When America will come back for the rest of the middle east

[kılıç_mehmet]

Have you ever heard of context? We were talking about oil. So, you're now saying you get the oil?

By you, I don't mean *you*. I mean the USA. The USA secures it's oil reserves for the next century, so you can keep on drivin' your SUV's, even though you claim that oil prices are not going down, the war was not about providing you with cheap oil in the first place.
Not to mention that large oil corporations who pushed the USA to pursue a war to lay their hands on the Iraqi oil.

As you probably don't know, Iraq's oil output was not really the best before the war. And it was still at the hands of Saddam, who wouldn't sell it to the west cheaply, because the oil was nationalized, and was sold to the international companies at a high price, for much more than they get from countries like Angola and Nigeria, where cheap labor is also abundant, even if they lifted the blockade on Iraqi goods and oil.
But ever since the war, production is on a steady rise-you'd expect for a war torn country to invest their money elsewhere, like repairing infastructure. But that's the point. They don't invest in drilling oil, foreign companies do. Chevron, BP, Shell, you name it.
Check this out.
Another one.
The second one tells ye about how the oil is kept in constant high prices to soar the profits.
Of course, they wouldn't privatize the oil as soon as they got there, since that would seem very suspicious, both in the international scale, and for the Iraqis that they claimed to have liberated. Most probably, the Iraqi public would have demanded that the US companies be barred from getting a slice of the oil, which they tried to do a couple of times.
Did it work? Not so well.

McCain was quoted saying:

My friends, I will have an energy policy that we will be talking about, which will eliminate our dependence on oil from the Middle East that will - that will then prevent us - that will prevent us from having ever to send our young men and women into conflict again in the Middle East.

If not for the oil, for what damn reason, would America bother with going to war with Iraq for the second time? The USA is not a humanitarian organisation-it never was. Whenever I saw the US interfere with anything anywhere else around the world, I always saw something that was for the benefit of the US, although they would deny all allegations relating to that.

So, the only jobs possible are laborer jobs?

Unless you're a college student that graduated from a decent department, like engineering, natural sciences, or graduated as an economist, lawyer or etc., where do you think you may find a job? Most probably in starbucks, if you're not a qualified worker, of course(or a skilled technician, who have great uses in the field of industry). And qualified workers have less and less relevance to today's society, with technology steadily finding new applications that render human hands useless.

Sources?

I've explained the ones above.
This guy also claims that the war was in fact, for oil, and time magazine polls show what the world really thinks about the war in Iraq.

What the fuck is capish? You could have said, "understand?" It's easier to spell. At any rate, it would apply to everything in that case. Please provide sources that say we are getting an effin heapload of Iraqi oil or just admit that is what you assume.

You, as an individual are getting shit.
The US, too, is getting nothing more than some more tax, but it's the companies that you own, and have shares on, that are getting the money. So do the other oil companies in the west.

Did you do a little math to figure that out or is that just another one of those things you repeat or say for the hell of it? If that is true, it is likely because your ruling class is an even bigger bunch of douches than ours.

The oil is getting taxed. More than so than we'd ever need. But even without the tax, there is a price fixing going on.

What the fuck? Nobody was killing civilians over there until we showed up? Alright, I am now convinced I am talking to someone who is far out of touch with reality. The above statement would be laughable if the truth weren't so sad.

Indeed. It was very stable. Just ask the Iraqis, and they'll tell ya.
Maybe some secterian violence was around, but not the same way as it is now.
Because Saddam would not have any anarchy going on in Iraq, and that's precisely why they left him on the throne after the crusade of Papa Bush.
And as I've told you. Most of the violence that happened in the region was in the 80ies.
You tell me that I'm "out of touch" with reality, whereas I'm living right next to Iraq, with you living on the other side of the ocean. I have known students that come from Iraq, praising Saddam Hussein and hailing him as a martyr, telling me how shamelessly the minorities of the country have sold their souls to the devil for a few bucks.
And it's very surprising that most praises come from the Christian minorities of Iraq, the assyrian minority. But seeing some of the images on TV, of some raghead guy beating Saddam's statue with his shoes, leaves me wondering. IF there are different factions in Iraq that support different sides, how do you expect these to get along with eachother?
The answer is simple. Who can tell me that it won't be the case that Iraq, in the future, will dismantle itself to become three successor states, one with a Kurdish majority, one with a Sunni Arab, and another with a Shia majority?
First, you allow people to create autonomous states within the state, they build up their infastructure to suit their own, and then, they'll declare independence.

We're not in Turkey. Remember?

Simply telling you about the consequences of your nice little war in Iraq.

