Conflicts in the Middle East & Northern Africa

[Vangelovski]

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.

I don't even know what you mean by globalist and I'm sure you don't either. I'm Know you don't know what imperialism is because you can't even use it in the correct context.

On another topic, why is it that I keep thinking your Serb?

[Vangelovski]

Gocka, if governments are not largely driven by incompetence, as you claim, then how is it that the US has managed to so utterly fuck up in both Afghanistan and Iraq? Where are all the imperial "plunder" that they should have? Why is the US in a $14 trillion debt?

[George S.]

Tom you are so right on what you said all about the us & iraq.I remember how the us got most of thecrative rebuilding contracts for iraq & i can't remember australia getting any probably some non lucrative?.But the us was ruling the roost think about how much the war effort cost them,of course they needed to control the oil.The saudi arabians have made it known for years on how the us is much disliked & should pull out of the oil area.

[Vangelovski]

Tom you are so right on what you said all about the us & iraq.I remember how the us got most of thecrative rebuilding contracts for iraq & i can't remember australia getting any probably some non lucrative?.But the us was ruling the roost think about how much the war effort cost them,of course they needed to control the oil.The saudi arabians have made it known for years on how the us is much disliked & should pull out of the oil area.

George, I said that the US DID NOT get all the lucrative contracts. My whole point was that everyone is accusing them of being an imperialist state, but the evidence shows that they are not.

[Phoenix]

Tom you are so right on what you said all about the us & iraq.I remember how the us got most of thecrative rebuilding contracts for iraq & i can't remember australia getting any probably some non lucrative?.But the us was ruling the roost think about how much the war effort cost them,of course they needed to control the oil.The saudi arabians have made it known for years on how the us is much disliked & should pull out of the oil area.

Perhaps Australia's commercial 'benefits' have been far less tangible?
Regardless of the outcome, it's interesting to note that an Australian government representative had a 'seat at the table'...

The CPA appointed former senior executives from oil companies to begin this process. The first advisers were appointed in January 2003, before the invasion even started, and were stationed in Kuwait ready to move in. First, there were Phillip Carroll, formerly of Shell, and Gary Vogler, of ExxonMobil, backed up by three employees of the US Department of Energy and one of the Australian government...

http://www.somaliawatch.org/archiven...htm#conclusion.

[momce]

George, I said that the US DID NOT get all the lucrative contracts. My whole point was that everyone is accusing them of being an imperialist state, but the evidence shows that they are not.

Its wrong to argue they are not an imperialist predatory power. Think of it in terms of global baskets of goods/commodities. The point is to grab all that stuff, maintain currency domination etc and deny that to others. That way they dominate and set the agenda while also extracting surplus, known as private wealth. Outwardly its propaganda, inwardly its complete and total selfishness. Well they will use any means at their disposal to do that because it makes the elites rich and they can maintain their super-lifestyles. No norms are followed just soft and hard power. Power is the norm. Accounts clear globally. Last man standing. Winner take all. Anything for global profitabily of the corporate jet set. Indians? Poof. Peasants? Poof. Workers? Poof. Off with their heads, let them eat cake. In the race between scarcity and inflation the sharpest tools will always be used. The only possible protection is to keep a nice resource stash of your own.

[Phoenix]

George, I said that the US DID NOT get all the lucrative contracts. My whole point was that everyone is accusing them of being an imperialist state, but the evidence shows that they are not.

I don't believe anyone suggested that the US got ALL of the lucrative contracts, that in itself i would imagine is impossible but what they've clearly done is 'shape' iraqi policy to benefit American (and western) interests, especially in the oil sector.

[Vangelovski]

I don't believe anyone suggested that the US got ALL of the lucrative contracts, that in itself i would imagine is impossible but what they've clearly done is 'shape' iraqi policy to benefit American (and western) interests, especially in the oil sector.

They didn't even get close to all of the contracts. 2 out of 18 key fields. Plus American rivals (China, Russia) scored 2 contracts each. How could they have influenced it to the extent that you are suggesting and allow four key oil fields to fall into the hand of the Russian and Chinese?

