards Venezeula - a country with the 2nd largest reserves of crude on the planet. They too noted that the reserves were in the hands of the nation of Venezeula, via the Petróleos de Venezuela, S.A.
  Do a bit of reading and compare and contrast the approaches of China vs. the US, with regards their respective foreign policy re. Venezeula - cos I think there might be an important lesson to learn here.

You really think Exxon is basically a warmonger?  Any idea how quickly people in Houston working for Exxon would laugh at that?

The Execs in Houston would be laughing at one of us and it wouldn't be me. They know the score as well as I do - as does the oil baron family of the Bushes who were responsible for invading Iraq in the first place.

Liberal delusional thinking, and more that of the 1980s than today.

Let's hear it.  Who do you think OWNS the oil fields?

Do you have a problem with an OWNER of an oil field hiring competent international companies to run it for maximum profit?

If so, who would you exclude from their bidder list and why?

Don't tell me - the West is "facilitating" the development of underdeveloped nations. We are saving them from themselves. LOL

Listen man, I have neither the time nor inclination to educate you - but for an ABC intro to international relations you might want to look perhaps at Dependency Theory.

  Its a little outdated now - but in essence still holds a lot of water. In particular, look into how, in the Metropolis- Satellite relationship, TPTB have a tendency to patronise ,or otherwise install, a well rewarded regime (I'm looking at you House of Saud) that whilst furthering the interests of (themselves and) TPTB have absolutely no qualms about fucking their own people up the arse, so to speak.





As a side note - its interesting, looking at the Politics/Society section of BCTalk, that at the moment at least (immediate aftermath of Paris attacks) there seems to be some recognition of the underlying issues re. the Middle East.
   Yes, you have the "all guns blazing crowd" - and the market is paramount crowd - but overall its quite encouraging.

ps. I nearly forgot the thick as pigshit lunatic crowd, who are always well represented herein.

[Spendulus]

During Chinas unprecedented recent economic development they too were in need (are in need) of the black gold. They too looked towards Venezeula - a country with the 2nd largest reserves of crude on the planet. They too noted that the reserves were in the hands of the nation of Venezeula, via the Petróleos de Venezuela, S.A.
  Do a bit of reading and compare and contrast the approaches of China vs. the US, with regards their respective foreign policy re. Venezeula - cos I think there might be an important lesson to learn here.

You really think Exxon is basically a warmonger?  Any idea how quickly people in Houston working for Exxon would laugh at that?

The Execs in Houston would be laughing at one of us and it wouldn't be me. They know the score as well as I do - as does the oil baron family of the Bushes who were responsible for invading Iraq in the first place.

Liberal delusional thinking, and more that of the 1980s than today.

Let's hear it.  Who do you think OWNS the oil fields?

Do you have a problem with an OWNER of an oil field hiring competent international companies to run it for maximum profit?

If so, who would you exclude from their bidder list and why?

Don't tell me - the West is "facilitating" the development of underdeveloped nations. We are saving them from themselves. LOL

Listen man, I have neither the time nor inclination to educate you - but for an ABC intro to international relations you might want to look perhaps at Dependency Theory.

  Its a little outdated now - but in essence still holds a lot of water. In particular, look into how, in the Metropolis- Satellite relationship, TPTB have a tendency to patronise ,or otherwise install, a well rewarded regime (I'm looking at you House of Saud) that whilst furthering the interests of (themselves and) TPTB have absolutely no qualms about fucking their own people up the arse, so to speak.





As a side note - its interesting, looking at the Politics/Society section of BCTalk, that at the moment at least (immediate aftermath of Paris attacks) there seems to be some recognition of the underlying issues re. the Middle East.
   Yes, you have the "all guns blazing crowd" - and the market is paramount crowd - but overall its quite encouraging.

ps. I nearly forgot the thick as pigshit lunatic crowd, who are always well represented herein.

Most of the guys I know on international refinery jobs have very different points of view.  First, they tend to know a lot about the host country and their company's relationship with it.  So it's all nuanced a thousand ways away from your generalizations.  These guys don't talk about subjects like "facilitating the development of underdeveloped nations," they are simply doing contract jobs at a site.  Also, they are of many nationalities, political and cultural types.  Indian, Arab, Pakistani, US, British, German, etc.  So I just can't relate your ideas of a sort of grand Bush conspiracy to give third world assets to Exxon, sorry....

I guess you really didn't answer my questions, though.  I mean for example, NO, Exxon is not an "Owner," right?  And some prince isn't told who to give a job to, except by those higher up in his hierarchy. 

[practicaldreamer]

I guess you really didn't answer my questions, though.  I mean for example, NO, Exxon is not an "Owner," right? 

I don't know who "owns" the oil on paper - but I know who owns it in practice, and in the realpolitik world of shareholder dividends and corporate executive payouts and bonuses.

Listen - suppose Mrs. Practical Dreamer and myself only get to see each other for 10 minutes a day. This is around 8 am when she kindly prepares for me my breakfast (porridge (made with water - and no syrup BTW) - so nothing to write home about). For the other 23 hours 50 minutes a day she is busy round at Spendulus's house being his whore (and he's been known to have a penchant for S+M - so its not pretty) and baking him all manner of expensive cuisine - do you think I can still rightfully call Mrs. Dreamer my wife ?

I mean, we still have the marriage certificate, we haven't been divorced.

But still...

[Spendulus]

I guess you really didn't answer my questions, though.  I mean for example, NO, Exxon is not an "Owner," right? 

I don't know who "owns" the oil on paper - but I know who owns it in practice, and in the realpolitik world of shareholder dividends and corporate executive payouts and bonuses.