Give me a break. Afghanistan didn't have a lot of opium before the U.S. came in? That's hilarious. What, did the soldiers start making it?

No. It did not. The Taliban did not allow opium to be grown, and destroyed opium fields the day they spotted them. After the war erupted, Afghanistan now produces the majority of the world's opium on it's own, breaking production records each year.
I'm not going to give you a break, because you obviously know nothing.
I'm here to educate you on the consequences of the actions of your government, in case you haven't been informed properly.

I don't give a fuck if you care. However, it is slightly ironic that you are complaining whilst not caring about any other country than your own and those that support terrorists. I understand the consequences. I have lived with them every day since 2004. I would rather have not sent anyone over there to help. To be honest, I think the Middle East is unhelpable. There is nothing you can do when propaganda is that rampant. It is similar to the Battle of Saipan. Japanese rulers sent out so much propaganda that nearly every civilian died because they thought the U.S. was killing all the civilians wherever they went. History shows us the propaganda was wrong. Those people were killed by their own country -- much like what is happening in the Middle East. Your religions, your propaganda and your hateful beliefs are destroying your people. We shouldn't have to help.

Well, America doesn't care about any other country than it's own, and those who allegedly support terrorists(Iraq didn't). You don't know any consequences, you just had some skyscrapers crash down the sky, and a couple of thousand dead, but other than that, you seem to be pretty okay, since your political platform seem to be centered around issues like gay marriage, abortion, stem cells and "taxes".
Besides, no one needed your fucking help in the first place. Not that you've been a help ever since your crusade, and you are even as ignorant to dismiss everything as simply "propaganda".
Even though it wasn't your soldiers who pulled the trigger on anyone, it is quite evident that it is you, who allowed sectarian violence to run rampart, and destabilized the area, just like you've done in Afghanistan, and left it during the Soviet days, and in Vietnam, and as you did in the second Iraqi war.
And well, Iraqis are not my "people", excluding the Turkmen in the area, of course, but I can tell you that people don't hate you for no reason.
Even though you try to show yourselves as the victims, the US is most definately the perpetrator, and not the victim. It has been the aggressor in every war ever since WWII.
And as I said, no one here wants your damn help(which comes in the form of bombs, I guess).

We are active everywhere.

Obviously, you aren't as active in Afghanistan as you'd like to be, as it took you like 10 years to get to Osama.

You really have to stop referring to the U.S. as me. I am not the sole citizen of the country you so love to loathe. Anyway, you need to provide sources for your ridiculous assertions. Oh, and I was talking about the rampant murder of anyone who pissed off Saddam and his insane sons.

These are not ridiculous at all. I wondered why the PKK shows up with flash new american carbines each damn time when they choose to fire on our soldiers. Just a year back, some of them were captured with those, although they previously carried AK-47's.
Besides, if you thought that Saddam was mad, why didn't you get rid of him in the aftermath of the Gulf War?

I wasn't talking about the 9/11 attacks. I am talking about the rampant fucking state sanctioned murder that took place in Iraq. If it makes you feel any better, I would have preferred to go into Darfur, where at least most of the civilians are innocent.

As I said, the greatest murders occured in the last days of the Iraq-Iran war, whereas in those days, America supported Iraq against Iran, but chose to act only after Saddam decided it was a good plan to invade Kuwait.
Now maybe you'd want to read "The Spider's Web: The Secret History of How the White House Illegally Armed Iraq." on the subject.

Again, I am a person, not a country. Furthermore, what is it with you extremist wackos and asserting what I live my life by? "Might makes right" is not my motto. I much prefer peace, but let's see if that can happen in a region full of religious nuts.

Well, that's another issue, that you probably know nothing about. The rise of islamic extremism corresponds to the cold war days. NATO supported, and armed each and every extremist group that was present at the time to combat any forms of communist/socialist militants who could take root in muslim countries. Most of these then moved on to form their own organisations, with or without CIA knowledge.
And I know that you're a person, but as you do defend your government's actions, I'll directly talk to you about it, and see if you can come with valid excuses for the actions of your government, once again.

Are you seriously that ignorant? Here, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban.

I'm not, and you know as much as I do, that the Taliban is a regional player, not an international one. It's a militant group, not a worldwide undercover terrorist organisation. Under these circumstances, it's impossible for the Taliban to stage attacks anywhere else in the western world.

Yep.

As I said, the insurgency was founded after you've invaded Iraq.
And well, it's still a mystery to me why you actually invaded Afghanistan.
The CIA could have well tracked down Osama, and save your precious tax dollars(and lives).

