ISIS Beheads Another Brit

[frigidweirdo]

Daddy Bush didn't go into Iraq?

You are dismissed spanky for being ignorant of the facts.

Not at all. I'm not saying US or allied troops didn't go into Iraq. I'm meaning why they didn't go in, take Saddam down and do what essentially happened in 2003.

"I would guess if we had gone in there, we would still have forces in Baghdad today. We'd be running the country. We would not have been able to get everybody out and bring everybody home.

And the final point that I think needs to be made is this question of casualties. I don't think you could have done all of that without significant additional U.S. casualties, and while everybody was tremendously impressed with the low cost of the (1991) conflict, for the 146 Americans who were killed in action and for their families, it wasn't a cheap war.

And the question in my mind is, how many additional American casualties is Saddam (Hussein) worth? And the answer is, not that damned many. So, I think we got it right, both when we decided to expel him from Kuwait, but also when the President made the decision that we'd achieved our objectives and we were not going to go get bogged down in the problems of trying to take over and govern Iraq."

Guess who said this?

I KNOW who said that, and here is Former President George H. W. Bush and Brent Scowcroft, explaining in 1998 why they didn't go onto Baghdad and remove Saddam Hussein's government from power in 1991 during the Persian Gulf War:

Wrong.

While we hoped that popular revolt or coup would topple Saddam, neither the U.S. nor the countries of the region wished to see the breakup of the Iraqi state. We were concerned about the long-term balance of power at the head of the Gulf. Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in "mission creep," and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We had been unable to find Noriega in Panama, which we knew intimately. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under those circumstances, furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-cold war world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the U.N.'s mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the U.S. could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different--and perhaps barren--outcome.

And for very similar reasons the US should not have gone into Iraq.

The fact their the balance of power, ie, Saddam's non-religious state being in the middle of things and relatively stable helping that stability, and now we see what happens when you A) get rid of it and B) balls up the post war period.

 

[frigidweirdo]

And I posted a definition that mde a lot more sense! Lol! Why do you think YOUR definition (which really doesn't define it, like my definition did) is any more valid than mine? Simply put, it is not. I will go with MY definition of terrorism, the correct one, thank you.

Let's see. I posted a lot of definitions for companies which are extremely well know, extremely accountable. I also posted one which was from a guy called Bruce Hoffman that was on the New York Times. He is Director of the Center for Security Studies and Director of the Security Studies Program at Georgetown University's Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service.

You presented an anonymous article, from a website which is just another website with nothing to back it up, no reason to believe, nothing

Which would I believe? It's not hard.

 

[frigidweirdo]

You must be joking, guy on an internet website. He describes the difference perfectly well. Please point out what it is you disagree with.

Do you know anything about quoting people?

Who wrote this? Answer: No idea. You have been KKK, could have been a Communist,

Why was it written? Answer: No idea. It could have been someone with a major agenda to have their view of terrorism be taken seriously because they have need this version to become real.

Where was it written? Answer. Beyond the Cusp. Who are they? About Us - Beyond the Cusp seems to be David McWhortor. Who is he? Beats me. I know he lives in Arizona, that's about it. Oh, and he has a webpage and he
likes science fiction. He has one satisfied customer who is Drew

, he looks scholarly, like he knows the definition of "terrorist". Turns out he's a scifi writer, his book The Spires of Tarkus Amazon.co.uk Dave McWhortor Books

Must be a best seller because you type in the name of the book and you get about 15 different choices come up on yahoo. Massive.

So why do I have a problems with a scifi writer from Arizona with a really not successful book making a definition of "terrorism" when compared to international English dictionaries and a professor are a prestigious university and gets invited to write for the New York Times.

Hmm, tough one that.

 

[Politico]

I'm glad O has our back.

That explains the spooge we keep finding!

ISIS Claims To Have Killed British Hostage Alan Henning

Bad shit happens in dangerous places.

Still not our problem.

That. He knew what he was getting into. Big money means more risk.

 

[irosie91]

Daddy Bush didn't go into Iraq?

You are dismissed spanky for being ignorant of the facts.

