# Americans who fought in Fallujah watch Al Qaeda make Comeback



## Sunni Man (Jan 3, 2014)

The crack of gunfire shattered the quiet following afternoon prayers in Fallujah on Thursday, an Iraqi city that U.S. forces once wrested from al Qaeda-linked forces in fierce and bloody fighting and is now a fresh battleground for the terror group.

Inside the ancient city, just 43 miles from Baghdad, Iraqis are once again braced for a siege and say security has declined precipitously over the past year. On Thursday, Iraqi interior ministry officials declared that half of the city was occupied by a brutal wing of al Qaeda called the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant.

What little peace this city has seen in the past decade came at the expense of dozens of American Marines who fought al Qaeda-backed insurgents in two battles in 2004. They finally eliminated the al Qaeda forces in a house by house, alleyway by alleyway battle in which Marines had to contend with booby traps, roadside bombs and insurgents who fought with near suicidal determination.

"No one expected the level of ferocity we encountered in Fallujah," said Maj. Charleston Malkemus, a member of the Marines' First Batallion, the first division deployed to the city. "Insurgents and al Qaeda fighters flocked to the city and inserted themselves to take control, similar to what's going on now."

The second battle of Fallujah fought in the final months of 2004 was the greatest urban military operation involving U.S. troops since the battle for Hue City, Vietnam, in 1968.

By one estimate 36,000 of the city's 50,000 homes in Fallujah were laid to waste. More than 2,000 insurgents are believed to have been killed in the fighting, as were nearly 100 American troops.

Al Qaeda was routed from the city, but they have returned in force according to officials, leaving some Americans to wonder whether too many died in vain.

"It was all for naught," said Ross Ducati, a former Marine who fought in the second battle for the city and has since become an outspoken critic of U.S. intervention in Iraq. "Americans fought and died there -- my friends died there -- for the purposes of regime change and furthering business interests friendly to the Bush administration [Now] Iraqis will die there to further the interests of [Prime Minister Nouri] al-Maliki's government."

But other Marines don't share that view, seeing the latest confrontation with al Qaeda as part of an ongoing struggle for freedom in Iraq and across the region.

"We can't sustain fighting from 3,000 miles away forever," said Malkemus. "At some point we had to turn things over to the Iraqis. Unfortunately, the Iraqi Army is struggling and needs to engage with the terrorists again in Fallujah.

"American men and women who fought and died can never be forsaken, and we don't forsake them by keeping up the fight," he said.

The security situation in Iraq has deteriorated in the past year. According to the U.N., 7,818 people were killed in 2013, the highest number in years.

Much of the recent sectarian violence has taken place in Anbar province, where Fallujah is located. Prime Minister Maliki's Shiite-controlled government has tried to contain the violence in the province, a majority Sunni region.

Against the backdrop of al Qaeda backed militias launching attacks on police statements and military bases, the government has also cracked down on peaceful Sunni protests and sit-ins and dismantled Sunni militias, including those unaffiliated with al Qaeda.

Americans Who Fought in Fallujah Watch al Qaeda Make Comeback - ABC News


----------



## Sunni Man (Jan 4, 2014)

Who didn't see this coming??   ....


----------



## Sallow (Jan 4, 2014)

Sunni Man said:


> Who didn't see this coming??   ....



Cheney and the PNAC.


----------



## U2Edge (Jan 4, 2014)

The capture of Fallujah by Al Quada is unsustainable. Over 90% of Iraq's population is against Al Quada regardless of ethnicity or religion. This will only provide terrorist and anti-Bush liberals something they like to cheer about temporarily.


----------



## Truthseeker420 (Jan 4, 2014)

Sallow said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> > Who didn't see this coming??   ....
> ...



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_RpSv3HjpEw]donald rumsfled known unknowns - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Truthmatters (Jan 4, 2014)

we should have NEVER gone to Iraq in  the first place huh


----------



## Mr Natural (Jan 4, 2014)

"Mission Accomplished"


----------



## bianco (Jan 4, 2014)

U2Edge said:


> The capture of Fallujah by Al Quada is unsustainable. Over 90% of Iraq's population is against Al Quada regardless of ethnicity or religion. This will only provide terrorist and anti-Bush liberals something they like to cheer about temporarily.



An armed, violent, stop at nothing terrorist group like Al Qaeda is most certainly capable of sustaining itself in Iraq.
90% of Iraq's population might be against Al Qaeda, but what are they actually prepared to do about it?
Arm themselves to the teeth and fight to the death to drive AQ out?
Or just meekly allow AQ to takeover like it did before and does everywhere else in the Muslim world?

IMO many Americans and C.O.W troops died for absolutely nothing in Iraq...and in Afghanistan.


----------



## georgephillip (Jan 4, 2014)

Mr Clean said:


> "Mission Accomplished"


*While Iraq and Libya have seen regime change, we're still waiting on Syria, Lebanon, Sudan, Somalia, and Iran.
*
"In Clark's book, Winning Modern Wars, published in 2003, he describes his conversation with a military officer in the Pentagon shortly after 9/11 regarding a plan to attack seven Middle Eastern countries in five years..."

Wesley Clark - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

*Maybe on Hillary's watch?*


----------



## georgephillip (Jan 4, 2014)

"Al-Qaeda-linked militants took control of the central areas of the city of Fallujah in Iraq, an Al Arabiya correspondent reported on Saturday.

"The reports came as a senior security official in the western Anbar province said the Iraqi government had lost control of the city to the militants.

"'Fallujah is under the control of ISIL,' the official said, referring to al-Qaeda-linked group the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant.

*The al-Qaeda fighters have seized military equipment provided by the U.S. Marines to Fallujah police*, whose headquarters have been taken over, Uthman Mohamed, a local reporter in the city in Iraqs western Anbar province, told Bloomberg news agency."

Iraq government loses control of Fallujah | Al Bawaba


----------



## U2Edge (Jan 4, 2014)

bianco said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > The capture of Fallujah by Al Quada is unsustainable. Over 90% of Iraq's population is against Al Quada regardless of ethnicity or religion. This will only provide terrorist and anti-Bush liberals something they like to cheer about temporarily.
> ...



         In the 1970s, the IRA took over large parts of Belfast Northern Ireland temporarily. Does that mean that the British Army and Government were weak and about to crumble. Look at Belfast today! Fallugah will be no different. 

         The Iraqi military and police have been in the trenches trying to rebuild and restore their country after the removal of Saddam. They are holding their own now, even without the support of the American military. 

          Many Americans sacrificed in Iraq and Afghanistan in ways most will never know. The country and the world are safer and more prosperous because of it. They helped rebuild Iraq from the ashes of Saddam and safeguard the vital oil supplies of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia that is so vital to the United States Economy as well as the global economy.


----------



## U2Edge (Jan 4, 2014)

georgephillip said:


> "Al-Qaeda-linked militants took control of the central areas of the city of Fallujah in Iraq, an Al Arabiya correspondent reported on Saturday.
> 
> "The reports came as a senior security official in the western Anbar province said the Iraqi government had lost control of the city to the militants.
> 
> ...



Will see how tough your beloved Al Quada is in the weeks and months ahead. Maliki crushed Iranian backed Al Sadr's forces in southern Iraq, Al Quada in Fallujah will fair no better.


----------



## U2Edge (Jan 4, 2014)

Truthmatters said:


> we should have NEVER gone to Iraq in  the first place huh



Its good for the world and the United States that Saddam's regime was removed. The oil from Kuwait and Saudi Arabia is more safe and secure than it has ever been and that oil is vital to the United States and global economy. Plus, now Iraq is producing more oil for the world market now that it is free of Saddam and free of international sanctions! That additional oil helps meet global demand which keeps prices from rising out of control, which impacts the price of food you put in your mouth every day!