Listen - suppose Mrs. Practical Dreamer and myself only get to see each other for 10 minutes a day. This is around 8 am when she kindly prepares for me my breakfast (porridge (made with water - and no syrup BTW) - so nothing to write home about). For the other 23 hours 50 minutes a day she is busy round at Spendulus's house being his whore (and he's been known to have a penchant for S+M - so its not pretty) and baking him all manner of expensive cuisine - do you think I can still rightfully call Mrs. Dreamer my wife ?

I mean, we still have the marriage certificate, we haven't been divorced.

But still...

Certainly someone can effectively be an owner, although on paper it's someone else.

One simple way to look at that would be the total revenue from a well or field, versus the percentage that the contract manager kept.

Is it reasonable?  What is reasonable?

As an example, I don't know any apartment managers who would claim that they or their company effectively owned the apartment buildings due to their deals made for management.

A field produces crude, then it goes in a ship or pipeline and heads to a refinery.  Then you get a variety of products output that go different places.

These transactions are all very competitive, price wise.

The average guy in Saudi Arabia may be getting shafted, but it's by the princes not the contractors at the wells.

Same in Venezuela, etc.

[practicaldreamer]

The average guy in Saudi Arabia may be getting shafted, but it's by the princes not the contractors at the wells.

Same in Venezuela, etc.

Its not quite the same in Venezuela, no.

The oil revenue goes towards funding decent social housing.

Whereas the revenue in Saudi goes towards this :-



- its so the young Saudi/Kuwait/Qatar "in crowd" can come to London to avoid the hot summers in their homelands. The streets are full of em in London - racing up and down like they fuckin own the place, apparently.



So no - its not quite the same.

[Spendulus]

The average guy in Saudi Arabia may be getting shafted, but it's by the princes not the contractors at the wells.

Same in Venezuela, etc.

Its not quite the same in Venezuela, no.

The oil revenue goes towards funding decent social housing.

Whereas the revenue in Saudi goes towards this :-



- its so the young Saudi/Kuwait/Qatar "in crowd" can come to London to avoid the hot summers in their homelands. The streets are full of em in London - racing up and down like they fuckin own the place, apparently.



So no - its not quite the same.

LOL, y it's not quite the same, no.

[bryant.coleman]

Its not quite the same in Venezuela, no.
The oil revenue goes towards funding decent social housing.

It is not that simple. The cost of producing a barrel of oil is around $4 in Saudi Arabia, $20 in Venezuela, $12 in Russia, $36 in the United States and about $49 in Brazil. So if oil goes down to $45 per barrel, the Saudis will be left with $41 per barrel in profit, while the Venezuelans will get only $25 per bl. So the Venezuelans can't afford the same luxuries, which the Saudis are indulging in.

[practicaldreamer]

Its not quite the same in Venezuela, no.
The oil revenue goes towards funding decent social housing.

It is not that simple. The cost of producing a barrel of oil is around $4 in Saudi Arabia, $20 in Venezuela, $12 in Russia, $36 in the United States and about $49 in Brazil. So if oil goes down to $45 per barrel, the Saudis will be left with $41 per barrel in profit, while the Venezuelans will get only $25 per bl. So the Venezuelans can't afford the same luxuries, which the Saudis are indulging in.

Yep - fair point - I can't find too much fault there.
Not that this detracts away from my point regarding the socio-political priorities and aspirations of the respective governments in question.

Here is Rystad Energy’s list of production costs for the 20 largest oil-producing countries:

    Kuwait – $8.50 a barrel
    Saudi Arabia – $9.90
    Iraq – $10.70
    United Arab Emirates – $12.30
    Iran – $12.60
    Russia – $17.20
    Algeria – $20.40
    Venezuela – $23.50
    Libya – $23.80
    Kazakhstan – $27.80
    Mexico – $29.10
    China – $29.90
    Nigeria – $31.60
    Colombia – $35.30
    Angola – $35.40
    Norway – $36.10
    United States – $36.20
    Canada – $41.00
    Brazil – $48.80
    United Kingdom – $52.50

Interesting to note the cost of extraction of Iraqi oil - and we all know who owns the Iraq oil. With the possible exception of spendulus that is 

Draw from this list the conclusions that you see fit about the reasons the US's oligarchs have shelled out $trillions of taxpayers hard earned in military spending in the Persian Gulf/Middle East over the last 40 years.

I'll not go into the 4.5 thousand US lives lost in the Iraq conflict (none were ExxonMobil Execs afaik) - or the half million Iraqi deaths.


It has to be said, however, that the balance of power has shifted in the energy security wars - it has shifted well and truly away from the Seven Sisters towards the BRICS loose coalition - and they seem to be able to do it without spending almost 1/5 of their publics tax revenue on the military for some reason.

[salinizm]

Why are we there ?

Should we be there ?

yankee go home... you dont need to be in middle east..

[designerusa]

Why are we there ?

Should we be there ?

you are there for its oil resources and suck blood of people in middle east.. you have to withdraw your troops from this lands and then peace will come again to this lands .

[MargaretsDream]

Why are we there ?

Should we be there ?

you are there for its oil resources and suck blood of people in middle east.. you have to withdraw your troops from this lands and then peace will come again to this lands .

Yea, they are just there to rob oil reserves.
NOT

They are actually helping the war-torn middle east to come out of its terrible ways.

[bitsmichel]

Why are we there ?

Should we be there ?

It's too expensive to not be there. It would cost he military industry millions. I don't think there will be peace in the middle east regardless of presence of western forces. Israel/Palestina, Iran/Saudi, Kurds/Turkey don't mix very well.

[salinizm]

we should not be there, and muslims should not be here

your quote explains the solution well. nothing more to say...