Conflicts in the Middle East & Northern Africa

[Phoenix]

...Its not the UK and Dutch governments that benefit from the oil contracts in Iraq. Nor does the US government benefit...

“As with many issues of foreign policy, the interests of the world’s largest oil corporations mesh closely with those of their national governments – as we saw in section 1. While the governments seek secure and adequate supplies of oil to feed their economies, the corporations need control over reserves to ensure their future profitability, to deliver returns to their shareholders. For governments, “secure” oil supplies often means that they are in fact part-controlled by major oil corporations based in their own countries”.

http://www.somaliawatch.org/archivenov05/051125602.htm

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.

Vangelovski, this is a strange statement that you’ve made and is totally false.
Perhaps your statement had validity 20 or 30 years ago but not today.
The Russian industry is in desperate need of modernisation and is slowly seeking Western, including US expertise.

http://www.growthconsulting.frost.com/web/images.nsf/0/A5A570A52F94965F652575300034FC3D/$File/Russian%20Oil%20and%20Gas%20Investment%20Climate.h tm

The situation in China is a little more complicated as those enterprises that appear “wholly State owned” are actually comprised of a multitude of subsidiary companies that are listed on various Western stock exchanges such as the New York Stock Exchange, London, Toronto exchange and others.

[Vangelovski]

“As with many issues of foreign policy, the interests of the world’s largest oil corporations mesh closely with those of their national governments – as we saw in section 1. While the governments seek secure and adequate supplies of oil to feed their economies, the corporations need control over reserves to ensure their future profitability, to deliver returns to their shareholders. For governments, “secure” oil supplies often means that they are in fact part-controlled by major oil corporations based in their own countries”.
http://www.somaliawatch.org/archivenov05/051125602.htm

Phoenix, you're relying on some dubious sources to draw some very long bows. I already addressed the crux of Muttitt's argument in my previous post - you have ignored this.

If you're going to argue that the state (in this instance, the US Government) benefits from the oil contracts in Iraq, then you need to provide concrete examples. Further, you're still ignoring the whole issue of American shale which is on its way to turning the US into a net exporter of oil, not an importer. There will not be any need for the US to import or "secure" oil for its domestic market. In addition, Chinese state-owned oil companies are already investing in American shale fields - that in itself goes against the argument of supposed American imperialism.

Vangelovski, this is a strange statement that you’ve made and is totally false.
Perhaps your statement had validity 20 or 30 years ago but not today.
The Russian industry is in desperate need of modernisation and is slowly seeking Western, including US expertise.

http://www.growthconsulting.frost.com/web/images.nsf/0/A5A570A52F94965F652575300034FC3D/$File/Russian%20Oil%20and%20Gas%20Investment%20Climate.h tm

The situation in China is a little more complicated as those enterprises that appear “wholly State owned” are actually comprised of a multitude of subsidiary companies that are listed on various Western stock exchanges such as the New York Stock Exchange, London, Toronto exchange and others.

I never said all Russian and Chinese oil companies are wholly owned by the state. Most are, however, controlled by the state as the state owns more than 50 per cent. I asked why you were not criticising those companies that are as they are directly controlled by the Russian and Chinese governments and directly benefit them.

There are quite a few Russian and Chinese oil companies that are wholly owned by the state. For example, in China the China National Offshore Oil Corporation, the Chinese National Petroleum Company and the China Petrochemical Corporation. These are the three largest oil companies in China. Don't confuse these with some of their subsidiaries, which are the companies listed on various stock exchanges. Further, don't confuse what a subsidiary company actually is. Subsidiary companies are owned and controlled by their parent (state-owned in this case) companies, not the other way around. These subsidiary companies are mainly partially sold off in order to raise capital, but have no control over the parent company.

[Phoenix]

Phoenix, you're relying on some dubious sources to draw some very long bows. I already addressed the crux of Muttitt's argument in my previous post - you have ignored this.