----------



## georgephillip (Jan 4, 2014)

U2Edge said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > "Al-Qaeda-linked militants took control of the central areas of the city of Fallujah in Iraq, an Al Arabiya correspondent reported on Saturday.
> ...


*Maliki is just another corrupt US puppet in the same mold as Karzai or Saddam. His principle goal is to steal as much money as possible before "retirement" in Switzerland*

"Iraq has spent $37 billion on electricity since 2003 ' the sum is more than the annual budgets of both Jordan and Lebanon put together' still the current state of power supplies as most parts of the country still suffer from protracted power outages.[52]

"Iraq ranked the 8th position as one of the most corrupted countries in the world in 2012.[53]

"Male children out of primary school from 2003 to 2007 increased 3 folds [54]

"Human rights conditions in Iraq remain poor, particularly for detainees, journalists, activists, and women and girls. Security forces continued to arbitrarily detain and torture detainees, holding some in secret jails. Iraq security forces respond to peaceful protest with intimidation, threats, violence, and arrests.[55]

"*Outstanding failure to stop Al-Qaeda and Shiite militias violence specially in 2012 and 2013 which witnessed a daily car bombings, assassinations, kidnapping and even prisons breaks*.[56]

"6 million Iraqis are still living below the poverty line according to UN Assistance Mission for Iraq,  UNAMI "

Nouri al-Maliki - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

*Mission Accomplished?*


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jan 4, 2014)

Obama is turning the whole ME over to AQ with a nuclear capable Iran


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 4, 2014)

Crayz $$$grubbing neo-cons, but they dinn't care, you know, they got theirs.


----------



## Sunni Man (Jan 4, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> > Who didn't see this coming??   ....
> ...


Nope.

History will view the U.S. invasion of Iraq and the subsequent occupation as a fools errand instigated by Israel.

I am just ahead of the curve.   .....


----------



## Indofred (Jan 4, 2014)

Sunni Man said:


> Who didn't see this coming??   ....



Ex president Bush when he started the war that allowed that allowed extremist elements into Iraq where they were none before?
Much as Saddam was a total bastard, the invasion was as stupid as it was illegal because this was always on the cards but Bush and his moronic lot were far too stupid to see it.


----------



## Indofred (Jan 4, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> > Who didn't see this coming??   ....
> ...



Why is pointing out the stupidity of a war, unpatriotic?
Thousands of Americans have been killed , many places are unsafe for Americans to visit and America is a potential target from extremists, all because of stupid American foreign policy.
Bush and the hawks are the unpatriotic ones as they've put Americans in danger with their stupidity.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jan 4, 2014)

Name a middle Eastern counrty thats better after Obama?

Egypt?

Iraq?

Syria?

Libya?

Oh, right Iran can develop nukes, they're better off


----------



## Mr. H. (Jan 4, 2014)

Mr Clean said:


> "Mission Accomplished"




"al Qaeda is on the run..."


Sent from my ass using USMessageBoard.com


----------



## Sallow (Jan 5, 2014)

U2Edge said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> > we should have NEVER gone to Iraq in  the first place huh
> ...



That's kinda the bottom line isn't it?

Privatizing foreign resources for US interests.


----------



## jon_berzerk (Jan 5, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Name a middle Eastern counrty thats better after Obama?
> 
> Egypt?
> 
> ...



*Oh, right Iran can develop nukes, they're better off*

+ they get $4 billion in aid


----------



## Sallow (Jan 5, 2014)

Sunni Man said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > Sunni Man said:
> ...



Oh wait Sunni..

Let's see. 

Saudi Arabia has been begging for decades to get rid of Iraqi and the Iranian Regimes.

Well connected oil boys and politicos form the PNAC which advocate for the invasion of Iraq. After failing to get Clinton on board they recognize that it would take a Pearl Harbor event to make such an attack take place.

Then, Osama Bin Laden, a Saudi National, trained in spooks ops by the CIA thanks to Reagan, sets up shop in Afghanistan...and sends Saudi and Egyptian Nationals to learn how to fly commercial airlines. Saudi Agents have been linked to funding these operations.

Then 9/11 happens and what's the first thing that comes out the Bush administration. Iraq. Saudi Nationals trained in Afghanistan and they are screaming Iraq.

After steamrolling Afghanistan, they stop..before killing Bin Laden, a Saudi from a rather rich family, and launch an attack on Iraq.

That sure does smack of Israel alrighty!


----------



## Sallow (Jan 5, 2014)

jon_berzerk said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Name a middle Eastern counrty thats better after Obama?
> ...



The only reason Iran even wants nukes is twofold.

They want full control of their oil.

They do not want to be invaded.

That's it.


----------



## Sallow (Jan 5, 2014)

Mr. H. said:


> Mr Clean said:
> 
> 
> > "Mission Accomplished"
> ...



It is..

BBC News - Al-Qaeda's chief in Lebanon Majid al-Majid dies in custody


> Majid al-Majid, al-Qaeda's commander in Lebanon, has died in custody in a Beirut hospital, Lebanon's army says.
> 
> *The Saudi*, who led the Abdullah Azzam Brigades and was on Saudi Arabia's most-wanted-terrorists list, was arrested in Lebanon recently.
> 
> ...



(Oh look, a Saudi National)



> The Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (Isis) threatened to leave the city of Aleppo to government forces unless its rivals stop their attacks against it within 24 hours.
> 
> Isis has suffered losses in two days of fighting against an alliance of rebel forces in Aleppo and Idlib provinces.
> BBC News - Al-Qaeda-linked Isis under attack in northern Syria



(Oh you silly rivals just stop, or we'll leave!  )


----------



## U2Edge (Jan 5, 2014)

georgephillip said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...



Do you understand what United States interest are in Iraq and the rest of the Persian Gulf?

The #1 US interest there is the flow of oil and natural gas from this region. Provided that is *SAFE AND SECURE from threats*, and is flowing freely, the most important US interest in the region is taken care of. 

        Iraq is a third world country and the United States did not invade it to eliminate all corruption and poverty. *That's just absurd and the idea that because not all of Iraq's internal problems have not been solved means the United States has not accomplished its mission there is simply foolish and ignorant!*


By the way, do you know how many countries Saddam invaded while he was in power? How many countries has Maliki invaded while he has been in power? Which ruler Saddam or Maliki is better for the region given that?


----------



## U2Edge (Jan 5, 2014)

Sunni Man said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > Sunni Man said:
> ...



I look forward to reading your new book about how better off the region would be if Saddam were still the leader of Iraq. I'm sure it will be well praised best seller. LOL

Saddam was removed out of necessity. As long as Kuwaits security is at risk, United States security is at risk. Only fools and those ignorant of US national security interest since the 1940s fail to understand that.


----------



## U2Edge (Jan 5, 2014)

Indofred said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> > Who didn't see this coming??   ....
> ...



The invasion was authorized by multiple UN resolutions making it perfectly legal. There have always been extremist elements in Iraq, even when Saddam was in power. But in any event, from the United States perspective, its far better to have a safe and secure Kuwait by removing Saddam if the cost is internal security problems for the new Iraqi government. A small town in Iraq has been temporarily taken over by extremist. That does not compare to a country being overrun an annexed, the use of WMD on thousands of people and the launcihing of ballistic missiles against multiple countries. 

          Minor to moderate internal Iraqi security problems is a better situation than large scale international war caused by a madman like Saddam!


----------



## U2Edge (Jan 5, 2014)

Sallow said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...



Sorry, but the United States had already been bombing Iraq every year of the Clintion admistration long before W. even ran for office. Iraq was a major security problem for the United States since they invaded Kuwait in 1990. That problem was finally solved by removing Saddam and rebuilding the country. Kuwait has never been safer!


----------



## U2Edge (Jan 5, 2014)

Sallow said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > Truthmatters said:
> ...



No, its protecting those resources for the benefit of the global economy. But you'll only understand that if you understand how the global economy works and how such resources impact the global economy.


----------



## Indofred (Jan 5, 2014)

U2Edge said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> > we should have NEVER gone to Iraq in  the first place huh
> ...



It produced and sold it before the American led sanctions.
Please explain how removing sanctioned helped when you put them there in the first place.


----------



## U2Edge (Jan 5, 2014)

Indofred said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > Truthmatters said:
> ...



The sanctions were necessary while Saddam was still in power in Iraq. In case you did not know, Saddam illegally invaded and annexed the entire country of Kuwait. That's the first time another country was invaded and annexed since Adolf Hitler did it in World War II. 

         So, by removing Saddam from power, the United States and the international community no longer had to engage in a containment policy of Saddam which required the sanctions and other means in order to try and contain him. 

        Iraq is now free of Saddam and international sanctions thanks to US actions of the past ten years.


----------



## Indofred (Jan 5, 2014)

U2Edge said:


> Indofred said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...



With thousands of dead Americans, who knows how many dead Iraqi civilians and an unstable country where extremist groups flourish.

Yep, that was a good move.


----------



## Politico (Jan 5, 2014)

Sigh.


----------



## georgephillip (Jan 5, 2014)

U2Edge said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...


You believe the deaths, maiming, displacement, and incarceration of millions of innocent civilians is justified by your unproven allegation that Saddam posed a threat to the "free" flow of oil from the Middle East?

Saddam's and Gaddafi's biggest oil-related threat was to threaten to sell their oil without using US dollars.

There hasn't been any "free" flow of oil from the Middle East since 1944 at least, and probably never since oil became capitalism's life blood.

"The Anglo-American Petroleum Agreement of 1944 was based on negotiations between the United States and Britain over the control of Middle Eastern oil. Below is shown what the American President Franklin D. Roosevelt had in mind for to a British Ambassador in 1944:
Persian oil is yours. We share the oil of Iraq and Kuwait. As for Saudi Arabian oil, its ours.[6]"

American intervention in the Middle East - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## U2Edge (Jan 5, 2014)

Indofred said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > Indofred said:
> ...



American sacrifice achieved many great things in Iraq. US losses in the war were relatively small compared to Vietnam, Korea, World War II and World War I. The United States removed Saddam and got the country to function on its own in less than 9 years, a record for invasions and occupations that are plagued by insurgencies. The number of Iraqi civilians that died was rather small compared to past wars and occupations. 

Iraq has achieved some level of stability, but more importantly, it is managing the unstable parts now without the help of the United States military. 

Indeed, it was a very good move as the costs were relatively low, and the benefits to US and global security were dramatically HIGH!


----------



## U2Edge (Jan 5, 2014)

georgephillip said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...



        Its not an allegation, Saddam did in fact invade and ANNEX Kuwait. He also burned all of Iraq's oil wells and dumped millions of tons of oil into the Persian Gulf creating one of the worst environmental disasters in all of history. Saddam invaded Iran, Invaded and Attacked Saudi Arabia. Saddam launched ballistic missiles against Israel, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. Saddam used WMD more times than any leader since World War I. It was an absolute necessity that he be removed and he ways. 

           The deaths, maiming and displacement that occurred is minor compared to that caused by United States actions in World War II, Korea and Vietnam. More importantly, the good that was done is massive, and will continue to benefit Iraq and the region for the rest of the century. 

         I'm sorry you think it would be a good idea for Saddam to still be in Iraq, but he is not coming back to Iraq! Just as the world is better off without Hitler, it is also better off without Saddam.



> Saddam's and Gaddafi's biggest oil-related threat was to threaten to sell their oil without using US dollars.
> 
> There hasn't been any "free" flow of oil from the Middle East since 1944 at least, and probably never since oil became capitalism's life blood.



LOL, you must be living on another planet, because oil companies around the world, regardless of country have been buying and selling Persian Gulf oil on the global market for decades. Also, Saddam's invasion of Kuwait caused the 1991 recession by keeping Iraqi and Kuwaiti oil off the world market. 

           Today, Chinese, Russian, American, European, and even South American companies buy and sell Iraqi oil and other Persian Gulf oil on the global market every day. That is the definition of the free flow of oil supplies from the middle east, for EVERYONES NEEDS!


----------



## georgephillip (Jan 6, 2014)

"The phrase petrodollar warfare refers to a theory that one of the driving forces of the foreign policy of the United States has been the status of the United States dollar as the world's dominant reserve currency and as the currency in which oil is priced. 

"The term was coined by William R. Clark, who has written a book with the same title. The phrase oil currency war is sometimes used with the same meaning."

Petrodollar warfare - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## U2Edge (Jan 6, 2014)

Sorry, but its far more basic than that. We live in an industrial society which requires ENERGY for just about everything we do unless you live like the Amish in Pennsylvania. Oil, natural gas, coal, and nuclear provide over 95% of that energy. The transportation sector relies on oil for over 90% of its energy needs. Energy demand is constantly increasing year after year as the global economy increases. That increases the demand for oil every year. Without sufficient supply of oil to meet that demand, the price of oil starts to sharply rise, and that impacts the whole economy, from *the price of gas you put in your car, the price of food you put in your mouth, and whether the business you work at remains open or has to close its doors leaving you with no job, no income, in a world of rising prices!* So the price of oil matters and is most heavily impacted by the flow of oil from the Persian Gulf. Anything that endangers that, is a threat to the American way of life all the way down to our jobs, gas we put in the car, and the food we put in our mouth. So it matters big time, which is why it has been US policy to protect the energy supply from the Persian Gulf for over 70 years now!


----------



## GHook93 (Jan 6, 2014)

Sunni Man said:


> Who didn't see this coming??   ....



I applaud this and hope there is more of it. The Sunni terrorist organization of Al Qaeda against the Shia government of Iraq! I pray to Allah that it breaks down into a FULL civil war and I hope and pray it takes millions of Muslim lives over their! I pray Pakistan, Oman, Iran, Lebanon, Libya, Sudan and all the other Muslim shithole countries break down into civil war.


----------



## Edgetho (Jan 6, 2014)

Indofred said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > Indofred said:
> ...



It WAS a good move until the cocksucker-in-chief decided that America was too mean and the Muslim Brotherhood (parent organization of al Qaeda) was just too fucking cool.

The original hope of the Bush Administration was to establish and showcase TRUE democracy, a TRUE Representative Republic, in Iraq.

It would have been breath-taking.  It would have been incredible.

A first-ever democratic Republic in the Muslim MidEast.  Something that every other Country in the area could point to and want to emulate.

But nope, the cocksucker-in-chief played his fucking PeePee games and allowed the Status of Forces Agreement with Iraq to be set aside.  And please don't bore me with your quibbling bullshit.  He queered it and he did it on purpose.... The whole fucking world knows it.

And when the cocksucker-in-chief invited, and reserved Front Row Seats for, the Muslim Brotherhood in his Cairo Speech, the hand-writing was on the wall.

Had we been able to stabilize Iraq and showcase to all the Muslim World as the 'way it should be' then the losses we suffered would have been worth it.

But no, the cocksucker-in-chief fucked it up.....  On purpose.  Just like his cocksucker voteers wanted him to.  They were afraid it might cost some money and they couldn't get their fucking Food Stamps or something.

And when the ME blows up and we lose a Million men in the War to come......

Guess who will pay the price? 

You.  You will.  

The Anti-Surge



> ...........Unfortunately, the Obama administration signaled a very different approach to Iraq when it took office in January 2009. It immediately pushed for a faster drawdown of U.S. forces than our commanders recommended. It appointed an ambassador to Iraq, Christopher Hill, who had no experience working on Iraq or serving anywhere in the Arab world. It adopted a hands-off approach to shaping Iraqi politics, which was demonstrated most vividly as it refused for months and months to take a hands-on approach with Iraqi leaders and help them broker the necessary compromises about their country's future in the aftermath of the 2010 elections.
> 
> Nowhere was the Obama administration's failure more pronounced than during the debate over whether to maintain a limited number of U.S. troops in Iraq beyond the 2011 expiration of the 2008 Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) -- a debate in which we were actively involved. Here, too, the administration is quick to lay blame on others for the fact that they tried, and failed, to keep a limited presence of troops in Iraq. They have blamed the Bush administration, of course, for mandating the withdrawal in the 2008 SOFA. This does not ring true, however, because as former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has made clear, the plan all along was to renegotiate the agreement to allow for a continued presence of U.S. forces in Iraq. "Everybody believed," she said in 2011, "it would be better if there was some kind of residual force."



dimocraps are dishonest scum......  ALL of them


----------



## Mojo2 (Jan 6, 2014)

Sunni Man said:


> Who didn't see this coming??   ....



You're saying it was inevitable, no matter what.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 6, 2014)

If "The original hope of the Bush Administration was to establish and showcase TRUE democracy, a TRUE Representative Republic, in Iraq" was to turn it into East Arkansas (which I don't believe for a second), that hope was doomed to failure when Rumsfeld fired Shenseki for telling the neo-cons how much it was going to cost and how many hundreds of thosuands of boots on the ground were require to turn victory into a stable peace.


----------



## tinydancer (Jan 6, 2014)

Pity/  But did anyone think a Dems crew run by Spielberg let it end well


----------



## Mojo2 (Jan 6, 2014)

georgephillip said:


> Mr Clean said:
> 
> 
> > "Mission Accomplished"
> ...



The military ALWAYS has contingency plans for attacking our enemies.

*Yawn*

Here's what you should focus on.

Saddam intentionally led the world to believe he still had WMD's even though he didn't.

With that scenario it would have been foolhardy for any freedom loving Government to do nothing when it had the ability to prevent Israel OR SAUDI ARABIA from going up in a mushroom cloud.

This is a transcript or excerpts (it looks like it MIGHT have been edited recently...not sure) of Saddam's FBI interrogator who was interviewed on CBS 60 Minutes.



> And in June 2000 you gave a speech in where you said Iraq would not disarm until others in the region did. A rifle for a rifle, a stick for a stick, a stone for a stone,'" Piro recalls.
> 
> That June 2000 speech was about weapons of mass destruction. In talking casually about that speech, Saddam began to tell the story of his weapons. It was a breakthrough that had taken five months.
> 
> ...



Interrogator Shares Saddam's Confessions - Page 4 - CBS News


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 6, 2014)

tinydancer said:


> Pity/  But did anyone think a Dems crew run by Spielberg let it end well



The second the admin rejected Shinseki's recommendations no way that it could end well existed.


----------



## georgephillip (Jan 6, 2014)

GHook93 said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> > Who didn't see this coming??   ....
> ...


Do you drive?
How much will you pay for your gas addiction if most of the Muslim oil-producing states descend into civil war?


----------



## georgephillip (Jan 6, 2014)

U2Edge said:


> Sorry, but its far more basic than that. We live in an industrial society which requires ENERGY for just about everything we do unless you live like the Amish in Pennsylvania. Oil, natural gas, coal, and nuclear provide over 95% of that energy. The transportation sector relies on oil for over 90% of its energy needs. Energy demand is constantly increasing year after year as the global economy increases. That increases the demand for oil every year. Without sufficient supply of oil to meet that demand, the price of oil starts to sharply rise, and that impacts the whole economy, from *the price of gas you put in your car, the price of food you put in your mouth, and whether the business you work at remains open or has to close its doors leaving you with no job, no income, in a world of rising prices!* So the price of oil matters and is most heavily impacted by the flow of oil from the Persian Gulf. Anything that endangers that, is a threat to the American way of life all the way down to our jobs, gas we put in the car, and the food we put in our mouth. So it matters big time, which is why it has been US policy to protect the energy supply from the Persian Gulf for over 70 years now!


So how does the cost of oil today compare with December of 1990?
Crude Oil (petroleum); Dated Brent - Daily Price - Commodity Prices - Price Charts, Data, and News - IndexMundi
BTW, the US hasn't been protecting the energy supply for the last 70 years.
It has been manipulating the energy supply to reward puppets and punish trolls.
FDR spelled it all out in 1944 when the US was the world's leading oil exporter.
The oil reserves of the Middle East were described shortly thereafter as the greatest material prize in history, and millions of Muslims have paid with their lives, homes, and futures in order for a few corrupt, western oligarcs and their political handmaidens and psychopathic generals to pillage the oil wealth of Muslims and funnel it to parasites in the US and Europe.


----------



## U2Edge (Jan 6, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> If "The original hope of the Bush Administration was to establish and showcase TRUE democracy, a TRUE Representative Republic, in Iraq" was to turn it into East Arkansas (which I don't believe for a second), that hope was doomed to failure when Rumsfeld fired Shenseki for telling the neo-cons how much it was going to cost and how many hundreds of thosuands of boots on the ground were require to turn victory into a stable peace.



The goal is protecting US national security interest in the Persian Gulf. That was accomplished by removing SADDAM and replacing it with a government that was not a threat or hostile towards the region and could bring some level of stability to Iraq without US troops on the ground. Guess what, the United States accomplished all of that. The current Maliki government meets all those conditions!


----------



## U2Edge (Jan 6, 2014)

georgephillip said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry, but its far more basic than that. We live in an industrial society which requires ENERGY for just about everything we do unless you live like the Amish in Pennsylvania. Oil, natural gas, coal, and nuclear provide over 95% of that energy. The transportation sector relies on oil for over 90% of its energy needs. Energy demand is constantly increasing year after year as the global economy increases. That increases the demand for oil every year. Without sufficient supply of oil to meet that demand, the price of oil starts to sharply rise, and that impacts the whole economy, from *the price of gas you put in your car, the price of food you put in your mouth, and whether the business you work at remains open or has to close its doors leaving you with no job, no income, in a world of rising prices!* So the price of oil matters and is most heavily impacted by the flow of oil from the Persian Gulf. Anything that endangers that, is a threat to the American way of life all the way down to our jobs, gas we put in the car, and the food we put in our mouth. So it matters big time, which is why it has been US policy to protect the energy supply from the Persian Gulf for over 70 years now!
> ...



           That chart only shows just how much more vital it is to protect the oil and natural gas of the middle east. There was risk before in 1950, 1970, and 1990, but today the risk is even greater because SUPPLY is struggling to keep up with demand. So the impact of military action to sieze or sabotage Persian Gulf oil TODAY would be far worse than it was in 1990. 


         The world today is more dependent on petroleum than It was in 1990:

Daily world crude oil consumption in 1990 was 63,875,130 barrels a day.

Daily world crude oil consumption in 2011 was 87,356,290 barrels a day. 

