Pages:
Author

Topic: Western Forces in Middle East - page 2. (Read 2211 times)

hero member
Activity: 770
Merit: 500
November 22, 2015, 03:47:58 PM
#28

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 ?



legendary
Activity: 2926
Merit: 1386
November 22, 2015, 03:38:21 PM
#27
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  Cry

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.
hero member
Activity: 770
Merit: 500
November 22, 2015, 01:16:56 PM
#26
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  Cry

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) ?
legendary
Activity: 1135
Merit: 1001
November 21, 2015, 11:12:41 PM
#25
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.
legendary
Activity: 1862
Merit: 1004
November 20, 2015, 08:33:57 AM
#24
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.
legendary
Activity: 1680
Merit: 1014
November 20, 2015, 07:04:58 AM
#23

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.

Quote
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.
sr. member
Activity: 322
Merit: 250
November 20, 2015, 06:58:30 AM
#22
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
hero member
Activity: 770
Merit: 500
November 20, 2015, 06:55:45 AM
#21

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.
legendary
Activity: 1680
Merit: 1014
November 20, 2015, 06:40:57 AM
#20
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
member
Activity: 98
Merit: 10
November 19, 2015, 07:00:10 AM
#19
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.
hero member
Activity: 644
Merit: 500
November 19, 2015, 06:27:52 AM
#18
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.
legendary
Activity: 2884
Merit: 1115
Leading Crypto Sports Betting & Casino Platform
November 18, 2015, 10:00:19 PM
#17
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.
legendary
Activity: 1135
Merit: 1001
November 18, 2015, 08:43:19 PM
#16
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.
hero member
Activity: 518
Merit: 500
November 18, 2015, 01:27:08 PM
#15
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.
legendary
Activity: 1050
Merit: 1001
November 18, 2015, 11:58:25 AM
#14
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.
hero member
Activity: 560
Merit: 500
November 18, 2015, 01:48:35 AM
#13
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
legendary
Activity: 2884
Merit: 1115
Leading Crypto Sports Betting & Casino Platform
November 18, 2015, 01:34:02 AM
#12
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.



legendary
Activity: 1135
Merit: 1001
November 17, 2015, 07:47:33 PM
#11
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.
legendary
Activity: 1078
Merit: 1014
November 17, 2015, 02:59:31 PM
#10
we should not be there, and muslims should not be here
hero member
Activity: 770
Merit: 500
November 17, 2015, 12:47:50 PM
#9
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 ?
Pages:
Jump to: