Trump's Team Looks Smarter on Russia

Thing1 said:
That's hopelessly naive.

You shouldn't even be discussing this stuff. Again - for decades, we have meddled in the middle east. It's not because we like the cuisine.
Click to expand...
Oil is the prime motive of middle east policy -that and it's geographic location as the crossroads of the world.
But it wasn't anything like prime mover for Iraq. We never touched Iraqi oil
 
I'm going to bet that Presidents Bush ('s), Clinton, are grabbing their ankles and kissing their collective asses in a show of eternal gratitude to have dodged this shit storm.
 
Thing1 said:
That's hopelessly naive.

You shouldn't even be discussing this stuff. Again - for decades, we have meddled in the middle east. It's not because we like the cuisine.
Click to expand...

Anyone who has to be convinced our foreign policies center around oil and we fight/create wars for it, isn't really astute enough to be discussing global politics. It's just that simple.
 
Thing1 said:
No offense, but if once of Hillary's nominees was saying this stuff, you guys would be talking about apology tours and singing "Kum ba yah" with our enemies...
Click to expand...

Funny you cry with derision when people post "what ifs" and say "I hate it when you do that" but you don't mind doing it yourself

Hypocrite much?
 
blackascoal said:
Anyone who has to be convinced our foreign policies center around oil and we fight/create wars for it, isn't really astute enough to be discussing global politics. It's just that simple.
Click to expand...

It wasn't about oil in Iraq. You had classical neocons in charge. The discussion from the CIA were about 'WMD's
Finally if it was all about oil-WTF didn't we go after Iraqi oil? we literally laid open the Iraqi army,and controlled everything.

All we had to say was "we are controlling Iraqi oil to pay for our mission" ( royalties)
But we didn't -we got into nationbuilding so Iraq could run it's country with oil revenue

BTW. You really need to add more then c/p posts when it comes to Russian-US relations if you want to be taken seriously.
You completely miss NATO expansionism that set this all up.
 
anatta said:
It wasn't about oil in Iraq. You had classical neocons in charge. The discussion from the CIA were about 'WMD's
Finally if it was all about oil-WTF didn't we go after Iraqi oil? we literally laid open the Iraqi army,and controlled everything.
All we had to say was "we are controlling Iraqi oil to pay for our mission"
But we didn't -we got into nationbuilding so Iraq could run it's country with oil revenue


BTW. You really need to add more then c/p posts when it comes to Russian-US relations if you want to be taken seriously.
You completely miss NATO expansionism that set this all up.
Click to expand...

Seriously - you shouldn't discuss foreign policy anymore.

It's about exerting control in the region in general. Even James Baker admitted it was about oil in the 1st Iraq War. To deny the connection is complete ignorance.
 
anatta said:
It wasn't about oil in Iraq. You had classical neocons in charge. The discussion from the CIA were about 'WMD's
Finally if it was all about oil-WTF didn't we go after Iraqi oil? we literally laid open the Iraqi army,and controlled everything.
All we had to say was "we are controlling Iraqi oil to pay for our mission"
But we didn't -we got into nationbuilding so Iraq could run it's country with oil revenue


BTW. You really need to add more then c/p posts when it comes to Russian-US relations if you want to be taken seriously.
You completely miss NATO expansionism that set this all up.
Click to expand...

Seriously - you shouldn't discuss foreign policy anymore.

It's about exerting control in the region in general. Even James Baker admitted it was about oil in the 1st Iraq War. To deny the connection is complete ignorance.
 
anatta said:
I noticed you completely dodged my de-construction of Tillerson is an Exxon Stooge, and "Iraq was about oil"
Why is that? Because you can't retort to my superior knowledge of and ability to analyze foreign policy.

Now you're even dodging that Hillary's vote on Iraq wasn't a de facto vote to Authorize Military Use of Force (AUMF)
All I gotta do is (rightly)mention "Hillary is a neocon" and you twist yourself sideways trying to dodge the obvious.

Hillary was the "51% voice" ( perGates) on getting us into bombing Libya.
There was no "planned civilian massacre" in Libya by Qaddafi air force.Qadaffi never shelled any captured territory

It's truly amazing how much you cannot respond to, while being 100% wrong on everything else.
Click to expand...

You didn't de-construct anything, halfwit. If anyone de-construct anything, I de-construct your pile of bullshit by pointing out the obvious PROFIT MOTIVE and CONFLICT OF INTEREST that Tillerson, like the rest of the scum that Slump is surrounding himself with, are steeped in.

You are a naive fool who, because you read a couple of books you picked up in the B&N bargain bin, thinks he's a foreign policy wonk.

As for Gaddafi's intentions, there are thousands of documents containing very specific directives from him to his commanders, to torture and massacre people in certain strategic areas, including Misrata.

So take your imaginary "superior knowledge" and shove it back up where you pulled it out of.
 