           That's an increase of consumption in 21 years of nearly 50%! At that rate, by 2030, global consumption of crude oil will have doubled from 1990 when Saddam invaded Kuwait.

       As the world consumes more oil, and supplies struggles to keep up with this extra demand, price naturally increases. This makes the need to defend the Persian Gulf to protect the supplies even more important than it ever has been in history. 

As demand increases, and what supplies is available struggles to keep up, a sudden shock to the system such as Kuwait or Saudi Arabia being overrun would prove even more disasterous than it would have been in the past! Imagine paying 50 dollars for a gallon of gas!

World Crude Oil Consumption by Year (Thousand Barrels per Day)


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 6, 2014)

U2Edge said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > If "The original hope of the Bush Administration was to establish and showcase TRUE democracy, a TRUE Representative Republic, in Iraq" was to turn it into East Arkansas (which I don't believe for a second), that hope was doomed to failure when Rumsfeld fired Shenseki for telling the neo-cons how much it was going to cost and how many hundreds of thosuands of boots on the ground were require to turn victory into a stable peace.
> ...



No, it did not.  We are worried about Iraq growing closer to Iran, Iran's involvement in Syria and Lebanon, Iran's nuclear program, and the rest of the apple cart the neo-cons' overturned without a strategy to make the ME a stable place.

We are in more danger today than we were almost eleven years ago this coming March.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 6, 2014)

Horse crap to "This makes the need to defend the Persian Gulf to protect the supplies even more important than it ever has been in history."  We have been ramping up production here since 2008, investing in other alternative energy sources, and working more closely with Mexico and Canada's energy programs.

We do not to be a "hot" interest in the PG.


----------



## georgephillip (Jan 7, 2014)

U2Edge said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...


Since the US has the only military that has sought to seize or sabotage Persian gulf oil in the last quarter century, maybe that explains why the cost of Persian gulf oil has increased from $35 a barrel in December of 1990 to over $100 a barrel in December of 2012.

By what stretch of the imagination is that a defense of Persian gulf oil for anyone except Wall Street speculators and their corporate politicians in DC.


----------



## TooTall (Jan 7, 2014)

Sallow said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> > Who didn't see this coming??   ....
> ...



You mean Obama and Biden who cut and ran without negotiating leaving a force of Special Ops in country to respond to the insurgents.


----------



## TooTall (Jan 7, 2014)

georgephillip said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...



Both Gulf wars were coalitions of US and other nations, and they were not fought to sieze or sabotage Persian Gulf oil.  They were waged, in part, to ensure the availability of oil to the World oil market.  Supply and demand determine the price of oil which is dictated by OPEC.


----------



## Desperado (Jan 7, 2014)

Mojo2 said:


> Here's what you should focus on.
> Saddam intentionally led the world to believe he still had WMD's even though he didn't.



Does not say much about our intelligence agencies if Saddam could carry out a bluff like that.
Was anyone in those agencies fired for that major failure?


----------



## JWBooth (Jan 7, 2014)

TooTall said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...


So, when the government tells you that the sun is purple, you gonna buy into that fantasy too?


----------



## georgephillip (Jan 7, 2014)

TooTall said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...


*Both Gulf wars and those to come were set in motion during WWII, and it had absolutely nothing to do with making oil available to the world market; it had everything to do with controlling the flow of oil into the world market:*

"The Red Line agreement governed the development of Middle East oil for the next two decades. The Anglo-American Petroleum Agreement of 1944 was based on negotiations between the United States and Britain over the control of Middle Eastern oil. Below is shown what the American President Franklin D. Roosevelt had in mind for to a British Ambassador in 1944:

"Persian oil is yours. We share the oil of Iraq and Kuwait. As for Saudi Arabian oil, its ours."

American intervention in the Middle East - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## JWBooth (Jan 7, 2014)

Take a vase, throw it against the wall, and then be all surprised when it doesn't go back together as you would like.


----------



## Indofred (Jan 7, 2014)

U2Edge said:


> The goal is protecting US national security interest in the Persian Gulf. That was accomplished by removing SADDAM and replacing it with a government that was not a threat or hostile towards the region and could bring some level of stability to Iraq without US troops on the ground. Guess what, the United States accomplished all of that. The current Maliki government meets all those conditions!



That's odd, the same ideas were cited when the US put Saddam into power.


----------



## Indofred (Jan 7, 2014)

Most of the balls up in the middle east was cause by America (With some help from the UK).

The Iranian situation was caused by America removing the elected government and replacing it with a dictator. 
The Iraqi situation when America put Saddam into power.
Egypt when America installed it's personal dictator.
Israel when America supported the almost defeated Israel as part of its cold war messing about, and so on.

America complains about terrorism but is a far worse offender than anyone that has attacked it.


----------



## Mojo2 (Jan 7, 2014)

Desperado said:


> Mojo2 said:
> 
> 
> > Here's what you should focus on.
> ...



Don't be so quick to condemn the intelligence agencies. NO ONE in any of the world's top intel agencies, the Israelis, the Germans, the Brits...no one knew for sure.

Face it, some things just can't be easily surveilled.


----------



## U2Edge (Jan 7, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



How is Kuwait more in danger today of being overrun and annexed that it was 12 or 20 years ago?

   The United States was concerned about Iran before Saddam was removed, so the fact that it is still concerned about Iran today is not a surprise. Iran has not used WMD, invaded or attacked any countries, and they did not annex another country wiping it from the map. SADDAM did all those things which is why it was a necessity to remove him. 

*Has Maliki the current leader of Iraq invaded or attacked any other countries? Has he developed WMD to use against his neighbors? *

           The United States currently logistically supports the Iraqi military, NOT Iran. Iraq will certainly have friendlier relations with Iran than it did under Saddam and that is NOT a bad thing. Every country in the region is experiencing friendlier relations with Iraq now that SADDAM is removed, not just Iran. 

Again, the oil in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait has never been this safe. The world, the Persian Gulf are safer places now that Saddam is gone. Iran has never engaged in the same destructive behavior that Saddam did. That's why the region is better off and safer today. Iran is a problem, but that does not change the fact that things have improved dramatically for Persian Gulf security since SADDAM was removed. 

 Also, Syria is weaker today than it was 3 years ago and its military is now focused on its internal problems which makes the region safer from any sort of Syrian adventurism, especially Israel.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 7, 2014)

U2Edge has imbibed the kool aide of neo-conservatism.

Iraq will turn on us in a heart beat and support the Islamic ME.


----------



## Mr Natural (Jan 7, 2014)

It's not called the Iraq Fiasco for nothing.


----------



## U2Edge (Jan 7, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Horse crap to "This makes the need to defend the Persian Gulf to protect the supplies even more important than it ever has been in history."  We have been ramping up production here since 2008, investing in other alternative energy sources, and working more closely with Mexico and Canada's energy programs.
> 
> We do not to be a "hot" interest in the PG.



Again, you have to understand how the global economy works, how energy works, to understand how vital the Persian Gulf is. Global consumption is 50% higher today for oil than it was in 1990. Its great that America has ramped up its production, and invested in other energy resources, but those are just a drop in the bucket. Again, its not the little things that the United States does that matter, its what the entire planet does that matters. When planet as a whole is demanding more energy, oil etc, and the supply barely meets demand or fails to sometimes, price will increase which will have a negative ripple effect all across the global economy. 

              Brazil which does not import any oil at all is still impacted by Persian Gulf oil! Why? Because Brazil imports billions of other products who's prices are impacted by the price of oil and there for conditions in the Persian Gulf. 

Oil impacts the price of other energy resources, and impacts the price of food you put in your mouth and other products you buy or consume. 

