Conflicts in the Middle East & Northern Africa

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • Bill77
    Senior Member
    • Oct 2009
    • 4545

    Originally posted by Vangelovski View Post
    EM, you're one of these "progressive" mythologisers - care to comment on the Iraqi oil example above?
    i agree, the control of oil as a reason to invade is a myth.

    But a bigger myth, was this 'Weapons of mass destructions' as the reason to invade.
    http://www.macedoniantruth.org/forum/showthread.php?p=120873#post120873

    Comment

    • EgejskaMakedonia
      Senior Member
      • Jan 2010
      • 1665

      Originally posted by Vangelovski View Post
      What was pillaged? Benefited? How did the US state benefit and from what? Those 2 bids were won by private companies in an open and competitive tender - they could have done the same without the US going to war. What about all the other companies that won more and larger contracts from countries like China and Russia? I suppose its ok when your ideological buddies cash in?
      2 oil contracts is still a benefit, is it not? The war in Iraq was a complete failure and an unnecessary loss of human life. When society is thrown into a state of chaos, pillaging and destruction will ensue. A considerable amount of historical artefacts and archaeological sites were destroyed during the conflict. US soldiers and other personel were even caught taking these artefacts. In some instances the US military stood by and did nothing to prevent looting of museums and historical sites. Those in their armchairs who call the shots had their own immoral interests for invading Iraq. The promotion of 'freedom' or war against terror excuse to go to war has grown rather stale now.

      Ideological buddies? lol. So just because I disagree with US foreign policy that makes me a commie or socialist? China and Russia have been more than guilty of exercising their imperialistic interests during the last few centuries, yet the US are the number 1 culprit in the 21st century.


      Of course they have that right - but you were claiming that the US is an imperialist state, which implies that it controls Iraq and that Iraq would not be able to do anything without US permission. You're contradicting yourself again.
      By making a conscious decision to 'allow' them to sell oil, that is a form of control. The 'contradicting yourself' argument isn't going to cut it here Tom. Your point about the US allowing Iraq to trade oil, followed by an outright denial that the US exerts influence over Iraq is in fact, highly contradictory.

      Comment

      • Vangelovski
        Senior Member
        • Sep 2008
        • 8531

        Originally posted by EgejskaMakedonia View Post
        2 oil contracts is still a benefit, is it not?
        Those contracts were won in an OPEN AND COMPETITIVE PROCESS - do you understand what that is? Those contracts could/would have been won without an invasion. Further, these are private companies, which shareholders from all over the world.

        And why aren't you criticising Russian and Chinese STATE OWNED companies?

        Originally posted by EgejskaMakedonia View Post
        The war in Iraq was a complete failure and an unnecessary loss of human life.
        Noone was arguing any differently, so what's your point?

        Originally posted by EgejskaMakedonia View Post
        When society is thrown into a state of chaos, pillaging and destruction will ensue. A considerable amount of historical artefacts and archaeological sites were destroyed during the conflict.
        The US state did not pillage or benefit from the pillaging.

        Originally posted by EgejskaMakedonia View Post
        US soldiers and other personel were even caught taking these artefacts. In some instances the US military stood by and did nothing to prevent looting of museums and historical sites.
        Looting and pillaging in and of themselves do not amount to imperialism, which is YOUR claim. Further, Americans that were caught looting or with looted artefacts were prosecuted. In fact, most artefacts have been recovered and RETURNED to Iraqi museums with the help of US officials. Providing small isolated incidents which were dealt with through the justice system and for which restitution has been provided, and then drawing the conclusion that it is an exercise in imperialism is intellectually dishonest.

        Here you are also talking about incidents where Iraqi's were looting and pillaging - not Americans. How on earth did you draw the conclusion that the Americans failing to stop this means they are an imperialist state?

        Do you know what imperialism is?

        Originally posted by EgejskaMakedonia View Post
        Those in their armchairs who call the shots had their own immoral interests for invading Iraq. The promotion of 'freedom' or war against terror excuse to go to war has grown rather stale now.
        Other than you, noone on here has said that it was to promote freedom or wage war against terror. Don't set up false arguments so that you've got something to knock down.

        Originally posted by EgejskaMakedonia View Post
        Ideological buddies? lol. So just because I disagree with US foreign policy that makes me a commie or socialist?
        No, the ideological views you have promoted on this forum since you joined clearly show that you have a socialist bent.