Vangelovski, the claim that the interests of the world’s largest oil corporations mesh closely with those of their national governments is a fact and you can't write off Muttitt as a "dubious" source just because you don't agree.

If you're going to argue that the state (in this instance, the US Government) benefits from the oil contracts in Iraq, then you need to provide concrete examples.

The US didn't go to all of that trouble to invade Iraq, prepare a predetermined oil industry strategy for Iraq with the involvement of hand picked 'experts' because of some benevolent streak devoid of self interest.
The US State Department shaped the initial contracts and terms, the reasons for their involvement are complex and varied but essentially self serving.

You keep bringing up China as a counter argument to my view that the US has influenced the contract system to favour Western (and US) interests.
If you look at the Chinese involvement you'll notice that they're aggressively seeking foreign investment opportunities to meet and satisfy their own energy security.
The Chinese have bidded on projects in Iraq that many Western companies considered risky in both the extraction process itself and the geo-politics of the region.

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/37577656/ns/business-oil_and_energy/t/china-reaps-benefits-iraq-war/

[George S.]

fact is the us pored a lot of money & men into iraq.Did it just really go to get rid of sadam
& weapoms ofmass destruction.I think it was more for the oil & whatever it could get out of it.It is very odd to see it'self dudded.Just remember russia found the biggest oil & gas fields maybe it might share it later with the us.????So if there was bidding & ridkiness in the contravts maybe there is areason for it.I remember that the good contracts the amesicans would have kept them.I wonder what happened to the iraqui gold reserves were they vast???

[Vangelovski]

Vangelovski, the claim that the interests of the world’s largest oil corporations mesh closely with those of their national governments is a fact and you can't write off Muttitt as a "dubious" source just because you don't agree.

Muttitt is not a dubious source because I don't agree with him, he's a dubious source because he has no tertiary training in that particular field, has no expertise in the topic that he's writing about (it clearly shows), has made some serious factual and methodological mistakes, and is self-published - meaning that even the vanity press wouldn't touch him, let alone any respected publisher.

But you are still ignoring the points I made about his work.

The US didn't go to all of that trouble to invade Iraq, prepare a predetermined oil industry strategy for Iraq with the involvement of hand picked 'experts' because of some benevolent streak devoid of self interest.
The US State Department shaped the initial contracts and terms, the reasons for their involvement are complex and varied but essentially self serving.

You keep making this claim but you are yet to provide any actual evidence. What is this "predetermined oil industry strategy"? Who are these "hand-picked experts"? What are the complex and varied reasons for US involvements?

You keep bringing up China as a counter argument to my view that the US has influenced the contract system to favour Western (and US) interests.
If you look at the Chinese involvement you'll notice that they're aggressively seeking foreign investment opportunities to meet and satisfy their own energy security.
The Chinese have bidded on projects in Iraq that many Western companies considered risky in both the extraction process itself and the geo-politics of the region.

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/37577656/n...fits-iraq-war/

I keep bringing up China because you have an unprincipled bias towards the US. My question is why you apologise for the Chinese, yet oppose the Americans? By your own admission, the Chinese (in this instance Government, not private sector) are "aggressively" trying to satisfy their own energy security - and they need to.

The article you provided a link to contradicts your claim that the US is an imperialist state seeking Iraq's oil. The article that you provided claims that western oil companies are not interested in Iraqi oil - so why would the US go in for the oil, also taking into consideration all of the points I have already made, the fact that the US only won 2 out of 18 contracts and the boom in American shale oil? Your claim that the US is an imperialist state and went to war in Iraq for imperialist interest is not supported by the evidence. Rather, the evidence seems to suggest the countries such as China are acting more imperialistic than the US, yet you're silent on them.