Haha, you're quite wrong, actually. Lapdogs? I'm sure the British folk around here appreciate that. As for Australians, my experience is that they are some pretty gung-ho motherfuckers. I sincerely doubt they can be forced into fighting anything they don't want to fight.

Well, I'm also sure that the British folk doesn't appreciate their soldiers going to a war that wasn't theirs to begin with.
And the Australians? How exactly are they involved in any of this? Why were they dragged into the fight? It can only be explained by politics, not because the Australians wanted to go there and kill a couple raghead guys, because that's what the lebos are for.

No, they didn't.

Yes they did.

I never invaded anything in my life. As for Sudan, I would love to. I would love to save all of those poor people. It would be wonderful to go in, get rid of their dictator, erm, president and kill off the Janjaweed. I would throw a party. It wouldn't help much, though. More militia would just come back up from the DCR where they are hiding.

Yeah sure. Then why don't you.

Let's the rest of the NATO forces do his work? You really don't understand what it means to be a republic, do you? You have no clue how our government works or who has the most forces doing "the work." I am utterly convinced that you are just regurgitating hate that you here around you. Ignorance is mankind's greatest enemy.

Being a republic has nothing to do with what I said.
And well, there is no ignorance in any of my words. I simply stated why America chose not to assist the rebels in the way the rest of the NATO forces did.

Wait, so as long as we're invading the countries you want us to invade, it's all good?

It wasn't a request, it was a dare.

How would you know? There is no way in hell you have been to North Korea.

I've never been there, but do some research, and you'll know for sure that the people are starving because Kim Jong İl is amassing weapons, and shutting itself out of the rest of the world. With it's former two allies not supporting him anymore, the people of N. Korea have nothing. They also live under an oppressive, communist regime.

No, clearly.

It's not because you say no.
The south Korean army has a budget of 24 billion dollars.
Whereas the army of the great leader has a budget of 5 billion dollars, which makes up 1/4 of the total budget of N. Korea, whereas it only makes up 2.62% of the total budget.
South Korea practically towers in military strength when compared to North Korea.

Tell that to them. You can't speak for them. Ask the Aussies and Brits here if they feel like they are fighting for the U.S. While you're at it, ask the Brits if they remember the terrorist bombings not so long ago.

It's certainly not because they so eagerly wanted to go to war that rages in Afghanistan nor in Iraq. It's mainly because they too, are part of the choking NATO coalition, something that was necessary back in the cold war, but now, is simply nothing more than America's way of recruiting some lackeys from other member countries.
And well, I'm sure that not all brits agree with this war. So how exactly was it settled that they too would join the US troops there?

It certainly was the US that was attacked by the bombs, blamed on a man who wasn't even found in Afghanistan, and let's say that the brits had the 2005 London bombings to show for, with the UK being a popular target for terrorists, not just for those of the islamic, but also of the seperatist kind(although I don't remember them invading Ireland for that reason), but for what reason did Australia enter the war, with Australia not even being a NATO country.

Well, there you go. We send billions.

And this invalidates the actions of the USA, I believe.

I mean in other countries, half way around the world.

Not that I doubt your sincerity in that, but I certainly doubt your sincerity in going to war with two countries(although officials would deny that) with the alleged purpose of bringing peace, or snuffing out terrorism.

You're avoiding my point. That motherfucker was able to slip through borders because countries were supporting him and helping him hide. It's pretty fucking certain that he was in Afghanistan. Just because he left doesn't mean he was never there.

What? A former CIA agent, who probably carried a dozen passports, had different ID's and etc. would need "support" by whatever countries you can name me(certainly not the ones that you've invaded).
It was pretty fucking certain that he'd probably move to another location when he heard that you were looking for him in Afghanistan, as he didn't have a militia to lead like the Taliban, and hid in Pakistan, far away from where he was assumed to be, whereas the CIA probably drunk coffee and ate donuts for the day long.
I've said this to a couple of other war supporters before: you don't send the military to look for a man.
Like, maybe you should take Israel as an example. Did they actually track down the Munich bombers by sending in the heavy guys? Well, no. Even though there were probably so many communist organisations around the world supporting those guys, they still found them somewhere, and executed them. But no, you had to send in the military, and for what purpose?
It's evident, more than anything.

Seriously, the level of hatred you have for my country is ludicrous. I understand that not everything has been cakes and pies, but you seriously spout a lot of nonsense. The funny thing is, there are enough facts to support your wish for the U.S. to leave, but you don't even bother with them.