Not at all. I'm not saying US or allied troops didn't go into Iraq. I'm meaning why they didn't go in, take Saddam down and do what essentially happened in 2003.

"I would guess if we had gone in there, we would still have forces in Baghdad today. We'd be running the country. We would not have been able to get everybody out and bring everybody home.

And the final point that I think needs to be made is this question of casualties. I don't think you could have done all of that without significant additional U.S. casualties, and while everybody was tremendously impressed with the low cost of the (1991) conflict, for the 146 Americans who were killed in action and for their families, it wasn't a cheap war.

And the question in my mind is, how many additional American casualties is Saddam (Hussein) worth? And the answer is, not that damned many. So, I think we got it right, both when we decided to expel him from Kuwait, but also when the President made the decision that we'd achieved our objectives and we were not going to go get bogged down in the problems of trying to take over and govern Iraq."

Guess who said this?

I KNOW who said that, and here is Former President George H. W. Bush and Brent Scowcroft, explaining in 1998 why they didn't go onto Baghdad and remove Saddam Hussein's government from power in 1991 during the Persian Gulf War:

Wrong.

While we hoped that popular revolt or coup would topple Saddam, neither the U.S. nor the countries of the region wished to see the breakup of the Iraqi state. We were concerned about the long-term balance of power at the head of the Gulf. Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in "mission creep," and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We had been unable to find Noriega in Panama, which we knew intimately. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under those circumstances, furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-cold war world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the U.N.'s mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the U.S. could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different--and perhaps barren--outcome.

And for very similar reasons the US should not have gone into Iraq.

The fact their the balance of power, ie, Saddam's non-religious state being in the middle of things and relatively stable helping that stability, and now we see what happens when you A) get rid of it and B) balls up the post war period.

sadaam was a BAATHIST----an ideology just as dangerous as any other totalitarian filth

 

[frigidweirdo]

Daddy Bush didn't go into Iraq?

You are dismissed spanky for being ignorant of the facts.

Not at all. I'm not saying US or allied troops didn't go into Iraq. I'm meaning why they didn't go in, take Saddam down and do what essentially happened in 2003.

"I would guess if we had gone in there, we would still have forces in Baghdad today. We'd be running the country. We would not have been able to get everybody out and bring everybody home.

And the final point that I think needs to be made is this question of casualties. I don't think you could have done all of that without significant additional U.S. casualties, and while everybody was tremendously impressed with the low cost of the (1991) conflict, for the 146 Americans who were killed in action and for their families, it wasn't a cheap war.

And the question in my mind is, how many additional American casualties is Saddam (Hussein) worth? And the answer is, not that damned many. So, I think we got it right, both when we decided to expel him from Kuwait, but also when the President made the decision that we'd achieved our objectives and we were not going to go get bogged down in the problems of trying to take over and govern Iraq."

Guess who said this?

I KNOW who said that, and here is Former President George H. W. Bush and Brent Scowcroft, explaining in 1998 why they didn't go onto Baghdad and remove Saddam Hussein's government from power in 1991 during the Persian Gulf War:

Wrong.

While we hoped that popular revolt or coup would topple Saddam, neither the U.S. nor the countries of the region wished to see the breakup of the Iraqi state. We were concerned about the long-term balance of power at the head of the Gulf. Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in "mission creep," and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We had been unable to find Noriega in Panama, which we knew intimately. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under those circumstances, furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-cold war world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the U.N.'s mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the U.S. could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different--and perhaps barren--outcome.

And for very similar reasons the US should not have gone into Iraq.

The fact their the balance of power, ie, Saddam's non-religious state being in the middle of things and relatively stable helping that stability, and now we see what happens when you A) get rid of it and B) balls up the post war period.

sadaam was a BAATHIST----an ideology just as dangerous as any other totalitarian filth

So....? There are plenty of dangerous people out there, the US doesn't target most of them. Just the ones sitting on top of oil.

 

[irosie91]

Daddy Bush didn't go into Iraq?

You are dismissed spanky for being ignorant of the facts.