[Gocka]

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

You are such a wind bag and you constantly change the rules and defenitions to suit what your saying in the moment

Me and you were arguing about whether the US government is driven by incompetence or self interest, go back and have a look. I answered your question of why they fucked up in Iraq by claiming they didn't fuck up, so stop avoiding points you just can't answer. For once just suck it up and admit that you are wrong like most normal people. Stop changing the rules when you back yourself into a corner its pathetic.

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.

I did not claim that they were a traditional imperialist state I've made like 2 comments and this topic and you make it out to be like I've been talking about it for years and have now flipped, I call bullshit on you again. They are a quasi form of imperialist, they trot the globe and de facto conquer places just because they don't do it directly like in the old days doesn't change the fact that they control so many countries as if they were in direct control of them. Ousting a government that isn't friendly to your interests and helping one get elected or installing one that is, what would you consider that Oh great one?
You muddy up almost every conversation and its amazing the me that you are a moderator at all. You always resort to attacking people, switching up what the topic is about at a whim because you don't know what to say, one of your personal favorites is claiming that the other person doesn't know the definition of words. Get your head out of your ass man.
Fact is my answer was directed at your specific question which was not about imperialism, so please stay on topic, and I would write more about how the US is imperialist but it's pointless, talking to you is like talking to a horses ass. Ti si tipicen mocko so mislit deka e naj pameten od site ama vo realnost e mozi naj prost. Ne stigvis daleku vo zivotot ako ne mojs da prifatis kritika nili da priznajs ko ke si vo greska. Mozis se da znajs ama dzabe, nemat nikoj da te slusat deka se ponasas ko idijot. Spustise dolu malku.

[Vangelovski]

I did not claim that they were a traditional imperialist state I've made like 2 comments and this topic and you make it out to be like I've been talking about it for years and have now flipped, I call bullshit on you again. They are a quasi form of imperialist, they trot the globe and de facto conquer places just because they don't do it directly like in the old days doesn't change the fact that they control so many countries as if they were in direct control of them. Ousting a government that isn't friendly to your interests and helping one get elected or installing one that is, what would you consider that Oh great one?
You muddy up almost every conversation and its amazing the me that you are a moderator at all. You always resort to attacking people, switching up what the topic is about at a whim because you don't know what to say, one of your personal favorites is claiming that the other person doesn't know the definition of words. Get your head out of your ass man.
Fact is my answer was directed at your specific question which was not about imperialism, so please stay on topic, and I would write more about how the US is imperialist but it's pointless, talking to you is like talking to a horses ass. Ti si tipicen mocko so mislit deka e naj pameten od site ama vo realnost e mozi naj prost. Ne stigvis daleku vo zivotot ako ne mojs da prifatis kritika nili da priznajs ko ke si vo greska. Mozis se da znajs ama dzabe, nemat nikoj da te slusat deka se ponasas ko idijot. Spustise dolu malku.

Gocka, you've just invented a whole new concept - "quasi imperialist". What does that mean? Fake imperialist? You don't know the meaning of words - you should look them up in the dictionary before you use them. This is probably why you are so misunderstood.

Further, simply saying something does not make it so no matter how many times you repeat it. If you think the US is an imperialist state, provide a concrete example/evidence. We want to get Macedonian thinking out of the gutter, not lower it further.

Finally, you weren't responding to anything, you were going off on a tangent.

[Phoenix]

You keep making this claim but you are yet to provide any actual evidence. What is this "predetermined oil industry strategy"? Who are these "hand-picked experts"? What are the complex and varied reasons for US involvements?

“Prior to the 2003 invasion, the principal vehicle for planning the new post-war Iraq was the US State Department’s Future of Iraq project. This initiative, commencing as early as April 2002, involved meetings in Washington and London of 17 working groups, each comprised of 10-20 Iraqi exiles and international experts selected by the State Department”(1)

(1)Marc Grossman, Under Secretary for Political Affairs, Testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, 11 February 2003; Eli J. Lake, 'US plans for post-Saddam Iraqi government', The Washington Times, 5 June 2002.