[Phoenix]

They didn't even get close to all of the contracts. 2 out of 18 key fields. Plus American rivals (China, Russia) scored 2 contracts each. How could they have influenced it to the extent that you are suggesting and allow four key oil fields to fall into the hand of the Russian and Chinese?

If the Americans got 2 out of 18, how many were awarded to other Western interests?

If China and Russia got 4 in total, that still leaves 14 for the West (?)...remember the UK and Netherlands (thru interests in BP and Shell) could be 'rewarded' by supporting the imperial US invasion of Iraq.

An oil security agenda has been a historical fact for US and UK interests in the Middle East since the early 20th century.

The US has been mindful of the Muslim worlds perception of the Iraqi campaign.

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/04/16/1050172643895.html

It's only natural that a few 'bones' would be thrown in the direction of the Chinese and Russians and by the way, Western interests exist in the Russian oil industry anyway and access to Iraqi oil for China is a given, considering their industrial expansion and US interest in joint ventures with Chinese industry...it's a twisted web...

[Vangelovski]

If the Americans got 2 out of 18, how many were awarded to other Western interests?

If China and Russia got 4 in total, that still leaves 14 for the West (?)...remember the UK and Netherlands (thru interests in BP and Shell) could be 'rewarded' by supporting the imperial US invasion of Iraq.

An oil security agenda has been a historical fact for US and UK interests in the Middle East since the early 20th century.

The US has been mindful of the Muslim worlds perception of the Iraqi campaign.

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/04/16/1050172643895.html

It's only natural that a few 'bones' would be thrown in the direction of the Chinese and Russians and by the way, Western interests exist in the Russian oil industry anyway and access to Iraqi oil for China is a given, considering their industrial expansion and US interest in joint ventures with Chinese industry...it's a twisted web...

Phoenix, sorry mate, but you're stepping into fantasy land. There are so many competing interests within Ministries, between Ministries, within governments and between governments (not to mention within the private sector and between the private sector and governments) that it is absolutely impossible for what you are suggesting to actually happen in normal circumstances, let alone in sensitive cases such as Iraq.

Its not the UK and Dutch governments that benefit from the oil contracts in Iraq. Nor does the US government benefit. Its the private sector companies that are owned by literally thousands of shareholders from all over the world that will make a profit, along with the Iraqi government and Iraqi oil companies. You're making it out as if these non-Iraqi private companies, their thousands of shareholders and various state governments are all one amorphous mass that think and act in sync and do so because they all have the same interests. Such a notion is so mind boggling that its ridiculous - particularly for anyone that has had any experience in politics or government. It really is the stuff for completely outlandish conspiracy theories.

Further, the average shares held by the private sector oil companies that won contracts in Iraq is 30 per cent. That means that on average, the Iraqi government holds a 70 per cent share in each oil field. This is much more generous that what the Australian Government takes for our natural resources. In Australia, the mineral resource companies on average keep about 80 per cent of profits while the Government takes about 20 per cent through taxes (not directly). So where is the imperialism in Iraq?

In fact, it is Russia's Lukoil in West Qurna 2, that owns the largest stake of all - 75 per cent. Lukoil in West Qurna 2, for example, stands to make $567 million per year once production reaches its plateau. This is more than "just a few bones".

In addition, the vast majority of oil companies from Russia and China, as you probably are not aware, do not have American "interests" because they are wholly STATE OWNED companies.

You have completely IGNORED all my previous points about the financial risk that these companies must take to explore, develop, and extract these fields AND the massive revenues that the Iraqi government stands to make (about 70 per cent, plus no loss if it all fails). Taking into account my new and previous points (particularly American shale), where is the benefit for "western" (originally you were claiming US) governments?

[Gocka]

Gocka, if governments are not largely driven by incompetence, as you claim, then how is it that the US has managed to so utterly fuck up in both Afghanistan and Iraq? Where are all the imperial "plunder" that they should have? Why is the US in a $14 trillion debt?

