Topic: Western Forces in Middle East (Read 2187 times)

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

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.

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.

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 .

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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...

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. 

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.

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.

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?

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.




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.

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.

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)

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?

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.