        Originally posted by EgejskaMakedonia View Post
        By making a conscious decision to 'allow' them to sell oil, that is a form of control.
        You obviously have not done any further research beyond the information I provided. You may not have heard, but the US has not governed Iraq for a number of years. The US has effectively disengaged from Iraq, leaving them to govern themselves.

        The conscious decision to allow Iraq to govern itself, one example of which was to competitively sell its own oil contracts on its own terms, contradicts YOUR claim that the US is an imperialist state. If indeed it was what YOU claim it is, they would never have allowed an open and competitive sale of Iraqi oil - the Americans would have kept it solely for American companies and for the benefit of the US state.

        Originally posted by EgejskaMakedonia View Post
        The 'contradicting yourself' argument isn't going to cut it here Tom. Your point about the US allowing Iraq to trade oil, followed by an outright denial that the US exerts influence over Iraq is in fact, highly contradictory.
        How is it a contradiction if I deny the US exerts influence over Iraq and then provide an example of that?? Do you understand what a contradiction is? Its when you state something and then make another statement that does not agree (i.e. is in opposition to) with the first.

        You and others have posted over and over that the US is an imperialist state. Now back it up - you could start by providing some substantive examples, not some guy somewhere stole some artefact. It might help if you get a proper understanding of what imperialism actually is. I provided a short explanation on the Chavez thread.
        If my people who are called by my name will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, I will hear from heaven and will forgive their sins and restore their land. 2 Chronicles 7:14

        The Revolution was in the minds and hearts of the people; a change in their religious sentiments, of their duties and obligations...This radical change in the principles, opinions, sentiments, and affections of the people was the real American Revolution. John Adams

        Comment

        • Risto the Great
          Senior Member
          • Sep 2008
          • 15658

          EM you commie bastard!
          I wish I had the slightest notion of anything political at your age. Please don't hang yourself (yet).

          The USA has been doing an exquisite job of working with the Kurds in Iraq and the Iraqi people. They seem to have engineered an interesting (opportunistic) arrangement whereby each of them are empowered in different ways. I must discuss this with a very politically active (Kurdish) client from Iraq. Let me come back to this please.
          Risto the Great
          MACEDONIA:ANHEDONIA
          "Holding my breath for the revolution."

          Hey, I wrote a bestseller. Check it out: www.ren-shen.com

          Comment

          • Big Bad Sven
            Senior Member
            • Jan 2009
            • 1528

            In a nutshell, the war in Syria can be summarized as America and its allies (Al-Qaeda and the nut jobs in Saudi Arabia/Qatar) V.S. Russia and its allies(Hezbollah, the Syrian government and the nut jobs in Iran)

            It is essentially for control of Syria, and important and key area in the middle east. In order to weaken Iran and eventually attack Iran one day the usa will need to topple the Syrian government and put in a pro-american puppet. They Americans also are not happy with the russian navy base being built there.

            The Russians on the other hand need Syria for access into the Mediterranean and middle east, if they lose Syria then its game over for them in their presence in the middle east. They also need Syria to have a strong Iran. Once Iran is down then Russia will be well and truly fucked and will be completely surrounded by the USA.

            Basically for the world players this is a game of strategy,control and advantages. If you really think Russia cares about the orthodox Christians in Syria then you are well and truly a brainwashed idiot or a panslavist weirdo. If you think the Americans came into this war because they are so concerned about the poor civilian population and are really upset that 'democracy' (in the american sense) is not there, then you are a bigger idiot and/or are a 14 year old that reads too much Captain America comics. Basically, no one cares about the Syrian people

            For the smaller players its basically Saudi Arabia's sneaky method if introducing fanatical islam and taking control of another Middle Eastern country.

            As for my opinion, i support the Assad government mainly because i hate fanatical islam, its a plague and a disgrace. Its holding its people back from development. I also cant stand the Saudi's, they are the most evil, racist and hypocritical and FAKE muslims on this planet. Just ask a Malay, Indonesian or Paki how they are treated in Saudi Arabia - they are treated like dirt. And lets not forget about a year ago he had a high percentage of support from the Syrian people (who the hell in their right mind wants to be ruled by an Al-Qeuda government).

