classicrawker Posted April 15, 2018 Share Posted April 15, 2018 5 minutes ago, Kasanova King said: I agree that presence in the region for purposes of stability is important but it's not "just about oil" or who controls it. If anything, a more stable Syria, which would lead to a more stable middle-east (no matter who controls Syria) would be better for U.S. oil companies. A more stable middle-east would be the best scenario for U.S. oil companies and US allies. Nobody would give a shit about the Middle East if there was no oil mate....all you have you do is look at Africa where we don't get involved in wars where the countries have no strategic resources.....Oil is power..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ace Nova Posted April 15, 2018 Share Posted April 15, 2018 (edited) 39 minutes ago, classicrawker said: LOL, so some entry on Wiki knows Bin Laden's intent better then his son who was with his father during the time 911 went down...o.k. So you think ISIS is defeated and just going away? Yeah sure just like the Taliban did in Afghanistan who we are still still fighting 18 years after they were "defeated"...how is that working out for us? In any case there is no point debating you mate as no matter how badly you are proven wrong you will never admit it so feel free to carry on... Here we go again with your "proven wrong comments". Do you have any idea how silly and absurd that sounds when your main source is Osama Bin Laden's wayward son? Did you even read the article you posted? He wasn't with his father during 9/11....he left his father months before 9/11 "went down". The guy walks around like a wanna-be celebrity harking on how the world is lucky that "he chose peace vs war" (Inferring that he would do much more damage than his dad did)...while talking about how Russian strippers in a strip club they are in are the most beautiful women in the world. Yeah, great source. Yes, I would take Osama Bin Laden's OWN words vs his son who is obviously trying to make a name for himself. Anyway, I'm sure Bin Laden wanted to bring the US down any way possible. But his main reasons were because of US presence in the middle east and US support of Israel. Those are facts. So how was I "proven wrong" again? Edited April 15, 2018 by Kasanova King Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ace Nova Posted April 15, 2018 Share Posted April 15, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, classicrawker said: Nobody would give a shit about the Middle East if there was no oil mate....all you have you do is look at Africa where we don't get involved in wars where the countries have no strategic resources.....Oil is power..... That's another myth. There's plenty of strategic resources in African countries, including oil, diamonds, gold, copper, uranium, platinum, etc etc https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/101515/biggest-oil-producers-africa.asp http://www.risingafrica.org/storiescountry/10-most-mineral-rich-countries-in-africa/ The entire "we get involved in wars for oil" theory is a fallacy. If that's the case, why have we not gotten involved in the Venezuelan conflict yet? Who happens to have the most oil on the entire planet... Venezuela Venezuela produced nearly 2.7 million barrels of oil per day in 2014. Production in recent years is down from the prior two decades, when daily production fluctuated around the 3 million barrel mark, including a high of more than 3.5 million barrels per day in 1997. As of 2014, proven oil reserves in Venezuela amount to nearly 298 billion barrels; these are the biggest reserves in the world ahead of Saudi Arabia's 266 billion barrels and Canada's 173 billion barrels. https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/101315/biggest-oil-producers-latin-america.asp Edited April 15, 2018 by Kasanova King Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoulMonster Posted April 15, 2018 Share Posted April 15, 2018 6 hours ago, Oldest Goat said: If you unnecessarily dump a lot of radioactive material across an entire country and then shrug it off "lololol woopsie, we thought it MAY affect civilians..." Bullshit. Regardless, it fucking has, are you going to help them? "...we thought it MAY affect them, so, fuck no we're not helping them." NOT GOOD ENOUGH. The argument could be made that America is actually worse tbh. Russia bad, America bad, New Zealand bad, Australia bad etc. What I can't stand is people whipping up hysterics and fear mongering and war mongering because they want to feel like the good guys. And that's just one example. Napalm. Nuking Japan. The list goes on and I'm not going to recite it. Do we actually even know who did the attack and whether it was a deliberate attack on civilians? I heard on the news the other day that France apparently has proof, what is their proof? Because I don't just immediately believe everything I hear on TV. "Something has to be done." Yeah but I don't think hypocritical morals and values and waging war should be it. "I also don't see how we can sit by while civilians are subjected to mass murder." Me either