I will gladly answer yours when you answer mine. What about all the well documented instances in South America where the US government on high levels admitted and knew that what they were doing was wrong?
Ah what the hell Ill answer you anyway. The plunder as you call it sometimes is not as visible and obvious as one might think. The US did plunder just not what you think. You mention the debt, so if I am crooked and lining my pocket do I give a fuck about the national debt? The debt will only hurt the average American in the long run.
The plunder was the American people, someone made 14 trillion dollars that were spent. Do you know how much money was made by construction contractors, defense contractors, weapons makers, all sorts of "consultants", etc. Where did most of the machinery to search and dig for oil come from? If there were no wars what would the defense contractors make money on private security? Why when you can make a few billion working for the government as a private army. Why build an apartment building in your local town when you can get paid 10x the amount to build one in Iraq, how would gun makers make billions, certainly not selling guns to hillbillies. There are only 2 gun makers, 3 defense contractors, a handful of huge construction companies that are large enough to build whole cities, do you get the picture? The wars are used to funnel money out of the American pockets into a select few industries that are made up of only a few companies. Oh and let's not forget the other big money maker, as in all capitalist structures there's the sugar daddy who also needs a cut. Who lent the US that 14 trillion that the US taxpayers have to pay back? The federal reserve, and don't let the federal fool you, it's a private institution of private banks who have the authority to print US dollars and then lend it back to government with interest of course. So they get the interest payments on 14 trillion which is how much per day? In 2012 the US paid 360 BILLION in interest expense. Now it's even more complicated then that because the Fed only owns about 1.7 trillion of that 14, but do that math they got a nice chunk of that interest anyway. US government agencies like social security and state pension funds hold about 30% of the national debt. So the country holds 30 percent of its own debt? So people pay into a pension fund, then they lend the money in the fund to the federal government and now the same people who put money into the pension fund now have to also pay off the government debt so they can get the money back into their pension fund? Are you telling me that is not a form of plunder? It's like a giant revolving ponzi scheme where lots of people get their cut in some way.
It's a giant web that is very complicated and very clever and simply calling it incompetence is laughable because it is in fact genius not incompetence.
I think you are over your head on this one, or you have your blinders on and are infatuated with the bullshit idealized democratic and capitalist principles. Sometimes it seems hard for you to believe that even in the world's wealthiest Democracy that democracy doesn't always exist. I would also say that the USA is not imperialist in the traditional definition but is some form of Neo imperialism. Same shit different century, isto serajne drugo pakovajne. The people who seek and have power have just found new ways to accomplish the pillaging of peasant. Doing it by force went out of style now it's done by deception. And no its not some super elite group who has ruled since a 1000 years ago but just really shity and greedy people from all over who have no regard for anyone but themselves, it's a perpetual door and it is open to anyone without a soul.

[Risto the Great]

So delicately put Gocka. I don't doubt much of this for a minute.

[Vangelovski]

I will gladly answer yours when you answer mine. What about all the well documented instances in South America where the US government on high levels admitted and knew that what they were doing was wrong?

We're talking about the US being an imperialist state - not whether what they have done is morally right or wrong.