*Again, the world is not using less oil, its using more, and as long as that's the case, as long as the the WORLD is using oil at the rate it did 60 years ago, the Persian Gulf will continue to be vital to the global economy and there for vital to the interest of the United States.*

Here is that website again showing the growing daily consumption of oil over the past 30 years. 

World Crude Oil Consumption by Year (Thousand Barrels per Day)


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 7, 2014)

U2Edge, you do no understand that to be in the global economy does not mean we have to invade other countries for economic reasons.

Sweet Judas, you have imbibed neo-conservatism.  Only deprogramming will help.


----------



## U2Edge (Jan 7, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> U2Edge has imbibed the kool aide of neo-conservatism.
> 
> Iraq will turn on us in a heart beat and support the Islamic ME.



Sorry, but Franklin Roosevelt was not a neo-conservative. He was a realist. We live in an industrial world that depends on energy. Everything you do, including using your computer requires energy which is not free and is impacted by the flow of oil and natural gas from the Persian Gulf. That is not a theory, its a fact. It does not matter whether your liberal, conservative, libertarian, communist, red, pink, blue or purple. Nearly everything you do during the day, including the price of the food you put in your mouth is impacted by ENERGY prices. The Persian Gulf continues to impact energy prices everywhere across the global economy.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 7, 2014)

We are living in 2014, not 1933.  

Your analysis does not require invading nations.

The last decade has shown the disaster for Americans in doing so.


----------



## U2Edge (Jan 7, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> U2Edge, you do no understand that to be in the global economy does not mean we have to invade other countries for economic reasons.
> 
> Sweet Judas, you have imbibed neo-conservatism.  Only deprogramming will help.



Were apart of the global economy and global environment whether we like it or not. Our security is impacted by what we do or do not do to protect our access to energy, water, air, and other necessities of life. That is why it has been US national security policy to PROTECT Saudi Arabia since the 1940s. Our way of life is directly impacted by the flow of energy from the Persian Gulf. When ever our way of life is impacted or threatened America acts to protect it, just as it did in World War I and World War II and since then.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 7, 2014)

U2Edge said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge, you do no understand that to be in the global economy does not mean we have to invade other countries for economic reasons.
> ...



You have give no necessary or required reasoning to invade ME countries: none.

You can believe it, you can philosophize about it, you can sacrifice Islamic kitties to your neo-con altar: none of that changes the fact that all of your belief is false.


----------



## U2Edge (Jan 7, 2014)

georgephillip said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...



Because it could be over a thousand dollars a barrel or even higher. How ever high you think the prices our today, it is a result of normal economic activity unhindered by oil or natural gas being cut off from the world market. The reason that price has risen so much is that the global economy has expanded so much, population has expanded, and with DEMAND for oil has expanded. Supply and production our struggling to keep up with a rapidly developing world. *But if Persian Gulf Oil were suddenly taken off the market because it was seized by SADDAM or destroyed by SADDAM, the price of oil would be 10, 20 times worse than it is now, and we would be experiencing the worst economic depression in the history of the planet.*

            The oil continues to flow freely and increases and decreases in price our currently based on NORMAL market conditions. But if the oil wells in Kuwait are burned or the oil in Saudi Arabia seized, you would see a sudden explosion in prices. That would essentially destroy the global economy. That can't be allowed to happen!


----------



## U2Edge (Jan 7, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



What I stated about global energy consumption and supply is NOT a belief, its a *FACT!* If Saddam were able to take Persian Gulf Oil off the global market, the food you currently buy and the gas you put in your car would become too expensive, and if you work for a business they would likely have to close their doors. Global wide economic depression. That's not a belief, its a fact. That's how global economics work. You have to have energy at reasonable prices in order to sustain the current way of life you live. When the Supply of energy is cut, the demand for whats left increases, which increases price dramatically. Things that are relatively cheap or affordable become too expensive. Its economics 101!


----------



## U2Edge (Jan 7, 2014)

Desperado said:


> Mojo2 said:
> 
> 
> > Here's what you should focus on.
> ...



Intelligence is never perfect, but that's besides the point. What Saddam did or did not have in terms of WMD on the day of the invasion is also irrelevant. What is relevant and what made the invasion a necessity is that the sanctions and embargo's put in place to try and contain Saddam had crumbled and for economic reasons other countries were no longer willing to enforce them. Without the key parts of containment in place, it was only a matter of time before Saddam rebuilt both his conventional military and WMD unconventional weapons programs. Under those conditions, every year the international community WAITED to remove SADDAM the more costly any invasion and regime removal would prove to be. That's why it was a necessity to invade and remove Saddam in 2003. 

The fact that Saddam appeared to not have any usable WMD in March 2003 is a good thing, not a bad thing. The invasion and removal would have been far more costly had Saddam already developed a new stock pile of WMD to use on the coalition, countries in the region and his own people. The United States and coaltions goals after the first Gulf War were to PREVENT Saddam from every developing or using WMD on the battlefield and from invading and attacking his neighbors. It finally became obvious that the only way to accomplish that was to remove him from power.


----------



## U2Edge (Jan 7, 2014)

georgephillip said:


> TooTall said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...



        Sorry, but If I start my own oil company today, I can buy Iraqi, Kuwait, or Saudi Arabian oil on the world market and sell it to who ever I feel like. That's good for the global economy and the US economy. Energy availability keeps the price of energy low which benefits the United States and the rest of the global economy. The United States economy is deeply intertwined with the global economy. So anything that benefits one benefits the other.


----------



## TooTall (Jan 7, 2014)

Indofred said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > The goal is protecting US national security interest in the Persian Gulf. That was accomplished by removing SADDAM and replacing it with a government that was not a threat or hostile towards the region and could bring some level of stability to Iraq without US troops on the ground. Guess what, the United States accomplished all of that. The current Maliki government meets all those conditions!
> ...



Carter was President in 1979 when Saddam came into power although he had been the titular head of Iraq for several years before that.  As much as I would like to blame Carter, I don't believe he has anything to do with Saddam taking over the country.


----------



## U2Edge (Jan 7, 2014)

Indofred said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > The goal is protecting US national security interest in the Persian Gulf. That was accomplished by removing SADDAM and replacing it with a government that was not a threat or hostile towards the region and could bring some level of stability to Iraq without US troops on the ground. Guess what, the United States accomplished all of that. The current Maliki government meets all those conditions!
> ...



LOL, the United States did not put Saddam into power. SADDAM's Iraq was client state of the Soviet Union prior to the 1991 Gulf War.


----------



## U2Edge (Jan 7, 2014)

Indofred said:


> Most of the balls up in the middle east was cause by America (With some help from the UK).
> 
> The Iranian situation was caused by America removing the elected government and replacing it with a dictator.
> The Iraqi situation when America put Saddam into power.
> ...



Wrong on all counts except Iran. The Shah was put into power because the opposition was tied to the Soviets.


----------



## TooTall (Jan 7, 2014)

Indofred said:


> Most of the balls up in the middle east was cause by America (With some help from the UK).
> 
> The Iranian situation was caused by America removing the elected government and replacing it with a dictator.
> The Iraqi situation when America put Saddam into power.
> ...



The Carter administration was partially responsible for the downfall of the Shah and the takeover of the Ayatollah.

Not so with Saddam Hussein.  He did that on his own.  

Egypt was stable and an ally until Obama started his apology tour and incited the Muslim Brotherhood to take over. 

I can think of no reason the US should NOT support the only democracy in the middle east (Israel).  Can you?


