Western Forces in Middle East

[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.