The public opinion on the war on terror was going for a bad turn. So you need to show the people a victory once and then, to gather support. The timely death of Osama has been a boon, as I see even liberals like you support the war on terror.
This is not due to my supposed hatred for your country, no, far from it.
I'm actually neutral on your country, there are countries that I hate, yet they are not in any way, affiliated with you.
Besides, I could care less if the US doesn't want to leave. Every coalition soldier that dies in Afghanistan will have his blood upon the hands of those who ordered this war to be carried out.

The war in afghanistan perplexes me, if the taliban stopped fighting NOW our boys would be home by May. The taliban are, in effect, fighting to keep our soldiers there.

Why would they? Seriously, why would they? You know that they won't.
So why not simply pull out? It's none of your business, unless the man has something else that he so eagerly wants there.
In fact, the Taliban are fighting you because you are there.
And the coalition forces there are not even taking real steps to stop the Taliban from gaining ground in the area, other than engaging them. Engaging them is not going to stop them. They retreat, they go somewhere else. They'll still recruit men from villages with the promises of food or threats of death.

[frankiej]

You have too much time on your hands, mate

[Dotard]

Indeed. It was very stable. Just ask the Iraqis, and they'll tell ya.

I actually had this opportunity. I was a civilian contractor for the U.S. Army in Balad, Iraq 2004-2006. During these two years I had the pleasure of extended days of face to face conversations with 40+ Iraqi civilians and ex military personnel.

A very very small sampling yes, but what 'kılıç_mehmet' says about the stability of everyday life in Iraq is in agreement with what was related to me by those Iraqi citizens.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

Thank you America for doing the right thing.

Nations NEVER base foreign policy on moral principle.


The USA did the right thing in the Middle East? Really? When was that? All I've ever noticed is the perceived best interest of the US [incumbent administration] in action. Any positive outcome for others is due to afterthought or happy accident.

[Shell B]

A very very small sampling yes, but what 'kılıç_mehmet' says about the stability of everyday life in Iraq is in agreement with what was related to me by those Iraqi citizens.

It's a very geographic thing. From what I have heard, seen in various documentaries and talked about with my ex-husband (who did a year tour that took him through much of northwestern and central Iraq), some places were kept spotless, in a manner of speaking, and some places were totally fucked.

[5thHorseman]

Thank you America for doing the right thing.

Nations NEVER base foreign policy on moral principle.


The USA did the right thing in the Middle East? Really? When was that? All I've ever noticed is the perceived best interest of the US [incumbent administration] in action. Any positive outcome for others is due to afterthought or happy accident.

Whatever Bush's real intentions, Iraq persistently flouted UN resolution after resolution, committed mass murder of Kurds, Marsh Arabs, Shia Muslims etc. We know they had WMD's, don't anyone be so stupid to say they didn't, we (Britain, France and USA) sold them to them.

Someone had to stop the UN member nations looking dickless.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

Someone had to stop the UN member nations looking dickless.

and a bang up success THAT was.

That's nearly as naive as claiming they were fighting to prosecute the war on terror and free the people of Iraq.

[5thHorseman]

Which is why I put, 'whatever Bush's real intentions'

[fr0d0]

We know they had WMD's

Wasn't the question their capability to produce them?

[Rayaan]

We know they had WMD's, don't anyone be so stupid to say they didn't, we (Britain, France and USA) sold them to them.

According to my knowledge, though, there isn't any evidence for these weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. These alleged weapons were never found.

I read in this article that Bush made up lies and fake documents about the existence of WMD in Iraq and, in my opinion, he may have done that to use that as a justification for going to war and collecting more oil from the country. Also, here's a part of a transcript from CNN in 2003 in which General Mohamed ElBaradei, the International Atomic Energy Agency Director, interviews the president:

---

At this stage, the following can be stated:

One, there is no indication of resumed nuclear activities in those buildings that were identified through the use of satellite imagery as being reconstructed or newly erected since 1998, nor any indication of nuclear-related prohibited activities at any inspected sites.

Second, there is no indication that Iraq has attempted to import uranium since 1990.

Three, there is no indication that Iraq has attempted to import aluminum tubes for use in centrifuge enrichment. Moreover, even had Iraq pursued such a plan, it would have encountered practical difficulties in manufacturing centrifuge out of the aluminum tubes in question.

Fourth, although we are still reviewing issues related to magnets and magnet-production, there is no indication to date that Iraq imported magnets for use in centrifuge enrichment program.

As I stated above, the IAEA will naturally continue further to scrutinize and investigate all of the above issues.

After three months of intrusive inspections, we have to date found no evidence or plausible indication of the revival of a nuclear weapon program in Iraq.

---

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/03/07/sprj.ir...elbaradei/