----------



## georgephillip (Jan 7, 2014)

Indofred said:


> Most of the balls up in the middle east was cause by America (With some help from the UK).
> 
> The Iranian situation was caused by America removing the elected government and replacing it with a dictator.
> The Iraqi situation when America put Saddam into power.
> ...


The US and its Junior Partner have never lost faith in capitalism.
Since you can't have capitalism without imperialism, elites in both corporate states have no choice but to continue instigating wars of choice far from their homelands. Should the US Petrodollar collapse, it won't be possible to continue borrowing enough money to kill millions of innocent Muslims on the other side of the planet; bad news for millions of Mexicans, I suspect.


----------



## georgephillip (Jan 7, 2014)

U2Edge said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...


*Where did you get the idea today's high oil prices were due solely to supply and demand and NORMAL market conditions?*

"THE drastic rise in the price of oil and gasoline is in part the result of forces beyond our control: as high-growth countries like China and India increase the demand for petroleum, the price will go up.

"But there are factors contributing to the high price of oil that we can do something about. Chief among them is the effect of 'pure' speculators  investors who buy and sell oil futures but never take physical possession of actual barrels of oil. 

"*These middlemen add little value and lots of cost as they bid up the price of oil in pursuit of financial gain.* 

"They should be banned from the worlds commodity exchanges, which could drive down the price of oil by as much as 40 percent and the price of gasoline by as much as $1 a gallon."

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/11/opinion/ban-pure-speculators-of-oil-futures.html?_r=0


----------



## georgephillip (Jan 7, 2014)

U2Edge said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > TooTall said:
> ...


You can't sell your oil to Iran, North Korea, or Cuba, can you?
Tell me what you think FDR had in mind in 1944 when he told the British:
"Persian oil is yours. 
We share the oil of Iraq and Kuwait.
As for Saudi Arabian oil, it's ours."


----------



## U2Edge (Jan 7, 2014)

georgephillip said:


> Indofred said:
> 
> 
> > Most of the balls up in the middle east was cause by America (With some help from the UK).
> ...



No one is killing millions of muslims. That's just absurd.


----------



## U2Edge (Jan 7, 2014)

georgephillip said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...



           Business's and inviduals that buy and trade are apart of a free market. That happens with any product and service that exist. That's why its apart of normal market conditions. Growth in India, China, and Africa is also apart of normal market conditions.

           Saddam overrunning Kuwait, burning all its oil wells and dumping thousands of barrels of oil into the Persian Gulf is not something that is apart of normal market conditions and creates a shock to the system that depending on its severity can cause different degrees of economic crises around the world.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 7, 2014)

Uh, U2Edge, that was Iraq I, not Iraq II.

We are not going to let you neo-cons run riot ever again, son.


----------



## U2Edge (Jan 7, 2014)

georgephillip said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...



         Actually you can sell oil and other products to Iran with the easing of sanctions, plus there were other countries that were getting around the sanctions anyways. You may not be able to sell oil to Cuba if you are in the USA, but you can certainly do it from other countries. You could also oil or other things to North Korea through China assuming you could find a buyer in North Korea. 

      Persian Oil is yours to develop, will both help develop the oil resources in Iraq and Kuwait, in Saudi Arabia will develop those resources. Its worked out great too. Cheap Persian Gulf Oil has helped fuel the economic engine of the late 20 century and early 21st century that has brought wealth and prosperity to people around the world and raised the global standard of living.


----------



## U2Edge (Jan 7, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Uh, U2Edge, that was Iraq I, not Iraq II.
> 
> We are not going to let you neo-cons run riot ever again, son.



There is no real distinction between the two, since the first conflict only stopped with a ceacefire which Iraq broke. The United States bombed Iraq every year from 1991 all the way up to the 2003 invasion. The 2003 invasion also stems from the unresolved problems caused by Saddam's invasion and annexation of Kuwait in 1990. 

         Now of course, for those ignorant of what was happening in Iraq and the region in the years from 1992 to 2002, it would naturally seem like the two wars were completely separate, but that's not the case.


----------



## georgephillip (Jan 7, 2014)

U2Edge said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > Indofred said:
> ...


You're right.
I should have written killed, maimed, and displaced millions of innocent Muslims.


----------



## georgephillip (Jan 7, 2014)

U2Edge said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...


*This is NOT a part of "normal market conditions"*

"Today, speculators dominate the trading of oil futures. According to Congressional testimony by the commodities specialist Michael W. Masters in 2009, the oil futures markets routinely trade more than one billion barrels of oil per day. 

"Given that the entire world produces only around 85 million actual 'wet' barrels a day, this means that more than 90 percent of trading involves speculators exchanging 'paper barrels with one another.'"

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/11/opinion/ban-pure-speculators-of-oil-futures.html?_r=1&


----------



## U2Edge (Jan 8, 2014)

georgephillip said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...



It is apart of normal market conditions, but,, this may be a place where new regulations on  pure speculators should be put in place to limit or block their impact on the market.


----------



## georgephillip (Jan 8, 2014)

U2Edge said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...


Trading one billion "paper" barrels of oil daily in a market that produces 85 million physical barrels of oil a day is not a normal condition. It's gambling with other peoples' money.


----------



## U2Edge (Jan 8, 2014)

georgephillip said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...



Well, consumption and production daily may be around 85 million barrels, but those figures don't include supply that is stored or projected for the future.


----------



## GHook93 (Jan 8, 2014)

Sunni Man said:


> Who didn't see this coming??   ....



It was a stupid war for us to get involved in. Sadam, as bad as he was, was a great polarizing Middle East figure to the nutjobs in Iran. With Sadam removed, the Shia Iranians had no force against them in the middle east and they are free to threaten other countries. 

But I digress.

Nation building doesn't work. You can't build up the less motivated side and have them fight after we do the heavy lifting. We learned that in Vietnam. We killed over a million VC and NVA, but the SVA was never up to the task of fighting the NVA and they never going to do that when we left.

This is what is happening in Iraq. We were the only reason motivated Sunnis were knocked back. With us gone the pigeons in the government will fall. Very soon it will be radical Sunnis vs radical Shia. Much like it is in Syria!

I don't blame Obama for this and for once Kerry is right, "It's their fight let them fight it out." 

We should sit back and eat popcorn and hope the Sunni opposition is tough enough for us to see another Syria-style civil war in which many Muslims dies on both sides. We should side back and enjoy all the Muslims shit holes when they go to war against themselves.


----------



## georgephillip (Jan 8, 2014)

U2Edge said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...


Do you mean the oil supply that's stored inside of supertankers that cruise in circles off  San Francisco, waiting for Wall Street's projected future?


----------



## U2Edge (Jan 9, 2014)

GHook93 said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> > Who didn't see this coming??   ....
> ...



          Its not stupid because the price you pay for the energy you rely on every day as well as the price you pay for the food you put in your mouth every day is heavily impacted by the free flow of oil and natural gas for the Persian Gulf that was threatened by SADDAM. Your way of life, the global economy depends on this stuff and in order to secure and protect it, SADDAM had to be removed. Containment was no longer and option because the sanctions and embargo had crumbled and other countries had economic reasons for not participating in the sanctions anymore. 

         In Vietnam, the South Vietnamese would have been just fine, but the newly elected Democtratic congress cut off funding for them and cut all funding for any further US military operations after August 1973 in South East Asia. The South Vietnamese Army was defeated in 1975 because they had run out of most of their stocks of fuel and ammo from the United States which had cut funding two years earlier. In addition, they did not have the air support form the United States which they were promised before the US left. 