            Countries like Syria and Lebanon have the best living standards in the middle east. In these places woman are allowed to drive cars and wear what they want. In Saudi Arabia you will get your head cut off. If america ever needed to 'free' a people or introduce 'democracy' then the should of bombed i mean helped the people in Saudi Arabia

            Inst it strange that America is HELPING and on the SAME SIDE as Al-Queda? The same people that orchestrated 9/11, the same people that america said were the enemies in Iraq and Afghanistan? What a disgrace, espicially for the victims in 9/11

            Which brings me to my next point, how can we exactly trust american news to be 100%? A few years ago Al-Queda were scum and hated american freedom, today they are poor oppressed rebels and we need to help them. For gods sake the taliban were seen as good guys and even Joseph Stalin was portrayed as an old loveable guy, called 'uncle Joe' when he was an American ally.

            And on a final note, how can you support 'rebels' that hide amongst the crowd and torture/kill people that dont want to join their little religous crusade in spreading fanatical islam. America really picked the right side this time lol

            Comment

            • Big Bad Sven
              Senior Member
              • Jan 2009
              • 1528

              Originally posted by Bill77 View Post
              i agree, the control of oil as a reason to invade is a myth.

              But a bigger myth, was this 'Weapons of mass destructions' as the reason to invade.
              Dont forget the other myth that Saddam was hiding and supporting Al-Queada lol

              When infact it was America that supported Al-Queada against Saddam and Saddam kept the religious wackos under control.

              Now Iraq is a breeding ground for scum like Al-Qaeda

              Mission accomplished team America LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL

              Comment

              • Phoenix
                Senior Member
                • Dec 2008
                • 4671

                Originally posted by Vangelovski View Post
                ...But I'd like to hear the pathetic, grovelling explanation for this - the myth promoted by "progressive" circles in 2003 when the US invaded Iraq was that it did so for its oil. And it sounded pretty convincing for a while. But in 2009, the US (being the evil imperialists that they are) allowed the Iraqi Government to auction off contracts for their oil fields. Out of the 18 largest contracts, American companies won only 2 - Occidental Petroluem and Exxon. The rest went to companies from China, Russia, Malaysia, South Korea and the Netherlands (among others). The Iraqi Government also kept controlling stakes in many of these, to ensure that the revenue remains at home. How is that possible? If the US is an imperialist state that only seeks to exploit the resources of its supposed 'client' states, then why did it allow the independent auctioning of Iraqi oil contracts, in which it only won 2 bids?

                Even in related service contracts (construction, transport, refining, hospitality, food), the US was almost completely absent. Most of these went to Arab companies.

                Where is the 'Grand Strategy' to dominate the world? Is this all a part of it?
                Vangelovski, it's far more complicated than the example you have given.
                The US government and it's influence via Iraq's early Coalition Provisional Authority has managed to influence policy in the Iraqi oil industry (post invasion).
                This has been achieved by the US hand picking and installing both Iraqi's and other nationals that would be favourable to US interests, not only in the oil industry but every sector responsible for the rebuilding of Iraqi infrastructure, security and social programs.

                Getting back to your oil industry example, one of the more contentious offerings from the US in fashioning Iraq's new oil policy was the use of Production Sharing Agreements (PSA's), a seldom used Agreement in most other oil producing countries...it could cost the country up to nearly $200 billion in lost revenues according to Muttitt, lead researcher for "Crude Designs: the Rip-Off of Iraq's Oil Wealth."

                Last edited by Phoenix; 03-08-2013, 07:24 AM.

                Comment

                • Vangelovski
                  Senior Member
                  • Sep 2008
                  • 8531

                  Originally posted by Phoenix View Post
                  Vangelovski, it's far more complicated than the example you have given.
                  I know, but as you can see complexity is not a forte of many posters here. Besides, the example I provided is more than anything that anyone else has provided to date.

                  Originally posted by Phoenix View Post
                  The US government and it's influence via Iraq's early Coalition Provisional Authority has managed to influence policy in the Iraqi oil industry (post invasion). This has been achieved by the US hand picking and installing both Iraqi's and other nationals that would be favourable to US interests, not only in the oil industry but every sector responsible for the rebuilding of Iraqi infrastructure, security and social programs..
                  For example? Who have they installed? How has that helped US interests? Why did only 2 out of 18 key oil field contracts go to American companies? Why have American companies fared so poorly in open and competitive tenders for other oil related projects - for example, see the Iraqi Oil Ministry website: www.oil.gov.iq (Go to the English section and see 'tender results' tab).

