US Sending More Troops To Syria To Counter Russia

We did invade Iraq to get the oil. No other explanation even begins to make sense, especially the bill of goods that Cheney and Rumsfeld were selling.

But a reckless strategy, launched on the belief that everything would be over in months, turned into a decade long unnecessary and unprovoked war.

In the end, Iraq wasn’t grateful for being invaded and destroyed, and wasn’t in the mood to give the America oil companies the deal that they had drafted on Travis Ave to present to the Iraqi Parliment for rubber stamping.

So, that part of the scheme folded too.

 

Question number two:

The president of Irak was .....

a). George Bush Jr.
b). Donald Rumsfeld
c). Dick Cheney
d). Saddam Hussein

*** I have questions number three, four, and five ready if you think you can take the pain. But if you've been studying about weapons of mass destruction (how to spot them), international law (who is expected to abide by it), and geography (what countries are in what continents) then you should be able to ace the exam. I might throw in an additional question about "nine-tenths of the law" but I haven't decided yet.

 

Let me guess. You are of the impression that Trump has been assigned the task of keeping "these people" at arm's length from the Russians. Why do you even think it is necessary?

 

Yes and no. You probably ought to have said, "We did invade Iraq to get at the oil."

I can't agree with you more!

Correct.

 

That's all you have thingybobbykins?....you must be Jenny's mouthpiece now? You Potemkin propagandists are truly a piece of work.

 

"Genius of Putinkas psychological superiority"? I'm surprised you could even spell this correctly without mistakes!.


Yes, I been hearing Putinka is a genius?

-speaks 7 languages? Which other besides German?
-holds 3 PhDs?.....really?...what disciplines?
-is a master chess player?.....doubtful, he's a gambler, his luck will run out eventually.
-wrestles tigers....and wins? I've yet to see this?
- professional hockey player?.....yes, he scores 8 goals per game against NHL goalies?....


Any other "Superior" psychological abilities this Putinka has?

 

I can see that your arms are really tired now. You've been treading water since post #6.

 

Never tired.....it's fun finding a fish to toy with...like yourself....before reeling it in for the feast..

 

You're still whistling in the dark and scared shiitless.

 

If we were in Iraq for the oil, we would have taken it.

 

The US conquest of Iraq was inspired by the 'Ladeen Doctrine', declaring that:

Indeed, then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was arguing in early 2001 that ousting Saddam would "enhance US credibility and influence throughout the region" and "demonstrate what US policy is all about".

In a 2008 signing statement, President Bush declared the right "to exercise United States control of the oil resources of Iraq."

https://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/15/washington/15signing.html

 

As I've already said, "getting at" Irak's oil was the objective. Stealing it or controlling/manipulating it are the options once it's been "got at". So, the U.S. illegally invaded Irak to get at its oil and that is what the U.S. did. Have you ever seen the James Bond film, "Goldfinger"? Have you forgotten what it was about? Auric Goldfinger got at the gold stockpile at Fort Knox, Kentucky. And what did he do with the gold? Take it home?

I think that nearly everyone has missed the final word. Yes, of course, the U.S. failed to "enhance US credibility" but something even worse happened. How many Arabs or Arab nations can you think of who praise democracy? If a nation (claiming to be the leader of Democracy) lies about WMD's, concocts false proof of it, saturates the UN inspection team with CIA spies (and gets caught), is responsible for the death of a million innocent men, women, and children, tortures innocent people in Al Graib and Guantanamo, etc ........ what does that do to the reputation of Democracy itself. Never mind that the U.S. isn't even regarded as a top Democracy in the world. The damage it has done is enormous and terrorist groups point out these examples to good advantage in their quest for the spread of Islamic fundamentalism.

 

I WISH we took/manipulated their oil, but we didn't. And that never made sense to me. We shed our blood but did not take any treasure. I WANTED us to take control of their oil. It would have made the invasion make a lot more sense to me. Instead we just sort of meekly bowed out of the region.

 

You have to understand where he's coming from. People from the Western part of Ukraine ('Naziland'), have an embedded contempt towards Slavic/Russians and anything they perceive as being 'Eastern'. It stems from feelings of inferiority imposed on them over their own Slavic/Russian ethnicity when they were under the Austrian/Hungarian Empire.

The hatred of Russia and their own Orthodox brethren has been embedded into them, but they can't understand that. So they throw it on the Soviet Union which is ironic, since it was Lenin and Stalin that created Ukraine.