but we do it all the time with Africa. We do it all the time with a lot of places. Why is this any different? Here's me taking a stab in the dark at figuring it out:"Syria is the only significant crude oil producing country in the Eastern Mediterranean region, which includes Jordan, Lebanon, Israel and the Palestinian territories. According to the Oil and Gas Journal, Syria had 2,500,000,000 barrels (400,000,000 m3) of petroleum reserves as of 1 January 2010." What is Syria's main export? The bulk of Syrian imports have been raw materials essential for industry, agriculture, equipment, and machinery. Major exports include crude oil, refined products, raw cotton, clothing, fruits, and cereal grains. The plot thickens. USA, UK and France all have interests in oil. They also have an interest in preventing Russia's interests one of which is oil. Also, Military Industrial Complex. It really doesn't take a genius to see through this kind of shit. These kind of situations are about money and power. I never said it was "good enough," I said there's a difference between deliberately targeting a civilian population with chemical weapons and inadvertently, maybe, harming civilians through warfare. And that difference doesn't mean I approve of either, but it could be sufficient to warrant a differentiated response from third parties. I don't at all agree that USA is worse that the Assad-leg regime. I find that preposterous, really. At least not if we compare these two countries today, and not burden them with their crimes in the past. Do we know Assad did it? Well, he has a history of doing it and USA/France/England says there is proof. I find it HIGHLY plausible that he did it. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use_of_chemical_weapons_in_the_Syrian_Civil_War] What civilian populations in Africa are subjected to mass murder? I honestly can't think of any other countries in the world right now where the regime subjects its civilians to the same amount of atrocities. Of course this can be debated back and forth, and maybe there are other places equally bad. I just can't think of any. I don't agree with your hypothesis about this being about oil. Just because that was the underlying motivation before, doesn't mean it will always be. It's like people are going, "they lied to us about mass weapons in Iraq, they only did it to get oil; so now every time they do something we are going to think they lie and are just after oil!" It's like history undergraduates who have suddenly understood something profound and now apply it uncritically to everything. I don't find such thinking particularly illuminating. I think I have written a lot, in other threads, about how USA's preoccupation with the Middle East, going back to the early 20th century, was driven by a need to control oil access and to monitor Russian activities. This partly caused the region to be in the fucked up state it is today, and if we look back we can draw a line from the insurrection in Syria (that causes Assad to use chemical weapons), to the Arab spring, to weakening of the regime in Iraq, to the invasion of Iraq and toppling of Saddam, to Saddam's ruthless behavior and US hunger for oil, to Saddam being favored as the leader in Iraq by USA, to USA's need to control the oil in Mesopotamia. No doubt about it. But when USA, France and England now sends directed missiles to knock out strategic targets in Syria as a warning to behave, and to reduce Assad's ability to commit new atrocities, I don't readily say it is about oil. Maybe its simply a mix of politicians trying to collect votes by a display of might and to appease voters who are horrified by chemical attacks as well as to draw a line in the sand to Russia? Oh well. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoulMonster Posted April 15, 2018 Share Posted April 15, 2018 6 hours ago, classicrawker said: The world sits by every day while, not only are civilians murdered but also, millions starve to death every year..........trust me I am no fan of Assad but let's not pretend he is the only bad guy in the world.......nobody would give a shit about what is going on in Syria if it was not for the oil........ Who else is equally bad? Who else has repeatedly demonstrated a will to use chemical weapons on his civilian population? I am genuinely curious. I think USA has a presence in the Middle East that harkens back to its preoccupation with oil, right, but doesn't mean that every thing they do there is motivated by oil. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoulMonster Posted April 15, 2018 Share Posted April 15, 2018 I think we shouldn't automatically condemn the actions of USA, France and England because 'they have all done bad things previously'. If we look at it that way, no foreign intervention would ever be possible because every country has at some point done something bad. In my opinion we have to look at this separately from things in the passed: Assad continues to wage chemical war against civilians. USA, France and England, backed by the UN, proceeds with a tactical, low-casualty attack to reduce Assad's ability to do more chemical attacks, as well as to make it clear what can be tolerated in the civil war in Syria and what can't be tolerated. That's it. I am not automatically going to be against this attack because USA has been a global bully before. Or because their foreign actions in the past have been incredibly self-serving. Or for that case, due to France's disgraceful, prior involvement in Africa or England's ugly imperialism. I take a more pragmatic stance here. So what if they have done bad before, can't we assess what they do now without bitterness of past misdeeds? And let me emphasize that I am NOT condoning the attacks. I just argue against the notion that we should condemn them based on past history or that it must be driven by a greed for oil. I just don't see that. As for Africa: No one is saying that that continent hasn't been fucked over repeatedly. But are there any country in Africa today (beyond Syria) where a leader uses chemical warfare against his own population, or does anything similarly awful? Because people were refusing to accept that Assad is particularly bad and was painting this picture where there are lots of similar things happening in the world but USA just attacks Syria because of oil. I'd argue that Kim un-Jong is as bad, but we know why no military intervention against North Korea is a good idea. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-Jaro- Posted April 15, 2018 Share Posted April 15, 2018 USofA and their puppets bringing peace and democracy accros the world since 1945... I'm sure that people in Afganistan, Lybia Iraq and Syria are thankfull for peace, security and prosperity that US and allies armies delivered. Just not sure whats with all those millions of people that are going on foot or are crossing Mediterranian and Adriatic see in rubber boats trying to reach EU when USA brought all those gifts by air... And to prove they don t have anything against Muslims - their allie - democratuc govrerment of Saudi Arabia - only muslim country that respect woman, etnics and sexual minority rights.... Im proud my county became allie of those peacekeepers and prosperity bringers.... And im sure that there would be no attack without solid proofs... like that Mass Destruction Weapons in Iraq... https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=817796935093010&id=246976735508369 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ace Nova Posted April 15, 2018 Share Posted April 15, 2018 2 hours ago, -Jaro- said: Im proud my county became allie of those peacekeepers and prosperity bringers.... And I'm sure your grateful for the UN's help during your country's war of Independence as well. Good for you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
classicrawker Posted April 15, 2018 Share Posted April 15, 2018 (edited) 10 hours ago, SoulMonster said: Who else is equally bad? Who else has repeatedly demonstrated a will to use chemical weapons on his civilian population? I am genuinely curious. I think USA has a presence in the Middle East that harkens back to its preoccupation with oil, right, but doesn't mean that every thing they do there is motivated by oil. Sure but oil is the main motivator for the US involvement in the Middle East. We may not get a large percentage of our oil from there but some of our allies need that source and whomever controls that oil has tremendous power and influence. And our ties to supporting Israel certainly plays a role in our interest in the region.. Listen using chemical weapons is terrible but there are other regimes killing their own people by more conventional means that are all but ignored or there is no military action to stop it....think North Korea but there are other examples across Africa.... Another point is you don't see us fighting over Somalia? Why not? Edited April 15, 2018 by classicrawker Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soon Posted April 15, 2018 Share Posted April 15, 2018 Im no expert but wanted to chime in quick that US interest in Israel is largely centred on it being a western style Democracy. Having a Democratic ally in the Region is very desirable to the West. And once youre in league with such an embattled State you better believe that the infinite wisdom of US strategy is gonna see the US have many conflicts in the Region, under many guises. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-Jaro- Posted April 15, 2018 Share Posted April 15, 2018 1 hour ago, Kasanova King said: And I'm sure your grateful for the UN's help during your country's war of Independence as well. Good for you. Uf... they really helped all nations involved... watched raging war for 5 years, watched big war crimes from first rows, lifted embargo on weapon while on one side you had 3rd largest euro army at time and on the other almost unarmed people... Oh yes - they sent welfare packages wich included food with 30+ years old date of production date... And then - one day they decided to bomb Serbs in Bosnia (without any special reason since nothing changed then that didn t happen in years prior) - today in those areas there are high rate of cancer and similar chronic and fatal diseases... Few years after they bombed "military" goals in Serbia - because Clinton needed political points.... Oh - I forgot Dutch involement (or lack of it) in Srebrenica case... We got more help from weapon smugglers from Russia than UN and NATO. If UN wanted to help they would prevent politicians from all sides involved to begin the war - but no oil, no diamonds here so no big interest... Yeah - greatful for being there - UN is really helpfull - for people employed in its administrations - and UN is really succesfull in watching bloodsheds all over the world... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ace Nova Posted April 15, 2018 Share Posted April 15, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, -Jaro- said: Uf... they really helped all nations involved... watched raging war for 5 years, watched big war crimes from first rows, lifted embargo on weapon while on one side you had 3rd largest euro army at time and on the other almost unarmed people... Oh yes - they sent welfare packages wich included food with 30+ years old date of production date... And then - one day they decided to bomb Serbs in Bosnia (without any special reason since nothing changed then that didn t happen in years prior) - today in those areas there are high rate of cancer and similar chronic and fatal diseases... Few years after they bombed "military" goals in Serbia - because Clinton needed political points.... Oh - I forgot Dutch involement (or lack of it) in Srebrenica case... We got more help from weapon smugglers from Russia than UN and NATO. If UN wanted to help they would prevent politicians from all sides involved to begin the war - but no oil, no diamonds here so no big interest... Yeah - greatful for being there - UN is really helpfull - for people employed in its administrations - and UN is really succesfull in watching bloodsheds all over the world... Next time a conflict arises, make sure to write to your authorities that you don't want any UN or NATO help. Maybe if you're lucky, you'll get your wish. Edited April 15, 2018 by Kasanova King Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoulMonster Posted April 15, 2018 Share Posted April 15, 2018 2 hours ago, classicrawker said: Sure but oil is the main motivator for the US involvement in the Middle East. We may not get a large percentage of our oil from there but some of our allies need that source and whomever controls that oil has tremendous power and influence. And our ties to supporting Israel certainly plays a role in our interest in the region.. Listen using chemical weapons is terrible but there are other regimes killing their own people by more conventional means that are all but ignored or there is no military action to stop it....think North Korea but there are other examples across Africa.... Another point is you don't see us fighting over Somalia? Why not? Yes, oil is a major reason for US presence in the Middle East, but that doesn't mean that all that happens is due to oil. I think a regime using chemical weapons against its own civilian population is worse than more or less anything else that is currently happening. That is a gross violation of the rules of war. Somalia? Isn't that country full of African peacekeeping forces now and on its way to be stabilised? Besides, are any of the warring parties there using chemical weapons or other WMDs? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
classicrawker Posted April 15, 2018 Share Posted April 15, 2018 I think we are arguing the same thing Soul in that we agree the US interest in the area is because of the presense of oil. I also don' t disagree that using chemical weapons violates the rules of war and must be kept from becoming the norm. Concerning Somalia, from what I read it is similar to the situation the US has in Afghanistan where the U.N. backed government controls Mogadishu while al- Quada proxy, al-Shabab, controls the majority of the country so that sure that qualifies as "stabilized". Yet the US has little interest there........why?....IMHO because there is no strategic reason to go there....... But that is a conversation for another thread...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soon Posted April 15, 2018 Share Posted April 15, 2018 Imo the USA is fairly active in Somalia. I think the USA simply has different advantages in much of Africa that it doest posses in the Mid East. The geo-political and socio-economic situation is different, as is the timeline of US intervention; therefore the current US operations in Africa - and media interest in them - is vastly different. The true story that inspired the movie Black Hawk Down: https://www.warhistoryonline.com/instant-articles/day-rangers-true-story-inspired-movie-black-hawk-m.html CIA black site in Somalia: https://www.thenation.com/article/cias-secret-sites-somalia/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoulMonster Posted April 15, 2018 Share Posted April 15, 2018 The US has definitely been in Somalia (Black Hawk Down anyone?). And it was a peace-keeping mission, wasn't it? So it is not all about oil, always. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
classicrawker Posted April 15, 2018 Share Posted April 15, 2018 21 minutes ago, soon said: Imo the USA is fairly active in Somalia. I think the USA simply has different advantages in much of Africa that it doest posses in the Mid East. The geo-political and socio-economic situation is different, as is the timeline of US intervention; therefore the current US operations in Africa - and media interest in them - is vastly different. The true story that inspired the movie Black Hawk Down: https://www.warhistoryonline.com/instant-articles/day-rangers-true-story-inspired-movie-black-hawk-m.html CIA black site in Somalia: https://www.thenation.com/article/cias-secret-sites-somalia/ Not sure how active we are in Somalia as it does not get a lot of press but you are saying basically the same thing I already said in that the political and economic stakes are different, and of higher strategic value in the Middle East, which why the US is spending military capital there...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
classicrawker Posted April 15, 2018 Share Posted April 15, 2018 3 minutes ago, SoulMonster said: The US has definitely been in Somalia (Black Hawk Down anyone?). And it was a peace-keeping mission, wasn't it? So it is not all about oil, always. Never said we weren't Soul. But we basically pulled up stakes and pulled out not committing the military capital we are expending in the Middle East this past 18years......my point stands in that the US is in the fight in the Middle East mainly because of the oil..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoulMonster Posted April 15, 2018 Share Posted April 15, 2018 1 minute ago, classicrawker said: Never said we weren't Soul. But we basically pulled up stakes and pulled out not committing the military capital we are expending in the Middle East this past 18years......my point stands in that the US is in the fight in the Middle East mainly because of the oil..... And I don't think anyone has said otherwise, I thin I straight out said oil was a major reason for US' presence in the Middle East. But my point remains that that doesn't mean that every action US takes in the Middle East is in itself driven by oil (re: the discussion with Oldest Goat), and more specifically, I don't think these latest attacks has anything to do with oil. I think it is Trump demonstrating that he is a tough guy, I think it is posturing for Putin, I think it is rounding up voters at home, and I think it is genuine disgust with Assad's behavior. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soon Posted April 15, 2018 Share Posted April 15, 2018 (edited) 20 minutes ago, classicrawker said: Not sure how active we are in Somalia as it does not get a lot of press but you are saying basically the same thing I already said in that the political and economic stakes are different, and of higher strategic value in the Middle East, which why the US is spending military capital there...... Well I wasnt posting to disagree with you, I will say that Im not totally in line with what you say here, in that I dont mean only that the stakes (outcomes) are different, but rather/also that the economic advantage that USA has over much of Africa means that they can achieve their goals differently and sometimes with much more ease than in the much of the Mid East. I would say that US interest in Africa is high, but the cost and overt-severity-of-action required to achieve a desired outcome is different. Perhaps we're saying the same things with different terms though? Edited April 15, 2018 by soon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
classicrawker Posted April 15, 2018 Share Posted April 15, 2018 2 minutes ago, SoulMonster said: And I don't think anyone has said otherwise, I thin I straight out said oil was a major reason for US' presence in the Middle East. But my point remains that that doesn't mean that every action US takes in the Middle East is in itself driven by oil (re: the discussion with Oldest Goat), and more specifically, I don't think these latest attacks has anything to do with oil. I think it is Trump demonstrating that he is a tough guy, I think it is posturing for Putin, I think it is rounding up voters at home, and I think it is genuine disgust with Assad's behavior. I don't disagree Soul and never said anything different. My point has always been oil was/ is the reason the US is spending $ trillions of dollars fighting in the Middle East. IMHO Trump had little choice but to respond to the gas attack as we can't allow this behavior to become acceptible....my only concern is it would have been better to have definite proof Assad did it before acting..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
classicrawker Posted April 15, 2018 Share Posted April 15, 2018 (edited) 21 minutes ago, soon said: Well I wasnt posting to disagree with you, I will say that Im not totally in line with what you say here, in that I dont mean only that the stakes (outcomes) are different, but rather/also that the economic advantage that USA has over much of Africa means that they can achieve their goals differently and sometimes with much more ease than in the much of the Mid East. I would say that US interest in Africa is high, but the cost and overt-severity-of-action to achieve a desired outcome are different. Perhaps we're saying the same things with different terms though? I think we are on the same page to some extent but maybe I am a little more skeptical about America's altruistic reasons for when it interferes in others countries affairs. If Somalia had a more attractive strategic asset for us, we and the EU, would more lkely be investing more capital there........think about the countries the US and the EU invested military capital in? What did they have in common? In most cases oil....look at Libya as an example...... Edited April 15, 2018 by classicrawker Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoulMonster Posted April 15, 2018 Share Posted April 15, 2018 My main problem with these attacks is that Assad will use such foreign hostile attacks on Syrian land to strengthen his own base - now they can gather under him against a foe from outside - which will just prolong the civil war (well, since Assad is currently winning I suppose it will just give him victory quicker). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soon Posted April 15, 2018 Share Posted April 15, 2018 1 minute ago, classicrawker said: I think we are on the same page to some extent but maybe I am a little more skeptical about America's altruistic reasons for when it interferes in others countries affairs. If Somalia had a more attractive strategic asset for us we and the EU would be investing more capital there........think about the countries the US and the EU invested military capital in? What did they have in common? In most cases oil....look at Libya as an example...... I certainly dont believe US interests are ever altruistic. You can see my link to the article about CIA black sites in recent-day Somalia. I believe there's myriad reasons for US intervention. I think the reasons that less capital is spent is down to the lower abilities of any resistance to the US in much of Africa. And as mentioned by both of us, we are limited in understanding by far less media coverage. As an example of the Wests upper hand in much of Africa is the the Canadian exploitation of minerals in Congo. Given the destitution in the DRC, the Government of Canada doesnt pay a dime to assert its interests, it just needs to turn a blind eye to the fact that Canadian based mineral extraction firms use mercenaries to assert control of mineral resources in Congo. Only an overview to introduce the situation: https://canadiandimension.com/articles/view/digging-for-gold-mining-corruption Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoulMonster Posted April 16, 2018 Share Posted April 16, 2018 8 hours ago, Oldest Goat said: That's all and personally, I think it's very relevant that despite their PR efforts it is excruciatingly obvious that politicians like Trump, Hillary, all of these cunts - do not give a fuck. I don't think politicians are much different from everybody else. They care about others to the same extent we do, I suppose. Maybe there's some selection of ruthless behavior as politicians climb the career ladder and reach higher office, but I think this is exaggerated by the increasing amount of people who are disgusted with politics. At the very least, they care about us because they need our votes. So I don't really buy into that "us and them" mentality, this "drain the swamp" desire. Just because they are rich and powerful doesn't men they are thugs. I make an exception for Trump, of course. What we have is a divide. Between average, scruffy Joe and rich, sleek politicians. And from this grows a resentment. And when politicians act self-serving, or corrupt, or disgraceful -- which is normal human behavior -- we react by either saying this is symptomatic for them, they are all like that, all the time! or we think we are not like that. Because that's what a divide does to our thinking. Us versus them. They act and look different, so they must be different. I think the problem in the case of USA, is this development where you need to have lots of resources to run for office, so you have an immediate selection for the rich and powerful. And as a result, the politicians in higher office seem to come from more or less the same mold. Born to wealth, huge network, business moguls, etc. Which isn't good because USA is supposedly a representative democracy so the politicians should represent the public, all of them. But that's how it has become, only those with substantial means can rise to the highest echelons of power. And then you have this distance between bumfuck Indiana and Washington DC. It's like it happens in another world. Like it doesn't matter to most voters. The politicians are a different breed, and unreachable. All of this breeds resentment and apathy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.