Not at all. I'm not saying US or allied troops didn't go into Iraq. I'm meaning why they didn't go in, take Saddam down and do what essentially happened in 2003.

"I would guess if we had gone in there, we would still have forces in Baghdad today. We'd be running the country. We would not have been able to get everybody out and bring everybody home.

And the final point that I think needs to be made is this question of casualties. I don't think you could have done all of that without significant additional U.S. casualties, and while everybody was tremendously impressed with the low cost of the (1991) conflict, for the 146 Americans who were killed in action and for their families, it wasn't a cheap war.

And the question in my mind is, how many additional American casualties is Saddam (Hussein) worth? And the answer is, not that damned many. So, I think we got it right, both when we decided to expel him from Kuwait, but also when the President made the decision that we'd achieved our objectives and we were not going to go get bogged down in the problems of trying to take over and govern Iraq."

Guess who said this?

I KNOW who said that, and here is Former President George H. W. Bush and Brent Scowcroft, explaining in 1998 why they didn't go onto Baghdad and remove Saddam Hussein's government from power in 1991 during the Persian Gulf War:

Wrong.

While we hoped that popular revolt or coup would topple Saddam, neither the U.S. nor the countries of the region wished to see the breakup of the Iraqi state. We were concerned about the long-term balance of power at the head of the Gulf. Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in "mission creep," and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We had been unable to find Noriega in Panama, which we knew intimately. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under those circumstances, furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-cold war world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the U.N.'s mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the U.S. could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different--and perhaps barren--outcome.

And for very similar reasons the US should not have gone into Iraq.

The fact their the balance of power, ie, Saddam's non-religious state being in the middle of things and relatively stable helping that stability, and now we see what happens when you A) get rid of it and B) balls up the post war period.

sadaam was a BAATHIST----an ideology just as dangerous as any other totalitarian filth

So....? There are plenty of dangerous people out there, the US doesn't target most of them. Just the ones sitting on top of oil.

the US bombs any person sitting on oil? news to me

 

[TooTall]

Daddy Bush didn't go into Iraq?

You are dismissed spanky for being ignorant of the facts.

Not at all. I'm not saying US or allied troops didn't go into Iraq. I'm meaning why they didn't go in, take Saddam down and do what essentially happened in 2003.

"I would guess if we had gone in there, we would still have forces in Baghdad today. We'd be running the country. We would not have been able to get everybody out and bring everybody home.

And the final point that I think needs to be made is this question of casualties. I don't think you could have done all of that without significant additional U.S. casualties, and while everybody was tremendously impressed with the low cost of the (1991) conflict, for the 146 Americans who were killed in action and for their families, it wasn't a cheap war.

And the question in my mind is, how many additional American casualties is Saddam (Hussein) worth? And the answer is, not that damned many. So, I think we got it right, both when we decided to expel him from Kuwait, but also when the President made the decision that we'd achieved our objectives and we were not going to go get bogged down in the problems of trying to take over and govern Iraq."

Guess who said this?

I KNOW who said that, and here is Former President George H. W. Bush and Brent Scowcroft, explaining in 1998 why they didn't go onto Baghdad and remove Saddam Hussein's government from power in 1991 during the Persian Gulf War:

Wrong.

While we hoped that popular revolt or coup would topple Saddam, neither the U.S. nor the countries of the region wished to see the breakup of the Iraqi state. We were concerned about the long-term balance of power at the head of the Gulf. Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in "mission creep," and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We had been unable to find Noriega in Panama, which we knew intimately. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under those circumstances, furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-cold war world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the U.N.'s mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the U.S. could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different--and perhaps barren--outcome.

And for very similar reasons the US should not have gone into Iraq.

The fact their the balance of power, ie, Saddam's non-religious state being in the middle of things and relatively stable helping that stability, and now we see what happens when you A) get rid of it and B) balls up the post war period.

sadaam was a BAATHIST----an ideology just as dangerous as any other totalitarian filth

So....? There are plenty of dangerous people out there, the US doesn't target most of them. Just the ones sitting on top of oil.