 

The reason you don't understand the situation is that your expectations have been misled. From your personal point of view taking or manipulating Irak's oil fields means that you can fill your tank cheaply. But that's not the way it works. You will NEVER get cheap gas. It's the oil tycoons who make their fortunes by the barter and fuel prices that you pay and by international dealings. Saddam Hussein decided to eliminate the "petro-dollar" thus cutting out American monopoly. This is what the invasion set out to accomplish - putting Irak oil back on the petro-dollar scale. The wealthy have benefitted ..... not you. When your president says, "We have won/succeeded/whatever" he's not talking about "we" as in he and you. Make no mistake, the U.S. has succeeded in manipulating the Iraki oil fields.

 

The likes of this fellow doesn't understand very much at all. I don't know why he's on this thread.

 

Once a year Vladimir Putin answers telephone questions from all over the Russian Federations live on TV. He does it without a teleprompter for 4 hours straight. So tell me what other world leader can do that?

Besides that, he restored Russia's military power and greatness so I would be a little worried if I were Western Ukraine. According to the new constitution that was voted on recently, Russia has a right to reclaim all of its former Russian lands. So if I were Ukraine or the Baltics, I would tread very carefully.

Unlike some others in our sphere,
to me Russia is: 'Mother Dear'.

So if you try to break her heart
and vilely try to grab a part,

through devious means with lies and guile
which as we know is your style,

then also know you'll suffer ill
and find it a very bitter pill.

As others have who came before
and didn't know what was in store

for them - Jeannette​

 

Have you ever watched that? It's usually very informative and non-confrontational. He never says a bad word about others and he always calls the U.S. "our partner". He speaks with logic and explanation rather than in typical American aggressive and threatening tones. He listens first and then he replies to the question - no side-stepping.

Uhhhhh ... um ...... er ...... let me think ....

 

Who do we want to protect from Russian control? Assad? Did we even consider that? Let's get out of the middle east except for our alliance with Israel.

 

US companies could not afford the cost of security and the backlash to the many deaths of US soldiers and civilians that would have resulted if US companies stole the oil

 

I type slowly now.
Hopefully helps a reader " Get It ".


We Need Less Pax Americana! Not more.

Weather Rome, Britain, etc.
Using a nation's resources for global peace, destroys that nation.

My guess is only the Ottoman Empire was any good at it
yielding a history of ? 800 years of peace in their diverse empire.
@Jeannette will disagree.


I generally like the Trump Presidency.
But, he does not just, GET OUT.
It was Congress that refused to fund Vietnam
that finally got out of Vietnam!
Trump lets us continue to fester in Afghanistan & Iraq.
Listening too much to his military advisors as LBJ

Time To just, Get Out.
Let Putin have it all and bleed.


BTW Commie Vietnam has proved to be a reasonable if not good friend these last decades.

Trump's broken promise to get out of Afghanistan
is my biggest disappointment of his Presidency.
And substituting Syria or Iraq is just plainly dumb.

The Monroe Doctrine works if we stay in our hemisphere.
Not both!


Moi

is closer too.​

 

Syria, unlike the Islamic nations, was always an open and all inclusive nation. They took in the Christian Armenians when they were persecuted by the Turks. They also took in the Kurds when they were persecuted by the Turks later on, and also the Iraqi's when the US illegally invaded Iraq. Why should Assad help the illegal American invaders of Iraq by stopping the Iraqis who were trying to free their own country?

According to that reasoning, we should have been helping Nazi Germany in WWII, and not the countries they occupied.

So you're saying the Americans invaders were not to blame, but the Iraqis who tried to take back their country were to blame? As for Bush being blamed for the war, that was purely political by the Democrats, since the head of the CIA who gave the president information was George Tenet who was a Democrat carryover from the Clinton administration.

Another carryover from the Clinton's was Victoria Nuland who began to work for Dick Cheney and had a great deal of influence over him and Bush's policies towards Iraq. Her husband and his family are known neo cons. Later. she worked again for the Democrats under Obama and destroyed Ukraine. Not a very nice person.

During Bill Clinton presidency, Nuland was chief of staff to Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott before moving on to serve as deputy director for former Soviet Union affairs. She also served as the principal deputy foreign policy adviser to Vice President Dick Cheney and then as U.S. ambassador to NATO.


​

 

It's not for a lack of trying. Noah Feldman, Bremer’s advisor on constitutional issues, admitted why they were resisting calls from Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani to allow free elections: "Simply put, if you move too fast, the wrong people could get elected."

https://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/29/...ws-analysis-iraq-exit-plan-new-obstacles.html

One New Republic editorial on the issue was headlined "Panic Room" (in a reference to the administration terror at the prospect of a free vote) and noted Sistani’s "justifiable fear" that Iraq’s Shia majority "will be disenfranchised yet again, this time at the hands of the United States":

 

You should probably type slower, you still appear to not understand clearly.

 

Without a teleprompter? Funny you should ask that question: