Ebola

[AdriftatSea]

I was being silly, and I love your reply. But this is an option to consider. Same as poison... poison them. Why would it be any worse than dropping bombs? It's just as lethal I would think, and maybe more effective.

It is a consensus opinion among civilized countries that biological warfare, especially directed infections, is bad, one of the reasons being that such epidemics are hard to control and will probably kill off more civilians that actual legible military targets. Of course, when the killing of civilians is one of the objectives, like in genocides and terrorism, then biological warfare is ideal.

Is it obvious I know little about politics and I've been drinking a lot at night lately? Thank you for explaining this to me.

WERE ALL GONNA DIE

Yep but I hope to have a heart attack in vineyard like the godfather. Not eaten alive by virus.

But who cares really...what about ISIS that's also a something to fear. Meanwhile Obama is playing golf.

Maybe you are on to something wasted! Maybe we should infect a bunch of dogs with Ebola, put parachutes on them and drop a bunch of them out over the area where ISIS is. Or we could use monkeys or possum's or rats! YES!!! Let's infect RATS with Ebola and drop hundreds of thousands of them on ISIS!!!!!!! There's a lot to consider though. How can we keep our people from getting infected when they infect the rats and then drop them? I'm sure they could figure this out. And then how do they kill the rats? Napalm!!

And you thought of this by mentioning getting eaten alive by the virus! You came up with this all by yourself wasted! Brilliant!

EDIT: They intercepted the weapons we dropped for the Kurds. Let's drop toy weapons as a decoy and put Ebola infested rats in the cases now. Why not?

Do you think its wise spreading a potentially world fucking illness to a bunch of people who dont care whether they live or die, they'll just head out fuck everybody

You need to think these things through my love, see this is why you ain't President

Not wise of me. See what I wrote to Soulie. I was drinking heavily. It seemed like a great idea at the time. Good thing I'm not President! It would have been a bad day today for lots of people if I were!

Nukes are a cure all. Okay a lot of innocent people would die with the Ebola infected rats but in the end we win. So they can fly their two migs they inherited from the Iraqi airforce around but in the end the nukes will win us the Super Bowl and cure Ebola. I'm on fire today! Must be the rum and gin cocktails!

Your rum and gin, my wine, we will solve the problems of the world by ending it!

[Dazey]

Patient in New York City Tests Positive for Ebola

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/24/nyregion/craig-spencer-is-tested-for-ebola-virus-at-bellevue-hospital-in-new-york-city.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&version=Banner&module=span-ab-top-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

That might be a tiny bit unnerving were it not for the fact that he's spent weeks up to his neck in the piss, shit and vomit of Ebola patients in Africa.

[Johnny Drama]

Can we just nuke Africa instead? Fuck I'm sick of that whole continent.

[Dazey]

Can't we just find a vast wilderness in the middle of nowhere to send all of the fuckers to? Like a prison colony or something? Now if only I could think of such a pla .................

[Johnny Drama]

They have me. That's the darkie quota filled.

[Dazey]

To be fair, even the act of physically taking a shit in Oz is probably comparable in terms of risk to bathing in the shit of an Ebola patient.

[Johnny Drama]

You what?

[Dazey]

At least Ebola doesn't creep around the bowl and bite you in the arse!

[SoulMonster]

It's because of stupid people that ebola and HIV and any other disease continues because no one gives a shit about anyone else.

Not really. The primary reason why ebola spreads is the abysmally defect health care in some African states.

I was being silly, and I love your reply. But this is an option to consider. Same as poison... poison them. Why would it be any worse than dropping bombs? It's just as lethal I would think, and maybe more effective.

It is a consensus opinion among civilized countries that biological warfare, especially directed infections, is bad, one of the reasons being that such epidemics are hard to control and will probably kill off more civilians that actual legible military targets. Of course, when the killing of civilians is one of the objectives, like in genocides and terrorism, then biological warfare is ideal.

Is it obvious I know little about politics and I've been drinking a lot at night lately? Thank you for explaining this to me.

I just found it funny in a really dark way that you were propogating genocide of Arabs through biological warfare. You typically don't get to hear people actually say such things.

Edited October 25, 2014 by SoulMonster

[AdriftatSea]

It's because of stupid people that ebola and HIV and any other disease continues because no one gives a shit about anyone else.

Not really. The primary reason why ebola spreads is the abysmally defect health care in some African states.

I was being silly, and I love your reply. But this is an option to consider. Same as poison... poison them. Why would it be any worse than dropping bombs? It's just as lethal I would think, and maybe more effective.

It is a consensus opinion among civilized countries that biological warfare, especially directed infections, is bad, one of the reasons being that such epidemics are hard to control and will probably kill off more civilians that actual legible military targets. Of course, when the killing of civilians is one of the objectives, like in genocides and terrorism, then biological warfare is ideal.

Is it obvious I know little about politics and I've been drinking a lot at night lately? Thank you for explaining this to me.

I just found it funny in a really dark way that you were propogating genocide of Arabs through biological warfare. You typically don't get to hear people actually say such things.

Not all Arabs. I work with and like many Arabs. I was only speaking of ISIS.

[SoulMonster]

It's because of stupid people that ebola and HIV and any other disease continues because no one gives a shit about anyone else.

Not really. The primary reason why ebola spreads is the abysmally defect health care in some African states.

I was being silly, and I love your reply. But this is an option to consider. Same as poison... poison them. Why would it be any worse than dropping bombs? It's just as lethal I would think, and maybe more effective.

It is a consensus opinion among civilized countries that biological warfare, especially directed infections, is bad, one of the reasons being that such epidemics are hard to control and will probably kill off more civilians that actual legible military targets. Of course, when the killing of civilians is one of the objectives, like in genocides and terrorism, then biological warfare is ideal.

Is it obvious I know little about politics and I've been drinking a lot at night lately? Thank you for explaining this to me.

I just found it funny in a really dark way that you were propogating genocide of Arabs through biological warfare. You typically don't get to hear people actually say such things.

Not all Arabs. I work with and like many Arabs. I was only speaking of ISIS.

We'd have to devise a pretty complicated ebola virus to distinguish between ISIS Arabs and all the other Arabs that live next to ISIS members.

On a serious note, for anyone who might, like me, now be thinking about whether it would actually be possible to engineer such a smart ebola virus: nope, only if there is some physiological difference between ISIS Arabs and your regular Arabs which allows the virus the distinguish between these on a cellular level, which I am sure there isn't. In theory, though, it could be possible to engineeres viruses that only affect some ethnicities and not others (re: diseases that affect certain ethnical groups more than others).

[AdriftatSea]

It's because of stupid people that ebola and HIV and any other disease continues because no one gives a shit about anyone else.

Not really. The primary reason why ebola spreads is the abysmally defect health care in some African states.

I was being silly, and I love your reply. But this is an option to consider. Same as poison... poison them. Why would it be any worse than dropping bombs? It's just as lethal I would think, and maybe more effective.

It is a consensus opinion among civilized countries that biological warfare, especially directed infections, is bad, one of the reasons being that such epidemics are hard to control and will probably kill off more civilians that actual legible military targets. Of course, when the killing of civilians is one of the objectives, like in genocides and terrorism, then biological warfare is ideal.

Is it obvious I know little about politics and I've been drinking a lot at night lately? Thank you for explaining this to me.

I just found it funny in a really dark way that you were propogating genocide of Arabs through biological warfare. You typically don't get to hear people actually say such things.

Not all Arabs. I work with and like many Arabs. I was only speaking of ISIS.

We'd have to devise a pretty complicated ebola virus to distinguish between ISIS Arabs and all the other Arabs that live next to ISIS members.

On a serious note, for anyone who might, like me, now be thinking about whether it would actually be possible to engineer such a smart ebola virus: nope, only if there is some physiological difference between ISIS Arabs and your regular Arabs which allows the virus the distinguish between these on a cellular level, which I am sure there isn't. In theory, though, it could be possible to engineeres viruses that only affect some ethnicities and not others (re: diseases that affect certain ethnical groups more than others).

I thought they were taking over cities. Once they took over an area and had a stronghold in a certain city, couldn't we get them that way?

[SoulMonster]

It's because of stupid people that ebola and HIV and any other disease continues because no one gives a shit about anyone else.

Not really. The primary reason why ebola spreads is the abysmally defect health care in some African states.

I was being silly, and I love your reply. But this is an option to consider. Same as poison... poison them. Why would it be any worse than dropping bombs? It's just as lethal I would think, and maybe more effective.

It is a consensus opinion among civilized countries that biological warfare, especially directed infections, is bad, one of the reasons being that such epidemics are hard to control and will probably kill off more civilians that actual legible military targets. Of course, when the killing of civilians is one of the objectives, like in genocides and terrorism, then biological warfare is ideal.

Is it obvious I know little about politics and I've been drinking a lot at night lately? Thank you for explaining this to me.

I just found it funny in a really dark way that you were propogating genocide of Arabs through biological warfare. You typically don't get to hear people actually say such things.

Not all Arabs. I work with and like many Arabs. I was only speaking of ISIS.

We'd have to devise a pretty complicated ebola virus to distinguish between ISIS Arabs and all the other Arabs that live next to ISIS members.

On a serious note, for anyone who might, like me, now be thinking about whether it would actually be possible to engineer such a smart ebola virus: nope, only if there is some physiological difference between ISIS Arabs and your regular Arabs which allows the virus the distinguish between these on a cellular level, which I am sure there isn't. In theory, though, it could be possible to engineeres viruses that only affect some ethnicities and not others (re: diseases that affect certain ethnical groups more than others).

I thought they were taking over cities. Once they took over an area and had a stronghold in a certain city, couldn't we get them that way?

They are taking over cities, sure, but they are not killing everyone who lives there and who doesn't have an ISIS membership card. I don't know how much support they have in the regions they control, but it is definitely much less than 100 %. And the whole idea behind the US-led attacks on ISIS is to PROTECT those poor minorities who now found themselves living among ISIS. Well, that's what I LIKE to think the idea is, but if you listen to US politicians, it is not primarily to protect the people that are being attacked and terrorized by ISIS in Iraq and Syria, but to protect US citizens against ISIS attacks on US soil (!). Which is ridiculous (not the notion that ISIS can do terrorist attacks in USA (which we know can happen), but the notion that bombing ISIS would REDUCE that risk). At least that is what I hear the politicians saying. Maybe they are that deluded, or maybe it is the voters who are that deluded and the politicians are clever enough to use that argument and fear against a new major terrorist attack in the US to secure public approval to do something that the voters erroneusly believe will make their lives safer while it really is intended to help the people who ACTUALLY DO suffer, poor minorities who are being oppressed and killed by ISIS in Iraq and Syria.

[AdriftatSea]

I have to drink more wine before I can truly discuss this as a politician would! Meanwhile, check out the new thread I just started!

http://www.mygnrforum.com/index.php?/topic/209477-mississippi-music/#entry3868323

[AdriftatSea]

It's because of stupid people that ebola and HIV and any other disease continues because no one gives a shit about anyone else.

Not really. The primary reason why ebola spreads is the abysmally defect health care in some African states.

I was being silly, and I love your reply. But this is an option to consider. Same as poison... poison them. Why would it be any worse than dropping bombs? It's just as lethal I would think, and maybe more effective.

It is a consensus opinion among civilized countries that biological warfare, especially directed infections, is bad, one of the reasons being that such epidemics are hard to control and will probably kill off more civilians that actual legible military targets. Of course, when the killing of civilians is one of the objectives, like in genocides and terrorism, then biological warfare is ideal.

Is it obvious I know little about politics and I've been drinking a lot at night lately? Thank you for explaining this to me.

I just found it funny in a really dark way that you were propogating genocide of Arabs through biological warfare. You typically don't get to hear people actually say such things.

Not all Arabs. I work with and like many Arabs. I was only speaking of ISIS.

We'd have to devise a pretty complicated ebola virus to distinguish between ISIS Arabs and all the other Arabs that live next to ISIS members.

On a serious note, for anyone who might, like me, now be thinking about whether it would actually be possible to engineer such a smart ebola virus: nope, only if there is some physiological difference between ISIS Arabs and your regular Arabs which allows the virus the distinguish between these on a cellular level, which I am sure there isn't. In theory, though, it could be possible to engineeres viruses that only affect some ethnicities and not others (re: diseases that affect certain ethnical groups more than others).

I thought they were taking over cities. Once they took over an area and had a stronghold in a certain city, couldn't we get them that way?

They are taking over cities, sure, but they are not killing everyone who lives there and who doesn't have an ISIS membership card. I don't know how much support they have in the regions they control, but it is definitely much less than 100 %. And the whole idea behind the US-led attacks on ISIS is to PROTECT those poor minorities who now found themselves living among ISIS. Well, that's what I LIKE to think the idea is, but if you listen to US politicians, it is not primarily to protect the people that are being attacked and terrorized by ISIS in Iraq and Syria, but to protect US citizens against ISIS attacks on US soil (!). Which is ridiculous (not the notion that ISIS can do terrorist attacks in USA (which we know can happen), but the notion that bombing ISIS would REDUCE that risk). At least that is what I hear the politicians saying. Maybe they are that deluded, or maybe it is the voters who are that deluded and the politicians are clever enough to use that argument and fear against a new major terrorist attack in the US to secure public approval to do something that the voters erroneusly believe will make their lives safer while it really is intended to help the people who ACTUALLY DO suffer, poor minorities who are being oppressed and killed by ISIS in Iraq and Syria.

I just sold all my oil and gas stocks yesterday. I suggest everyone else do the same. Yesterday would have been better though, like what I did! It could go up some, but it won't go up to $100/barrel like it was last year.

Anyway, what? They are bombing them so they can protect the people around them? How does that work exactly? Bombs get the neighbors too don't they? Well, it is like downzy said on another thread and I'm paraphrasing, something about inaction is bad. We can't not do anything! You know, Yogi Beara, "You can't make them not want to go to the ball game." Downzy said it in a lovely way. I'm not doing so well, but you know what I mean. We have to do something. We have to try to kill the bastards.

The politicians and the media are the last to know anything. I was on an emergency response team when they were attacking the BP Camp in Algeria a few years ago. Not emergency response in the way it sounds. We just sat in a room in Houston and looked at satellite imagery and talked about it. Well, I listened to them talk about it. We did know much more than the govt and the news. The media is the LAST to know anything. That much, I can assure you. I sat with the people that released the information to the media. They were very careful what they said. It was exciting. I took notes and got their food. I'm pretty low on the food chain yet I was right in the middle of it. The things discussed in that room never got to the media. The company had a camp 500 miles away. They were looking to protect their people and followed every minute of what happened with BP live, while it was happening. There is so much that never hit the media. Oil & Gas businesses, they know more than the govt, they have better equipment for surveillance and they can pay off foreign govts where our govt can't. I'm getting off topic here.

Yes, you can go in and kill a select group of people, and you can poison them without harming civilians. We may not know how to do it. But it can be done. It's a matter of money. Someone has to be paid off. There are just so very many different people with their own agenda's that must be paid. That's the problem. Where do you start? This entire war is about money and it's about oil. Don't ever think it's about anything else. Why aren't we gunning down people in China? They kill people left and right for stealing a loaf of bread. What about the wars in Africa years ago when the Tutsi's were being chopped to pieces and thrown in the rivers? We did nothing. Why? They didn't have oil. It's all about the oil.

[Ace Nova]

It's because of stupid people that ebola and HIV and any other disease continues because no one gives a shit about anyone else.

Not really. The primary reason why ebola spreads is the abysmally defect health care in some African states.

I was being silly, and I love your reply. But this is an option to consider. Same as poison... poison them. Why would it be any worse than dropping bombs? It's just as lethal I would think, and maybe more effective.

It is a consensus opinion among civilized countries that biological warfare, especially directed infections, is bad, one of the reasons being that such epidemics are hard to control and will probably kill off more civilians that actual legible military targets. Of course, when the killing of civilians is one of the objectives, like in genocides and terrorism, then biological warfare is ideal.

Is it obvious I know little about politics and I've been drinking a lot at night lately? Thank you for explaining this to me.

I just found it funny in a really dark way that you were propogating genocide of Arabs through biological warfare. You typically don't get to hear people actually say such things.

Not all Arabs. I work with and like many Arabs. I was only speaking of ISIS.

We'd have to devise a pretty complicated ebola virus to distinguish between ISIS Arabs and all the other Arabs that live next to ISIS members.

On a serious note, for anyone who might, like me, now be thinking about whether it would actually be possible to engineer such a smart ebola virus: nope, only if there is some physiological difference between ISIS Arabs and your regular Arabs which allows the virus the distinguish between these on a cellular level, which I am sure there isn't. In theory, though, it could be possible to engineeres viruses that only affect some ethnicities and not others (re: diseases that affect certain ethnical groups more than others).

I thought they were taking over cities. Once they took over an area and had a stronghold in a certain city, couldn't we get them that way?

They are taking over cities, sure, but they are not killing everyone who lives there and who doesn't have an ISIS membership card. I don't know how much support they have in the regions they control, but it is definitely much less than 100 %. And the whole idea behind the US-led attacks on ISIS is to PROTECT those poor minorities who now found themselves living among ISIS. Well, that's what I LIKE to think the idea is, but if you listen to US politicians, it is not primarily to protect the people that are being attacked and terrorized by ISIS in Iraq and Syria, but to protect US citizens against ISIS attacks on US soil (!). Which is ridiculous (not the notion that ISIS can do terrorist attacks in USA (which we know can happen), but the notion that bombing ISIS would REDUCE that risk). At least that is what I hear the politicians saying. Maybe they are that deluded, or maybe it is the voters who are that deluded and the politicians are clever enough to use that argument and fear against a new major terrorist attack in the US to secure public approval to do something that the voters erroneusly believe will make their lives safer while it really is intended to help the people who ACTUALLY DO suffer, poor minorities who are being oppressed and killed by ISIS in Iraq and Syria.

I just sold all my oil and gas stocks yesterday. I suggest everyone else do the same. Yesterday would have been better though, like what I did! It could go up some, but it won't go up to $100/barrel like it was last year.

Anyway, what? They are bombing them so they can protect the people around them? How does that work exactly? Bombs get the neighbors too don't they? Well, it is like downzy said on another thread and I'm paraphrasing, something about inaction is bad. We can't not do anything! You know, Yogi Beara, "You can't make them not want to go to the ball game." Downzy said it in a lovely way. I'm not doing so well, but you know what I mean. We have to do something. We have to try to kill the bastards.

The politicians and the media are the last to know anything. I was on an emergency response team when they were attacking the BP Camp in Algeria a few years ago. Not emergency response in the way it sounds. We just sat in a room in Houston and looked at satellite imagery and talked about it. Well, I listened to them talk about it. We did know much more than the govt and the news. The media is the LAST to know anything. That much, I can assure you. I sat with the people that released the information to the media. They were very careful what they said. It was exciting. I took notes and got their food. I'm pretty low on the food chain yet I was right in the middle of it. The things discussed in that room never got to the media. The company had a camp 500 miles away. They were looking to protect their people and followed every minute of what happened with BP live, while it was happening. There is so much that never hit the media. Oil & Gas businesses, they know more than the govt, they have better equipment for surveillance and they can pay off foreign govts where our govt can't. I'm getting off topic here.

Yes, you can go in and kill a select group of people, and you can poison them without harming civilians. We may not know how to do it. But it can be done. It's a matter of money. Someone has to be paid off. There are just so very many different people with their own agenda's that must be paid. That's the problem. Where do you start? This entire war is about money and it's about oil. Don't ever think it's about anything else. Why aren't we gunning down people in China? They kill people left and right for stealing a loaf of bread. What about the wars in Africa years ago when the Tutsi's were being chopped to pieces and thrown in the rivers? We did nothing. Why? They didn't have oil. It's all about the oil.

Russia and China got most, if not all, the Iraqi oil contracts.

Edited October 25, 2014 by Kasanova King

[AdriftatSea]

But they don't have all that oil in their yard KK. They are contracting it. See what I mean? It's all about the the oil. And that oil which turns into money is in Iraq. And hence the war.

Right now, things are looking pretty good for the US. We've got lots of proven and many possible oil reserves here in the US. We are about to screw OPEC up big time! ~ hopefully.

Edit: And because we've discovered more oil reserves here as a result of fracking and horizontal drilling, the price of oil has gone down, thus the price of gas at the pump has gone down and will probably go down further, thus we can stick it to OPEC. All good news for the average American!

Edited October 25, 2014 by AdriftatSea

[Lio]

Back to ebola. Meanwhile in Africa... a two year old girl with ebola and het grandmother traveled 1000K in a bus, from Guinee to Mali, possibly infecting hundreds of people and carrying the disease into Mali. Her parents had already died of ebola. 43 people have been placed in quarantine so far. The girl has died. How can people be so stupid? Thank you, African WHO, hospitals, healthcare officials... for being so incompetent.

[Len Cnut]

It's Ebolo, get it right Lio, ugh!

[wasted]

Ebola infected ninja turtles would bring the IMAX down.

[Ace Nova]

But they don't have all that oil in their yard KK. They are contracting it. See what I mean? It's all about the the oil. And that oil which turns into money is in Iraq. And hence the war.

No, I don't see what you mean. Why would the U.S. go to war so that Russia and China could profit? The U.S. are not the ones contracting the oil to Russia and China, the Iraqi government is and they turned down contracts from U.S. companies. Saddam Hussein offered to sell the U.S. oil for $10 per barrel for as long as he was in power. The U.S. turned down his offer. It was never about the oil.

Edited October 25, 2014 by Kasanova King

[AdriftatSea]

But they don't have all that oil in their yard KK. They are contracting it. See what I mean? It's all about the the oil. And that oil which turns into money is in Iraq. And hence the war.

No, I don't see what you mean. Why would the U.S. go to war so that Russia and China could profit? The U.S. are not the ones contracting the oil to Russia and China, the Iraqi government is and they turned down contracts from U.S. companies. Saddam Hussein offered to sell the U.S. oil for $10 per barrel for as long as he was in power. The U.S. turned down his offer. It was never about the oil.

The US isn't at war for Russia and China. You ask questions that go back so far. I will research and see if I can come up with something. I say that but I just get so frustrated with your questions. I'm glad we made friends again from the last thread. I just can't explain these things to you though. I wish I could. I found the article where you got your headline / rebuttal. I think you are basing your entire stance on an article you googled. You can't believe this entire article just because it was so well written. He's one guy with one opinion. It's a fine article, but it isn't the way, the truth and the light. There was a big catch to Saddam and his $10/barrell oil too. Here's your article.

http://priceofliberty.tumblr.com/post/84159722123/in-1990-saddam-hussein-offered-the-united-states-oil

Edit: And this article is over a year old because oil hasn't been $102 in over a year.

Another edit: Maybe this is the best way to put it: Where are they fighting? Where the oil is.

Petrodollar in this article speaks to what I'm talking about. Oil and money.

Edited October 25, 2014 by AdriftatSea

[Ace Nova]

The US isn't at war for Russia and China. You ask questions that go back so far. I will research and see if I can come up with something. I say that but I just get so frustrated with your questions. I'm glad we made friends again from the last thread. I just can't explain these things to you though. I wish I could. I found the article where you got your headline / rebuttal. I think you are basing your entire stance on an article you googled. You can't believe this entire article just because it was so well written. He's one guy with one opinion. It's a fine article, but it isn't the way, the truth and the light. There was a big catch to Saddam and his $10/barrell oil too. Here's your article.

http://priceofliberty.tumblr.com/post/84159722123/in-1990-saddam-hussein-offered-the-united-states-oil

Edit: And this article is over a year old because oil hasn't been $102 in over a year.

Another edit: Maybe this is the best way to put it: Where are they fighting? Where the oil is.

Petrodollar in this article speaks to what I'm talking about. Oil and money.

The middle east has been at war for 5000 years, literally. (About 4850 years before the invention of the combustion engine, meaning it was never about oil... ) And unlike some, I actually don't need to Google things for my knowledge.

Edited October 25, 2014 by Kasanova King

[AdriftatSea]

The US isn't at war for Russia and China. You ask questions that go back so far. I will research and see if I can come up with something. I say that but I just get so frustrated with your questions. I'm glad we made friends again from the last thread. I just can't explain these things to you though. I wish I could. I found the article where you got your headline / rebuttal. I think you are basing your entire stance on an article you googled. You can't believe this entire article just because it was so well written. He's one guy with one opinion. It's a fine article, but it isn't the way, the truth and the light. There was a big catch to Saddam and his $10/barrell oil too. Here's your article.

http://priceofliberty.tumblr.com/post/84159722123/in-1990-saddam-hussein-offered-the-united-states-oil

Edit: And this article is over a year old because oil hasn't been $102 in over a year.

Another edit: Maybe this is the best way to put it: Where are they fighting? Where the oil is.

Petrodollar in this article speaks to what I'm talking about. Oil and money.

The middle east has been at war for 5000 years, literally. (About 4850 years before the invention of the combustion engine, meaning it was never about oil... )

The US wasn't involved then.

[Ace Nova]

The US isn't at war for Russia and China. You ask questions that go back so far. I will research and see if I can come up with something. I say that but I just get so frustrated with your questions. I'm glad we made friends again from the last thread. I just can't explain these things to you though. I wish I could. I found the article where you got your headline / rebuttal. I think you are basing your entire stance on an article you googled. You can't believe this entire article just because it was so well written. He's one guy with one opinion. It's a fine article, but it isn't the way, the truth and the light. There was a big catch to Saddam and his $10/barrell oil too. Here's your article.

http://priceofliberty.tumblr.com/post/84159722123/in-1990-saddam-hussein-offered-the-united-states-oil

Edit: And this article is over a year old because oil hasn't been $102 in over a year.

Another edit: Maybe this is the best way to put it: Where are they fighting? Where the oil is.

Petrodollar in this article speaks to what I'm talking about. Oil and money.

The middle east has been at war for 5000 years, literally. (About 4850 years before the invention of the combustion engine, meaning it was never about oil... )

The US wasn't involved then.

Since you like to Google, do a Google search on U.S. conflicts over the past 100 years...check out Wikipedia, and see how many of those countries had oil....and then see what happened after the conflict....if the U.S. actually got any oil out of the deal.