During the first fourteen months following the invasion, occupation forces had direct control of Iraq through the Coalition Provisional Authority. Stopping short of privatising oil itself, the CPA began setting up the framework for a longer-term oil policy.
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...

...In October 2003, Carroll and Vogler were replaced by Bob McKee of ConocoPhillips, and Terry Adams of BP, and finally in March 2004, by Mike Stinson of ConocoPhillips and Bob Morgan of BP

Refer to - Phase 1: Coalition Provisional Authority and Iraqi Governing Council

http://www.somaliawatch.org/archivenov05/051125602.htm#d

Meanwhile, Ahmad Chalabi, the Pentagon’s former favourite to run Iraq, was appointed chair of the Energy Council, which replaced the Supreme Council for Oil Policy as the key overseer of energy and oil policy.

Back in 2002 Chalabi had famously promised that “US companies will have a big shot at Iraqi oil”
Dan Morgan and David B. Ottaway, 'In Iraqi War Scenario, Oil Is Key Issue', Washington Post, 15 September 2002, Page A01

I keep bringing up China because you have an unprincipled bias towards the US. My question is why you apologise for the Chinese, yet oppose the Americans? By your own admission, the Chinese (in this instance Government, not private sector) are "aggressively" trying to satisfy their own energy security - and they need to.

The Chinese must seek energy security because of a lack of oil reserves in China, to satisfy their economic requirements and industrial growth.

The article you provided a link to contradicts your claim that the US is an imperialist state seeking Iraq's oil. The article that you provided claims that western oil companies are not interested in Iraqi oil - so why would the US go in for the oil.

Perhaps you didn’t understand the article, I suggest you read it again.
I refered to the article as an example of how aggressive the Chinese have been to secure oil. Bidding and winning Iraqi oil contracts that were considered too risky by Western and US peers. Perhaps that goes some way to explaining why the winning bids consisted of Chinese interests. This being the centre point of your argument that the US isn’t an Imperial state. My view is that the matter is far more complicated than the monochrome view that you subscribe to.

...the evidence seems to suggest the countries such as China are acting more imperialistic than the US, yet you're silent on them.

When China has 737 military bases in foreign countries and has a military budget in the order of 40% of the total World spend, I’ll gladly put them in the Imperialistic basket.

[Vangelovski]

“Prior to the 2003 invasion, the principal vehicle for planning the new post-war Iraq was the US State Department’s Future of Iraq project. This initiative, commencing as early as April 2002, involved meetings in Washington and London of 17 working groups, each comprised of 10-20 Iraqi exiles and international experts selected by the State Department”(1)

(1)Marc Grossman, Under Secretary for Political Affairs, Testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, 11 February 2003; Eli J. Lake, 'US plans for post-Saddam Iraqi government', The Washington Times, 5 June 2002.

During the first fourteen months following the invasion, occupation forces had direct control of Iraq through the Coalition Provisional Authority. Stopping short of privatising oil itself, the CPA began setting up the framework for a longer-term oil policy.
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...

...In October 2003, Carroll and Vogler were replaced by Bob McKee of ConocoPhillips, and Terry Adams of BP, and finally in March 2004, by Mike Stinson of ConocoPhillips and Bob Morgan of BP

Refer to - Phase 1: Coalition Provisional Authority and Iraqi Governing Council

http://www.somaliawatch.org/archivenov05/051125602.htm#d

Meanwhile, Ahmad Chalabi, the Pentagon’s former favourite to run Iraq, was appointed chair of the Energy Council, which replaced the Supreme Council for Oil Policy as the key overseer of energy and oil policy.

Back in 2002 Chalabi had famously promised that “US companies will have a big shot at Iraqi oil”
Dan Morgan and David B. Ottaway, 'In Iraqi War Scenario, Oil Is Key Issue', Washington Post, 15 September 2002, Page A01

What is your point? None of these suggests imperialist control. An interim government was set up and for years now Iraq has been run by its own democratically elected government whose policies in a number of areas are fundamentally opposed to US views.