Ah what the hell Ill answer you anyway. The plunder as you call it sometimes is not as visible and obvious as one might think. The US did plunder just not what you think. You mention the debt, so if I am crooked and lining my pocket do I give a fuck about the national debt? The debt will only hurt the average American in the long run.
The plunder was the American people, someone made 14 trillion dollars that were spent. Do you know how much money was made by construction contractors, defense contractors, weapons makers, all sorts of "consultants", etc. Where did most of the machinery to search and dig for oil come from? If there were no wars what would the defense contractors make money on private security? Why when you can make a few billion working for the government as a private army. Why build an apartment building in your local town when you can get paid 10x the amount to build one in Iraq, how would gun makers make billions, certainly not selling guns to hillbillies. There are only 2 gun makers, 3 defense contractors, a handful of huge construction companies that are large enough to build whole cities, do you get the picture? The wars are used to funnel money out of the American pockets into a select few industries that are made up of only a few companies. Oh and let's not forget the other big money maker, as in all capitalist structures there's the sugar daddy who also needs a cut. Who lent the US that 14 trillion that the US taxpayers have to pay back? The federal reserve, and don't let the federal fool you, it's a private institution of private banks who have the authority to print US dollars and then lend it back to government with interest of course. So they get the interest payments on 14 trillion which is how much per day? In 2012 the US paid 360 BILLION in interest expense. Now it's even more complicated then that because the Fed only owns about 1.7 trillion of that 14, but do that math they got a nice chunk of that interest anyway. US government agencies like social security and state pension funds hold about 30% of the national debt. So the country holds 30 percent of its own debt? So people pay into a pension fund, then they lend the money in the fund to the federal government and now the same people who put money into the pension fund now have to also pay off the government debt so they can get the money back into their pension fund? Are you telling me that is not a form of plunder? It's like a giant revolving ponzi scheme where lots of people get their cut in some way.
It's a giant web that is very complicated and very clever and simply calling it incompetence is laughable because it is in fact genius not incompetence.
I think you are over your head on this one, or you have your blinders on and are infatuated with the bullshit idealized democratic and capitalist principles. Sometimes it seems hard for you to believe that even in the world's wealthiest Democracy that democracy doesn't always exist. I would also say that the USA is not imperialist in the traditional definition but is some form of Neo imperialism. Same shit different century, isto serajne drugo pakovajne. The people who seek and have power have just found new ways to accomplish the pillaging of peasant. Doing it by force went out of style now it's done by deception. And no its not some super elite group who has ruled since a 1000 years ago but just really shity and greedy people from all over who have no regard for anyone but themselves, it's a perpetual door and it is open to anyone without a soul.

Until now you have been claiming that the US is an imperialist state 'plundering' other countries. Now you've completely flipped and are claiming that the real plunder was its own people and seem to have given up on your original claim - that is not imperialism, full stop. That is not even this so-called "neo-imperialism". What you are now talking about is a completely different topic.

[George S.]

thanks for the reply Tom .The way it was reported was that the us had the first bite of the cherry.In the press they were saying that australia didn't get much for their trouble"coalition of the willing"people are saying that the us might have got cheap oil from
Iraq.But the figures the us spent trillions was no where near to what they actually got.
So my agreement with you is that you are possibly right that they didn't get what people
first thought.So the americans are no wonder that they are broke.I thought they would be in control of at least of the oil that's what people were thinking.Looks like a raw deal if there was one.If i was an american taxpayer i would be spewing over how we were all tricked by the weapons of mass destruction.Silly how the americans didn't try to get most of the reparation money back to the us.If the russians & chinese got the 2 oilfields then the us got a raw deal.Is someone going to ask me to beleive they genuinely went in to get rid of hussein after they put him in the first place.
So what are the americans getting from being in afghanistan ?A hell of a lot of people have lost their lives. for what.It just doesn't make sense
going there & simply losing a lot of lives not to mention the trillions wasted.

[George S.]

thanks for the reply Tom .The way it was reported was that the us had the first bite of the cherry.In the press they were saying that australia didn't get much for their trouble"coalition of the willing"people are saying that the us might have got cheap oil from
Iraq.But the figures the us spent trillions was no where near to what they actually got.
So my agreement with you is that you are possibly right that they didn't get what people
first thought.So the americans are no wonder that they are broke.I thought they would be in control of at least of the oil that's what people were thinking.Looks like a raw deal if there was one.If i was an american taxpayer i would be spewing over how we were all tricked by the weapons of mass destruction.Silly how the americans didn't try to get most of the reparation money back to the us.If the russians & chinese got the 2 oilfields then the us got a raw deal.Is someone going to ask me to beleive they genuinely went in to get rid of hussein after they put him in the first place.