                  Originally posted by Phoenix View Post
                  Getting back to your oil industry example, one of the more contentious offerings from the US in fashioning Iraq's new oil policy was the use of Production Sharing Agreements (PSA's), a seldom used Agreement in most other oil producing nations...it could cost the country up to nearly $200 billion in lost revenues according to Muttitt, lead researcher for "Crude Designs: the Rip-Off of Iraq's Oil Wealth."

                  http://www.somaliawatch.org/archivenov05/051125602.htm
                  Production sharing agreements, while not named the same and somewhat different around the periphery, are fairly standard in resource industries across the world. Basically, the government awards the exploration and production activities to an oil company. The oil company bears the mineral and financial risk of exploring, developing and extracting oil from the field. If, and when, successful, the company is permitted to use the money from oil sales to recover capital and operational expenditures. The remaining money is split between the government and the company, typically at a rate of about 80 per cent for the government and 20 per cent for the company.

                  Production sharing agreements can be beneficial to countries that lack the expertise and/or capital (such as Iraq) to develop their resources and need to attract foreign companies to do so. While they can be very profitable for the oil company as well, its the company that takes all the risk because if its venture is unsuccessful, it doesn't exactly get any of its money back and the government walks away clean. That's a pretty good deal I would say, particularly when state and private sector capital is lacking within the domestic economy. The alternative is to leave the oil in the ground.

                  Muttitt's figure of $200 billion is based on a number of dubious assumptions (I hope you read footnote two before you accepted his calculations). Further, this was written in 2005, four years prior to the actual contracting of Iraq's oil fields. He also acknowledges (in that same footnote) that the loss of revenue would only be $16 to $43 billion with a 12 per cent discount rate. It seems Muttitt, in his diatribe, went for sensationalism and left the details in the small print. Further, his conclusions were that PSA's were driven by the American desire for energy security, but he couldn't have taken into account that the Americans, four years later, lost out on 16 out of 18 major contracts. In addition, American shale oil is already set to put an end to US energy imports and make the US a net exporter of energy.
                  If my people who are called by my name will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, I will hear from heaven and will forgive their sins and restore their land. 2 Chronicles 7:14

                  The Revolution was in the minds and hearts of the people; a change in their religious sentiments, of their duties and obligations...This radical change in the principles, opinions, sentiments, and affections of the people was the real American Revolution. John Adams

                  Comment

                  • Bill77
                    Senior Member
                    • Oct 2009
                    • 4545

                    Originally posted by Big Bad Sven View Post
                    Mission accomplished team America LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL
                    Gary Johnston: https://www.google.com.au/search?q=g...90_UETHR2wM%3A

                    We're dicks! We're reckless, arrogant, stupid dicks. And the Film Actors Guild are pussies. And Kim Jong Il is an asshole. Pussies don't like dicks, because pussies get fucked by dicks. But dicks also fuck assholes: assholes that just want to shit on everything. Pussies may think they can deal with assholes their way. But the only thing that can fuck an asshole is a dick, with some balls. The problem with dicks is: they fuck too much or fuck when it isn't appropriate - and it takes a pussy to show them that. But sometimes, pussies can be so full of shit that they become assholes themselves... because pussies are an inch and half away from ass holes. I don't know much about this crazy, crazy world, but I do know this: If you don't let us fuck this asshole, we're going to have our dicks and pussies all covered in shit!

                    Lol.....
                    Last edited by Bill77; 03-08-2013, 08:19 AM.
                    http://www.macedoniantruth.org/forum/showthread.php?p=120873#post120873

                    Comment

                    • momce
                      Banned
                      • Oct 2012
                      • 426

                      Chaos and cannabilism is the policy. Iraq was doing all kinds of things that made certain circles uneasy-using the EURO, 50 billion trade deal with Russia etc. Its not surprising what happened.

                      Comment

                      • Gocka
                        Senior Member
                        • Dec 2012
                        • 2306

