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

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

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 .

Why are we there ?

Should we be there ?

Why are we there ?

Should we be there ?

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.

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

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.

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...

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

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.

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?

Why are we there ?

Should we be there ?

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.

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)

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?

Oh - I see.

It all sounds so amicable.



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 ?

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

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

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) ?

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.

Why are we there ?

Should we be there ?

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.

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.

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/

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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)

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

Why are we there ?

Should we be there ?

Why are we there ?

Should we be there ?

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

"Deutschlands Freiheit wird am Hindukusch verteidigt."

Why are we there ?

Should we be there ?