How much oil is there in Afghanistan?

 

[irosie91]

Not at all. I'm not saying US or allied troops didn't go into Iraq. I'm meaning why they didn't go in, take Saddam down and do what essentially happened in 2003.

"I would guess if we had gone in there, we would still have forces in Baghdad today. We'd be running the country. We would not have been able to get everybody out and bring everybody home.

And the final point that I think needs to be made is this question of casualties. I don't think you could have done all of that without significant additional U.S. casualties, and while everybody was tremendously impressed with the low cost of the (1991) conflict, for the 146 Americans who were killed in action and for their families, it wasn't a cheap war.

And the question in my mind is, how many additional American casualties is Saddam (Hussein) worth? And the answer is, not that damned many. So, I think we got it right, both when we decided to expel him from Kuwait, but also when the President made the decision that we'd achieved our objectives and we were not going to go get bogged down in the problems of trying to take over and govern Iraq."

Guess who said this?

I KNOW who said that, and here is Former President George H. W. Bush and Brent Scowcroft, explaining in 1998 why they didn't go onto Baghdad and remove Saddam Hussein's government from power in 1991 during the Persian Gulf War:

Wrong.

While we hoped that popular revolt or coup would topple Saddam, neither the U.S. nor the countries of the region wished to see the breakup of the Iraqi state. We were concerned about the long-term balance of power at the head of the Gulf. Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in "mission creep," and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We had been unable to find Noriega in Panama, which we knew intimately. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under those circumstances, furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-cold war world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the U.N.'s mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the U.S. could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different--and perhaps barren--outcome.

And for very similar reasons the US should not have gone into Iraq.

The fact their the balance of power, ie, Saddam's non-religious state being in the middle of things and relatively stable helping that stability, and now we see what happens when you A) get rid of it and B) balls up the post war period.

sadaam was a BAATHIST----an ideology just as dangerous as any other totalitarian filth

So....? There are plenty of dangerous people out there, the US doesn't target most of them. Just the ones sitting on top of oil.

How much oil is there in Afghanistan?

why are you asking me? I am not the idiot who claimed that the only persons which interest the USA are the OIL EMIRS

 

[TooTall]

I KNOW who said that, and here is Former President George H. W. Bush and Brent Scowcroft, explaining in 1998 why they didn't go onto Baghdad and remove Saddam Hussein's government from power in 1991 during the Persian Gulf War:

Wrong.

While we hoped that popular revolt or coup would topple Saddam, neither the U.S. nor the countries of the region wished to see the breakup of the Iraqi state. We were concerned about the long-term balance of power at the head of the Gulf. Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in "mission creep," and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We had been unable to find Noriega in Panama, which we knew intimately. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under those circumstances, furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-cold war world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the U.N.'s mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the U.S. could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different--and perhaps barren--outcome.

And for very similar reasons the US should not have gone into Iraq.

The fact their the balance of power, ie, Saddam's non-religious state being in the middle of things and relatively stable helping that stability, and now we see what happens when you A) get rid of it and B) balls up the post war period.

sadaam was a BAATHIST----an ideology just as dangerous as any other totalitarian filth

So....? There are plenty of dangerous people out there, the US doesn't target most of them. Just the ones sitting on top of oil.

How much oil is there in Afghanistan?

why are you asking me? I am not the idiot who claimed that the only persons which interest the USA are the OIL EMIRS

The last quote was from fridgidweirdo and that was who I directed my post too.

 

[irosie91]

Wrong.

And for very similar reasons the US should not have gone into Iraq.

The fact their the balance of power, ie, Saddam's non-religious state being in the middle of things and relatively stable helping that stability, and now we see what happens when you A) get rid of it and B) balls up the post war period.

sadaam was a BAATHIST----an ideology just as dangerous as any other totalitarian filth

So....? There are plenty of dangerous people out there, the US doesn't target most of them. Just the ones sitting on top of oil.

How much oil is there in Afghanistan?

why are you asking me? I am not the idiot who claimed that the only persons which interest the USA are the OIL EMIRS

The last quote was from fridgidweirdo and that was who I directed my post too.

Wrong.

And for very similar reasons the US should not have gone into Iraq.

The fact their the balance of power, ie, Saddam's non-religious state being in the middle of things and relatively stable helping that stability, and now we see what happens when you A) get rid of it and B) balls up the post war period.

sadaam was a BAATHIST----an ideology just as dangerous as any other totalitarian filth

So....? There are plenty of dangerous people out there, the US doesn't target most of them. Just the ones sitting on top of oil.

How much oil is there in Afghanistan?

why are you asking me? I am not the idiot who claimed that the only persons which interest the USA are the OIL EMIRS

The last quote was from fridgidweirdo and that was who I directed my post too.

oh (sorry---small note------you meant "to" not "too"-------but----sorry----you mean
"that was to whom I directed my post...")-----sorry-----long ago----I had to do "remedial"---
for people who cannot write----freshmen in my college-----I never got over it.......ruined me for life,.......

 

[irosie91]

PS----Too-tall dear----it gives me the creeps that a person named "too-tall" ----posts on a thread----with the title----which adorns THIS THREAD.

 

[TooTall]

sadaam was a BAATHIST----an ideology just as dangerous as any other totalitarian filth

So....? There are plenty of dangerous people out there, the US doesn't target most of them. Just the ones sitting on top of oil.

How much oil is there in Afghanistan?

why are you asking me? I am not the idiot who claimed that the only persons which interest the USA are the OIL EMIRS

The last quote was from fridgidweirdo and that was who I directed my post too.

sadaam was a BAATHIST----an ideology just as dangerous as any other totalitarian filth

So....? There are plenty of dangerous people out there, the US doesn't target most of them. Just the ones sitting on top of oil.

How much oil is there in Afghanistan?

why are you asking me? I am not the idiot who claimed that the only persons which interest the USA are the OIL EMIRS

The last quote was from fridgidweirdo and that was who I directed my post too.

oh (sorry---small note------you meant "to" not "too"-------but----sorry----you mean
"that was to whom I directed my post...")-----sorry-----long ago----I had to do "remedial"---
for people who cannot write----freshmen in my college-----I never got over it.......ruined me for life,.......

I

sadaam was a BAATHIST----an ideology just as dangerous as any other totalitarian filth

So....? There are plenty of dangerous people out there, the US doesn't target most of them. Just the ones sitting on top of oil.

How much oil is there in Afghanistan?

why are you asking me? I am not the idiot who claimed that the only persons which interest the USA are the OIL EMIRS

The last quote was from fridgidweirdo and that was who I directed my post too.

sadaam was a BAATHIST----an ideology just as dangerous as any other totalitarian filth

So....? There are plenty of dangerous people out there, the US doesn't target most of them. Just the ones sitting on top of oil.

How much oil is there in Afghanistan?

why are you asking me? I am not the idiot who claimed that the only persons which interest the USA are the OIL EMIRS

The last quote was from fridgidweirdo and that was who I directed my post too.

oh (sorry---small note------you meant "to" not "too"-------but----sorry----you mean
"that was to whom I directed my post...")-----sorry-----long ago----I had to do "remedial"---
for people who cannot write----freshmen in my college-----I never got over it.......ruined me for life,.......

I have a BSEE and English was not one of my better subjects, as you clearly pointed out. Unlike some, I appreciate constructive criticism.
I was going to say the m key on my laptop doesn't work, but decided not too. (is that too or to?)

 

[TooTall]

PS----Too-tall dear----it gives me the creeps that a person named "too-tall" ----posts on a thread----with the title----which adorns THIS THREAD.

LOL, you clearly have a good sense of humor, my dear!

 

[irosie91]

So....? There are plenty of dangerous people out there, the US doesn't target most of them. Just the ones sitting on top of oil.

How much oil is there in Afghanistan?

why are you asking me? I am not the idiot who claimed that the only persons which interest the USA are the OIL EMIRS

The last quote was from fridgidweirdo and that was who I directed my post too.

So....? There are plenty of dangerous people out there, the US doesn't target most of them. Just the ones sitting on top of oil.

How much oil is there in Afghanistan?

why are you asking me? I am not the idiot who claimed that the only persons which interest the USA are the OIL EMIRS

The last quote was from fridgidweirdo and that was who I directed my post too.

oh (sorry---small note------you meant "to" not "too"-------but----sorry----you mean
"that was to whom I directed my post...")-----sorry-----long ago----I had to do "remedial"---
for people who cannot write----freshmen in my college-----I never got over it.......ruined me for life,.......

I

So....? There are plenty of dangerous people out there, the US doesn't target most of them. Just the ones sitting on top of oil.

How much oil is there in Afghanistan?

why are you asking me? I am not the idiot who claimed that the only persons which interest the USA are the OIL EMIRS

The last quote was from fridgidweirdo and that was who I directed my post too.

So....? There are plenty of dangerous people out there, the US doesn't target most of them. Just the ones sitting on top of oil.

How much oil is there in Afghanistan?

why are you asking me? I am not the idiot who claimed that the only persons which interest the USA are the OIL EMIRS

The last quote was from fridgidweirdo and that was who I directed my post too.

oh (sorry---small note------you meant "to" not "too"-------but----sorry----you mean
"that was to whom I directed my post...")-----sorry-----long ago----I had to do "remedial"---
for people who cannot write----freshmen in my college-----I never got over it.......ruined me for life,.......

I have a BSEE and English was not one of my better subjects, as you clearly pointed out. Unlike some, I appreciate constructive criticism.
I was going to say the m key on my laptop doesn't work, but decided not too. (is that too or to?)

it's 'to' too is just another word for 'also'

 

[frigidweirdo]

the US bombs any person sitting on oil? news to me

Where have you been? Okay, maybe they don't just bomb.

Here's a story.

2002 Coup d'etat against Chavez in Venezuela (OPEC COUNTRY) helped by the US with funding and encouragement.
2003 Invasion of Iraq (OPEC COUNTRY)
2011 Bombing of Libya (OPEC COUNTRY)
Iran has had sanctions against it from the US because, well, it's an OPEC COUNTRY.

You're looking at the 4 OPEC countries which weren't friendly with the US in 2001.

Then you have issues with Nigeria. Not so much the govt, but the locals.

Here are some websites

THE PRICE OF OIL

"
THE PRICE OF OIL
Corporate Responsibility and Human Rights Violations in
Nigeria’s Oil Producing Communities"

Factsheet Shell s Environmental Devastation in Nigeria Center for Constitutional Rights

"Factsheet: Shell's Environmental Devastation in Nigeria"

Not bombing, and not necessarily all to do with the US govt, but the situation in Nigeria, with the US doing absolutely nothing, because hey, the US has been paying the Nigerian military, paying the Nigerian govt to be on their side, and who cares if an ally is doing all of this? Who cares if international companies that are represented massively in the US are doing this? Not the US govt that's for sure.

 

[frigidweirdo]

I have a BSEE and English was not one of my better subjects, as you clearly pointed out. Unlike some, I appreciate constructive criticism.
I was going to say the m key on my laptop doesn't work, but decided not too. (is that too or to?)

too = also
to is a preposition (to the shops) or used before a verb in the infinitive. (to go)

 

[irosie91]

the US bombs any person sitting on oil? news to me

Where have you been? Okay, maybe they don't just bomb.

Here's a story.

2002 Coup d'etat against Chavez in Venezuela (OPEC COUNTRY) helped by the US with funding and encouragement.
2003 Invasion of Iraq (OPEC COUNTRY)
2011 Bombing of Libya (OPEC COUNTRY)
Iran has had sanctions against it from the US because, well, it's an OPEC COUNTRY.

You're looking at the 4 OPEC countries which weren't friendly with the US in 2001.

Then you have issues with Nigeria. Not so much the govt, but the locals.

Here are some websites

THE PRICE OF OIL

"
THE PRICE OF OIL
Corporate Responsibility and Human Rights Violations in
Nigeria’s Oil Producing Communities"

Factsheet Shell s Environmental Devastation in Nigeria Center for Constitutional Rights

"Factsheet: Shell's Environmental Devastation in Nigeria"

Not bombing, and not necessarily all to do with the US govt, but the situation in Nigeria, with the US doing absolutely nothing, because hey, the US has been paying the Nigerian military, paying the Nigerian govt to be on their side, and who cares if an ally is doing all of this? Who cares if international companies that are represented massively in the US are doing this? Not the US govt that's for sure.

It makes no sense-----EVERYONE KNOWS---the
DA ZIONISTS control the USA policy------I know lots of jews--------my dad was a watch maker. My doctor was a jew-----my lawyer is a jew-------my hubby is a jew---he is an artist-----I HAVE NEVER MET A JEW INVOLVED IN ANY WAY IN THE OIL BUSINESS----
.....thus....it is impossible that the USA engages in any
thing related to OIL-------the USA exists for one purpose--- FOR DA JOOOOOOOS (ask Penelope)

 

[frigidweirdo]

How much oil is there in Afghanistan?

Afghanistan's an interesting one, why go into Afghanistan?

In relation to oil. First. To be able to attack these oil rich Muslim countries, it helps that they're a really big enemy. So, Afghanistan was the obvious target after 9/11 and it helped Bush spread the word about al-Qaeda and the "War on Terror".

Traditionally Afghanistan was a buffer. The British went into Afghanistan to create a buffer between the British Empire in British India and Russia. This was a time when Russia was growing, Catherine the Great had see some great successes against the Ottoman Empire and was moving further south. Turns out the Russians wouldn't have done anything there anyway, just like the British got kicked out continually.
The Russians made in the 1980s and, well, suffered then left.

I have heard of various other reasons why Bush invaded Afghanistan,

Bush wanted bin Laden's head. That's one reason, enough for an invasion? Not really.

The question the US has always asked since Lebanon in the 1980s is, what are US interests? And does the US benefit from this?

Why Did the United States Invade Afghanistan The Future of Freedom Foundation

This is a good article.

It deals with Afghanistan saying it would turn bin Laden over IF the US provided evidence. It never does, and never has and never will.

"So, the U.S. government’s case against Osama bin Laden was not good enough to take to court, but it was good enough to take the country to war, a war that has killed or maimed countless people who had absolutely nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks. "

"Surveying the evidence, it is clear the Bush administration did not even come close to exhausting its diplomatic options in the fall of 2001 and that some other route could have been chosen to respond to the 9/11 attacks."

"Investigative journalist Seymour Hersh, citing officials from the Department of Justice and the CIA, said the real reason the Bush administration reneged on its pledge to release the evidence was a “lack of solid information.”"


This is the main point here.

"The anger arising from the invasion and occupation of the country has created a perpetual supply of terrorist recruits, enabling U.S. officials to use the never-ending “war on terror” to eviscerate the Bill of Rights. And we now have a president who asserts the authority to kill off any person he deems a “threat.” I submit that this claim of unaccountable power represents a far greater threat to the peace and security of the country than any terrorist or group of terrorists could ever pose."

Afghanistan was used as a tool to open the way to the invasions of Iraq and Iran. Iran never happened, Iraq did.

Oil? Oh yeah, it's not in Afghanistan, it's in Muslim countries.

 

[irosie91]

nope----Afghanistan was the site chosen by BIN LADEN----as his homebase for the perpetuation of terrorism and for the creation of a SHARIAH CESSPIT---right there ---
in a huge part of the INDIAN SUBCONTINENT In order to understand the seriousness of such a program----you would have to know something about the muslims of south east asia--------I do----because I have known SO MANY
muslims from southeast ASIA----they have an interesting
"RELIGION"-------****THE MOGHUL EMPIRE*****
if you think ISIS is a big problem----think again---
THE MOGHUL EMPIRE (or facsimile)would be an even greater threat to the planet. Bin laden saw it as
a step toward WORLD WIDE CALIPHATE-----how do
I know? easy------he said so