Thing1 said:
Seriously - you shouldn't discuss foreign policy anymore.

It's about exerting control in the region in general. Even James Baker admitted it was about oil in the 1st Iraq War. To deny the connection is complete ignorance.
Click to expand...
"in general" doesn't mean in Iraq in specific- as I have separated over and over.
Of course Kuwaait was about oil -it's why Saddam invaded Kuwaiit. Iraq 2003 wasn't about Kuwaiit.

If you can't separate these ideas, it's not my fault. Oil is always in the background along with geopolitics/
but the specific war in Iraq (2003) was a lashing out at an old back actor ( Rumsfeld) fueled by jingoism. NOT OIL
 
anatta said:
"in general" doesn't mean in Iraq in specific- as I have separated over and over.
Of course Kuwaait was about oil -it's why Saddam invaded Kuwaiit. Iraq 2003 wasn't about Kuwaiit.

If you can't separate these ideas, it's not my fault. Oil is always in the background along with geopolitics/
but the specific war in Iraq (2003) was a lashing out at an old back actor ( Rumsfeld) fueled by jingoism. NOT OIL
Click to expand...

You're looking at it in way too linear a fashion, as in "if it's a war for oil, it must mean we specifically wanted Iraq's oil."

I can only shake my head. No wonder you think Trump is doing great.
 
anatta said:
"in general" doesn't mean in Iraq in specific- as I have separated over and over.
Of course Kuwaait was about oil -it's why Saddam invaded Kuwaiit. Iraq 2003 wasn't about Kuwaiit.

If you can't separate these ideas, it's not my fault. Oil is always in the background along with geopolitics/
but the specific war in Iraq (2003) was a lashing out at an old back actor ( Rumsfeld) fueled by jingoism. NOT OIL
Click to expand...

You're looking at it in way too linear a fashion, as in "if it's a war for oil, it must mean we specifically wanted Iraq's oil."

I can only shake my head. No wonder you think Trump is doing great.
 
Nomad said:
You didn't de-construct anything, halfwit. If anyone de-construct anything, I de-construct your pile of bullshit by pointing out the obvious PROFIT MOTIVE and CONFLICT OF INTEREST that Tillerson, like the rest of the scum that Slump is surrounding himself with, are steeped in.

You are a naive fool who, because you read a couple of books you picked up in the B&N bargain bin, thinks he's a foreign policy wonk.

As for Gaddafi's intentions, there are thousands of documents containing very specific directives from him to his commanders, to torture and massacre people in certain strategic areas, including Misrata.

So take your imaginary "superior knowledge" and shove it back up where you pulled it out of.
Click to expand...
Misrata wasn't even mentioned by R2P UN Resolution. Misrata was a seige - there were bound to be civilians bombed-
NATO bombed civilians in Misrata!

The claim in Bengazi was that Qadaffi was going to bomb proterstors -significtantly different then shelling the rebels who held key parts of Misrata.
Where are these documents now? The guys who were pushing this were freaking NTC commanders - including Alwab himself.
++
No you didn't refute anything, and Tillerson cashed out his Exxon holdings -he has no more ties to Exxon.
You completely misunderstand NATO's expansionism, geopolitics in general- and Putin's motives in specific
 
anatta said:
It wasn't about oil in Iraq. You had classical neocons in charge. The discussion from the CIA were about 'WMD's
Finally if it was all about oil-WTF didn't we go after Iraqi oil? we literally laid open the Iraqi army,and controlled everything.
All we had to say was "we are controlling Iraqi oil to pay for our mission"
But we didn't -we got into nationbuilding so Iraq could run it's country with oil revenue


BTW. You really need to add more then c/p posts when it comes to Russian-US relations if you want to be taken seriously.
You completely miss NATO expansionism that set this all up.
Click to expand...

First and foremost, I'm not at all interested in you nor any of your cultist buddies "taking me seriously." That's hilarious.

Morons taking me seriously is not why I post.

You haven't said a word about Trump's deep financial entanglements with Russia .. I did .. and I backed them up with evidence. Evidence you can't refute .. so you whine about copy and paste.

Seriously, if you don't know that Iraq was about oil, you are the last person to be admonishing anyone about being taken seriously. :0) Again, hilarious.

Don't mind me dude .. I'm just enjoying the clown show. :cof1: I'll sprinkle in more FACTS that you can't dispute whenever I get a hankering to.
 
Thing1 said:
You're looking at it in way too linear a fashion, as in "if it's a war for oil, it must mean we specifically wanted Iraq's oil."
I can only shake my head. No wonder you think Trump is doing great.
Click to expand...
dang Thing..it's important to separate out the motives
or else it cold be claimed every war was about oil..
How about Afghanistn? It holds huge mineral reserves -did Bush go into Afgh for lithium reserves?

I grant the obvious oil is always a consideration -but it's not always a motive/ Iraq was not motivated by oil
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top