         Had the United States abided by its treaty commitiments with South Vietnam, it would still be a country today, as strong or perhaps even stronger than South Korea. South Vietnam fell to the North because the United States abandoned it while the Russians and Chinese lavished the NVA with all the weapons they needed or wanted. 

        In Iraq, Maliki's government has control over most of the country and the recent Al Quada take over of Fallujah will not survive. It will be crushed in time. Maliki will be elected to a third term in April, and Iraq will continue to advance forward into the future with rising oil production and prosperity for its people.


----------



## U2Edge (Jan 9, 2014)

georgephillip said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...



Saudi Arabia has lots of excess supply in store, as does the United States and many other countries. Private business's have excess supply as well. Countries and business keep excess supply for logistical, business and security needs.


----------



## Edgetho (Jan 9, 2014)

georgephillip said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...



How much does it cost to rent a Supertanker, genius?

You have no clue, so let me tell you.....  Between Eighty and One Hundred THOUSAND Dollars a day......  NOT including fuel.  At 14 knots, a Supertanker burns 90 Metric Tonnes of fuel per day.  Even loafing around in the open water, a tanker MUST keep enough speed up to maintain control of the ship.

That might cut it down to 25 Metric Tonnes of fuel a day.  At (app) 250 Gallons per Metric Tonne, times 25, that equals 6,250 gallons a day.....  MINIMUM.

And diesel (depending on where you buy it) runs about $4 a gallon in most ports.  So there we have an additional $25,000 a day.

And THAT is assuming you're selling the oil on the spot market.

You're just repeating commie/dimocrap moron talking points.

The people keeping Supertankers filled and cruising, anchored off their Port Cities was Iran.

But they don't do it anymore.  They lost their Shorts.

By the time their load of oil landed, they owed the Supertanker Owners more money than the Oil it held was worth.

Not real bright.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 9, 2014)

Anyone who buys U2Edge and the other neo-cons' lies here needs to find a brain as well as a conscience.

No one has given any conclusive reason why Iraq had to be invaded.

None.  

At all.

Neo-cons, "because" is not a reason.


----------



## georgephillip (Jan 9, 2014)

Edgetho said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...


How many barrels of oil can a VLCC carry, Rockefeller?


----------



## georgephillip (Jan 9, 2014)

U2Edge said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...


*Wall Street is manipulating supply in order to create an artificial market.* 

"Before most people were even aware there was an economic crisis, investment managers abandoned failing mortgage-backed securities and looked for other lucrative investments. 

"What they settled on was oil futures.

"An oil future is simply a contract between a buyer and seller, where the buyer agrees to purchase a certain amount of a commodity -- in this case oil -- at a fixed price [source: CFTC]. 

"Futures offer a way for a purchaser to bet on whether a commodity will increase in price down the road. 

"Once locked into a contract, a futures buyer would receive a barrel of oil for the price dictated in the future contract, even if the market price was higher when the barrel was actually delivered.

"As in all cases, Wall Street heard the word 'bet' and flocked to futures, taking the market to strange new places on the fringe of legality. 

"In the 19th and early 20th centuries it bet on grain. 

"In the 21st century it was oil. 

"Despite U.S. petroleum reserves being at an eight-year high, the price of oil rose dramatically beginning in 2006. 

"*While demand rose, supply kept pace*. 

"Yet, prices still skyrocketed. 

"This means that the laws of supply and demand no longer applied in the oil markets. 

"Instead, an artificial market developed."

HowStuffWorks "How does oil speculation raise gas prices?"


----------



## Kosh (Jan 9, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Anyone who buys U2Edge and the other neo-cons' lies here needs to find a brain as well as a conscience.
> 
> No one has given any conclusive reason why Iraq had to be invaded.
> 
> ...



Posted by the far left Obama drone...


----------



## Edgetho (Jan 10, 2014)

georgephillip said:


> U2Edge said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...



That is one of the most idiotic statements I've ever read.

But what else can one expect from a libturd?  

You idiots (and you really are) confuse 'speculation' with 'manipulation'.

Speculators smooth the Market and are the worst enemy of manipulators.  

Read this libturds.  But you won't.  I know it and you know it.

dimocrap scum aren't interested in facts.  You're only interested in furthering the lie.

In fact, you're so fucking stupid, you don't even know why you're pushing this lie.  I do, but you don't.

All you know is that your masters want the big lie pushed and so you obey like the good little Nazis you are.

Read a little, stop being so fucking stupid....

Market Speculators: More Help Than Harm



> Speculators get a bad rap, especially when oil prices spike or a currency's value is shattered. This is because the media often confuses the line between speculation and manipulation. Manipulation leads to overall economic damage, whereas speculation performs several important functions that keep our economy healthy. In this article, we'll look at the function of speculators in the market.


----------



## georgephillip (Jan 11, 2014)

Edgetho said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > U2Edge said:
> ...


*Surely you've noticed how to spell CONservative?*

*Your link, Slave:*

"Hug a Speculator

"Taken cumulatively, speculation helps us far more than it could ever hurt us by moving risk to those who can financially handle it. Despite the misunderstanding and negativity speculators have to face, the potential for outsized profits will continue to attract people, as long as governments don't regulate them into oblivion. With all the negativity aimed towards short-sellers and speculators, it's easy for us to forget that their activities maintain prices, prevent shortages and increase the amount of risk they undertake. I don't want to become a speculator, but it's important that we preserve speculative investing for the people who do  more than important, it's a necessity for a healthy market and vibrant economy. You don't have to become a speculator, or even hug the next one you see, just remember that the next time you pay $5 a gallon for gas, it's so we'll still have some left over for next week, year, decade and century."

*Banning speculators from the world's commodity exchanges would drive down the cost of oil by as much as 40% and the price of gasoline by as much as $1 a gallon.*

"Because of speculation, todays oil prices of about $100 a barrel have become disconnected from the costs of extraction, which average $11 a barrel worldwide. 

"Pure speculators account for as much as 40 percent of that high price, according to testimony that Rex Tillerson, the chief executive of ExxonMobil, gave to Congress last year. 

"That estimate is bolstered by a recent report from the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis."

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/11/opinion/ban-pure-speculators-of-oil-futures.html?_r=0


----------



## driveby (Jan 11, 2014)

Sallow said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...




Right, and their public statements of wanting to wipe Israel off the map is just pillow talk, cuz swallow said so ............


----------



## Katzndogz (Jan 11, 2014)

The public statements of destroying the Great Satan (The US) is just more pillow talk.


----------



## georgephillip (Jan 12, 2014)

Katzndogz said:


> The public statements of destroying the Great Satan (The US) is just more pillow talk.


"But a copy of the agency's secret history of the coup has surfaced, revealing the inner workings of a plot that set the stage for the Islamic revolution in 1979, and for a generation of anti-American hatred in one of the Middle East's most powerful countries. 

"The document, which remains classified, discloses the pivotal role British intelligence officials played in initiating and planning the coup, and it shows that Washington and London shared an interest in maintaining the West's control over Iranian oil. 

"The secret history, written by the CIA's chief coup planner, says the operation's success was mostly a matter of chance. 

"The document shows that the agency had almost complete contempt for the man it was empowering, Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi..." 

"The operation, code-named TP-AJAX, was the blueprint for a succession of CIA plots to foment coups and destabilize governments during the cold war - including the agency's successful coup in Guatemala in 1954 and the disastrous Cuban intervention known as the Bay of Pigs in 1961. 

"In more than one instance, such operations led to the same kind of long-term animosity toward the United States that occurred in Iran."

History of Iran: A short account of 1953 Coup

*Can you imagine "the...long term animosity toward" Iran most Americans would feel today if the Persians had overthrown Ike in 1953?*


----------