Experts from a number of oil companies were involved in an advisory capacity - who else would do it? Goat herders from Morocco? Corrupt Iraqi officials from Saddam's dictatorial regime?

The Chalabi comment nearly made me laugh. What he "promised" and what actually happened were two completely opposite things.

You're still quoting Muttitt and IGNORING my points in relation to him. You're also ignoring that fact that Muttitt has no tertiary training in the field, no expertise in the field and is self-published because no publishing company would touch his BS. In addition, he has made serious factual and methodological errors.

I'm getting to the point where I've made so many points and addressed so many issues that you continue to ignore that I think its time to just repost them until you respond rather than just posting more irrelevant commentary from Muttitt.

The Chinese must seek energy security because of a lack of oil reserves in China, to satisfy their economic requirements and industrial growth.

So? Are you saying its ok for China, but not the US?

Perhaps you didn’t understand the article, I suggest you read it again.
I refered to the article as an example of how aggressive the Chinese have been to secure oil. Bidding and winning Iraqi oil contracts that were considered too risky by Western and US peers. Perhaps that goes some way to explaining why the winning bids consisted of Chinese interests. This being the centre point of your argument that the US isn’t an Imperial state. My view is that the matter is far more complicated than the monochrome view that you subscribe to.

I understood the article very well. Rather than the US taking control of Iraqi oil fields, the fields were opened to competitive bids. The fact that western companies were not interested suggests the American invasion wasn't for oil as you are claiming. Oil companies (and the US Government) have well aware of what Iraq has to offer, the technical difficulties in exploration and extraction and the political climate since the 1940's. They didn't just decide to throw the dice, invade and then give it up to foreign oil companies in 2003.

And yes, the situation is much more complicated, as you keep suggesting, yet for some reason all you can come up with is 'the US is an imperialistic state', while apologising for the Chinese 'because they need it'.

When China has 737 military bases in foreign countries and has a military budget in the order of 40% of the total World spend, I’ll gladly put them in the Imperialistic basket.

Back to the future. That in itself does not mean the the US is an imperialist state. That is not imperialism. I've already provided the commonly accepted definition of imperialism. Based on that, I provided you with three points that you would have to demonstrate in order to show that the US is an imperialist state.

[Bill77]

Tom, above you said that you provided the commonly accepted definition of imperialism.
I can't find it, so could you please re-post it? Cheers mate.

[Phoenix]

What is your point? None of these suggests imperialist control. An interim government was set up and for years now Iraq has been run by its own democratically elected government whose policies in a number of areas are fundamentally opposed to US views.

Of course it's imperialistic, which part of the US invasion of a sovereign nation don't you understand?
Furthermore, the US has forged the political landscape in Iraq to create political hegemony, as is being done in Afghanistan, as was done in the Balkans, Eastern Europe, parts of the former Soviet Union, South America and Asia in the last half century.

Experts from a number of oil companies were involved in an advisory capacity - who else would do it? Goat herders from Morocco? Corrupt Iraqi officials from Saddam's dictatorial regime

Why do you assume that Iraq didn't have it's own experts and that all were corrupt, what makes Iraqi exiles the prefered moral and expert choice. I'm sure there's plenty of exiles just as corrupt as the worst Iraqi examples that you can provide.
Even your so called experts have self interest in mind and that is the point of this discussion. The formation of the new Iraqi oil industry strategy was plotted behind closed doors before the invasion but you don't see an issue with that.

The Chalabi comment nearly made me laugh. What he "promised" and what actually happened were two completely opposite things.

Chalabi was one of the US State Department favourites...remember you wanted to know who some of the hand picked individuals were?
Now there's probably a good reason he was a US favourite, the fact that the US probably felt that the administration could 'work' with him.