                        Saying that all these bad decisions by the USA and NATO are solely based on incompetence and stupidity is laughable.
                        I have read papers on how the USA uses the "oh man we messed up excuse" ever since Vietnam to escape any scrutiny for what it does. The jist of these papers was that the USA for the most part knows exactly what it's doing and simply likes to portray themselves as incompetent and misguided so that when bits and pieces of the truth come out the answer will always be "We didn't know". It has worked over and over again because once someone is painted as incompetent there is almost no limit to what a stupid incompetent person can do on "accident".
                        The USA has spies in every country they have the money and resources to go anywhere and do anything, can you really say that despite their capabilities that somehow they are always on the wrong side? They always misread the situations they are in? They didn't know there were no WMD'S in Iraq? They didn't know Saddam wasn't harboring Al Queada but fighting against them? They didn't know they Albanians were the instigators in Macedonia and Serbia? They didn't know they broke all international laws when bombing Serb civilian targets (bombing Serbia at all). They don't know that the rebels in Syria, Libya, Egypt are extremist groups worse than the persons they ousted. What about all the South American Democracies they destroyed and helped Dictators come to power? Wiki Leaks has tons of documents that prove that the USA knew very well what they were doing in South America. These are not conspiracy theories as many of them have documentation coming straight from the US government proving their validity.
                        It is not some huge backroom shadow conspiracy that implicates everyone and everything but much more complicated.
                        The US government is so vast, the bureaucracy so deep that it is like a million little conspiracies going on at once, combine that with a few touches of incompetence and ignorance here and there and there you are.
                        For the most part most of what happens is not by accident and its not be chance. It only takes a few rotten apples to spoil the whole bunch and that is exactly what is going on. Nazi Germany was not some huge conspiracy, it was a few small circles of very bad men who were able to play out their agendas by first convincing and then forcing the masses.
                        I will say this: the American government in my opinion is representative of the average American. For the most part the words and actions of the US government reflects the will of the people.
                        I'll give an example to part with. General Wesley Clark, was he not instrumental in what happened in Kosovo? The government only found out after wards that the guys was crooked as the Albanians teeth that he was in bed with. A touch of incompetence, a touch of purpose and you had a huge disaster.

                        Comment

                        • Komita
                          Member
                          • May 2009
                          • 243

                          Originally posted by Vangelovski View Post
                          You know governments are made up of people and most people make stupid decisions most of the time. Its not a conspiracy, its just life. People seem to think there is some all-knowing genius (called "they") sitting in Washington pulling all the strings and that everything "they" do is perfectly thought-out and executed. The good old 'Grand Strategy'. Maybe its Gruevski...or maybe its just stupid decisions made by stupid people.

                          Look at Komita for example, he doesn't even know what day it is. He's respresntative of most people in political office.


                          But I'd like to hear the pathetic, grovelling explanation for this - the myth promoted by "progressive" circles in 2003 when the US invaded Iraq was that it did so for its oil. And it sounded pretty convincing for a while. But in 2009, the US (being the evil imperialists that they are) allowed the Iraqi Government to auction off contracts for their oil fields. Out of the 18 largest contracts, American companies won only 2 - Occidental Petroluem and Exxon. The rest went to companies from China, Russia, Malaysia, South Korea and the Netherlands (among others). The Iraqi Government also kept controlling stakes in many of these, to ensure that the revenue remains at home. How is that possible? If the US is an imperialist state that only seeks to exploit the resources of its supposed 'client' states, then why did it allow the independent auctioning of Iraqi oil contracts, in which it only won 2 bids?

                          Even in related service contracts (construction, transport, refining, hospitality, food), the US was almost completely absent. Most of these went to Arab companies.

                          Where is the 'Grand Strategy' to dominate the world? Is this all a part of it?
                          Your a moderator and the only thing you know is insults..
                          Your clearly a globalist and defending, imperialism and killing innocent people and enslaving nations in the name of "democracy".
                          Since you love their politics and spreading of imperialism you should join their struggle in Afghanistan and Syria.
                          Last edited by Komita; 03-08-2013, 02:30 PM.
                          Слава му на Бога за се

                          Comment

                          • Gocka
                            Senior Member
                            • Dec 2012
                            • 2306

                            Originally posted by Komita View Post
                            Your a moderator and the only thing you know is insults..
                            Your clearly a globalist and defending, imperialism and killing innocent people and enslaving nations in the name of "democracy".
                            Since you love their politics and spreading of imperliasm you should join their struggle in Afghanistan and Syria.
                            and Macedonia

                            Comment

                            • Komita
                              Member
                              • May 2009
                              • 243

                              Originally posted by Gocka View Post
                              and Macedonia
                              Good idea since the radical islamists that yell allahu akbar on the streets of Skopje are funded and sponsored by the biggest allies of US, Qatar and Saudi Arabia.
                              Anybody supporting the syrian army and people is also supporting the struggle against those Wahabis that fund all the new mosques that are being built in macedonia.
                              Слава му на Бога за се

                              Comment

                              • momce
                                Banned
                                • Oct 2012
                                • 426

                                Gocka I agree with almost everything you argue. I think you can find the answer in the amoral need to fill private treasuries whatever the costs except to the global small group. Global windfalls and all that entails including methods.
                                Last edited by momce; 03-08-2013, 03:42 PM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X