You're still quoting Muttitt and IGNORING my points in relation to him. You're also ignoring that fact that Muttitt has no tertiary training in the field, no expertise in the field and is self-published because no publishing company would touch his BS. In addition, he has made serious factual and methodological errors..

Muttitt is an investigative journalist and researcher, I'm not sure what tertiary qualifications you require from him before you accept any of this findings. I didn't realise you were tertiary qualified in the specifics of the Iraqi oil industry and the corresponding US interests that you could so flippantly ignore his work.

So? Are you saying its ok for China, but not the US?

I don't recall China invading Iraq and imposing it's political system on the hapless Iraqi's.

I understood the article very well. Rather than the US taking control of Iraqi oil fields, the fields were opened to competitive bids.

I think you're still struggling with the article, it's not that you don't understand it but a disturbing unwillingness to accept an opposing point of view.
You throw up the example of China winning contracts to prove that the US wasn't exerting any influence in the process.
Once again, my point is that you're looking at it in a far too simplistic way, a way which supports your black and white debating style.

The fact that western companies were not interested suggests the American invasion wasn't for oil as you are claiming..

In an earlier post to me you claimed i was drawing a long bow about something but this comment of yours surely takes the cake.
Your comment is complete and utter BS.
The oil industry is extremely conservative and doesn't like risk. Clearly in this example the Chinese were prepared to a gamble, a gamble that the Western and US companies avoided.

Oil companies (and the US Government) have well aware of what Iraq has to offer, the technical difficulties in exploration and extraction and the political climate since the 1940's. They didn't just decide to throw the dice, invade and then give it up to foreign oil companies in 2003...

I'm not sure that's entirely correct, many of the Iraqi fields are yet to be developed and the geological data is with the Iraqi's, Western and US companies want access to this data, that's why they're getting their foot in the door, one way or another.
Muttitt talks about this but I guess you're not interested in his findings.

And yes, the situation is much more complicated, as you keep suggesting, yet for some reason all you can come up with is 'the US is an imperialistic state', while apologising for the Chinese 'because they need it'.

Back to the future. That in itself does not mean the the US is an imperialist state. That is not imperialism. I've already provided the commonly accepted definition of imperialism. Based on that, I provided you with three points that you would have to demonstrate in order to show that the US is an imperialist state.

I'm not a Chinese apologist, certainly far more removed from the US apologist that you are.

[Bill77]

Oil was not the main objective for the US to invade Iraq. But even though it was not their main objective, the temptation was there so plans would have been to take it as booty while they are at it. But obviously the US government had to be cautious considering all the criticism (of it being a war for oil) from around the world (including back home) which is why they only took what they did.

What I think would have been the main objective.......bigger picture?
Is some, control of the region. By removing dictators and replacing them with "Democratic" elected governments which seems to be the trend.

Why? Its easier to manipulate a political party, than a dictator.

It's just my opinion. And to lighten things up, I will say this,

Opinions are like orgasms. As long as I have one, I don't care about anyone else's.

[Risto the Great]

Could USA be altruistic and just want to be the world police Vangelovski?
cue Team America ... Fuck Yeah

How would you describe their motivations on the world stage?

[EgejskaMakedonia]

Tom, above you said that you provided the commonly accepted definition of imperialism.
I can't find it, so could you please re-post it? Cheers mate.

I'm struggling to find this 'commonly' accepted definition as well. I would've thought a modern dictionary definition that a few of us provided earlier would be the commonly accepted term. Applying the likes of the USA (and to a lesser extent China and Russia) to the criteria provided in that particular definition and I thought it would be rather obvious.

[Vangelovski]

I'm struggling to find this 'commonly' accepted definition as well. I would've thought a modern dictionary definition that a few of us provided earlier would be the commonly accepted term. Applying the likes of the USA (and to a lesser extent China and Russia) to the criteria provided in that particular definition and I thought it would be rather obvious.

That would be the high school definition.