Can you elaborate upon the pre 9/11 presence of the US in those countries? Last I checked, there were embassies and minimal forces in place, mainly to protect those embassies.


How is that playing puppet master? That is an arrangement that most countries have with one another all over the world.


The US has an embassy even in Ireland. The US deploys forces there as well. Are you in fear of the US military killing you or your loved ones or neighbors?

The US isn't in Ireland controlling our oil and natural resources with shady private military contractors though.


Do you think the US is only in the middle east in order to create peace?

---

I don't think I'm able to succinctly demonstrate my view on all of this without sounding like I'm just trying to bash America

---

The US isn't in Ireland controlling our oil and natural resources with shady private military contractors though.


Do you think the US is only in the middle east in order to create peace?

Again, the US has more petroleum than those countries. This country has the ability to be energy self-sufficient. In short, we don't need them. The only reason the demand for their petro has grown is due to the restrictions placed on domestic energy by the prior administration. 

 

Secondly, the operations (wars) in those areas have cost the US infinitely more than it will ever gain in energy resources. Last I checked, the US hasn't sent any of those countries a bill for liberating them, ie: Kuwait, and post Saddam Iraq.

---

What lies behind us, and what lies before us are tiny matters compared to what lies within us.







 

I don't think I'm able to succinctly demonstrate my view on all of this without sounding like I'm just trying to bash America

You're a good guy. You debate your position well without "bashing America" as you say.

 

I don't think anyone around here has a problem with you. I certainly do not.

---

What lies behind us, and what lies before us are tiny matters compared to what lies within us.







 

Again, the US has more petroleum than those countries. This country has the ability to be energy self-sufficient. In short, we don't need them. The only reason the demand for their petro has grown is due to the restrictions placed on domestic energy by the prior administration.


Secondly, the operations (wars) in those areas have cost the US infinitely more than it will ever gain in energy resources. Last I checked, the US hasn't sent any of those countries a bill for liberating them, ie: Kuwait, and post Saddam Iraq.

Not saying these points are false but it doesn't really answer the question.


To me it is clear as a day that the US is not just in the middle east in order to kill people who endanger the world. That's a noble cause and I'm sure it is a part of it all but I don't think that is the sole reason the US does what it does in the middle east and all over the globe.

---

You're a good guy. You debate your position well without "bashing America" as you say.


I don't think anyone around here has a problem with you. I certainly do not.

Appreciate it, same to yourself. As long as you don't take yourself too seriously the board is actually a good place to debate bits and bobs.

---

Not saying these points are false but it doesn't really answer the question.


To me it is clear as a day that the US is not just in the middle east in order to kill people who endanger the world. That's a noble cause and I'm sure it is a part of it all but I don't think that is the sole reason the US does what it does in the middle east and all over the globe.

 

America certainly has a strategic and financial goal in the ME beyond just killing terrorists. Protecting the energy supply does stabilize the world market, but we also have an interest in being close to Iran and keeping Israel from feeling like they need to nuke the Arab countries that surround them.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

America certainly has a strategic and financial goal in the ME beyond just killing terrorists. Protecting the energy supply does stabilize the world market, but we also have an interest in being close to Iran and keeping Israel from feeling like they need to nuke the Arab countries that surround them.

Yes and these strategic and financial goals are achieved through the military force. Sounds very similar to terrorism no?

---

Yes and these strategic and financial goals are achieved through the military force. Sounds very similar to terrorism no?

 

No, not really.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

So I should give him some credit for cleaning up the mess he created in Libya to begin with? I'll pass. We had no business in Libya. People can try to spin it all they want but Gaddafi was taken out because he openly criticized the UN and our Government for what it did to Hussein in Iraq.

 

He knew he was marked the moment he decided to turn the US currency away and issued a new currency in their favor based on the gold dinar. It's the same reason why Hussein was targeted when he told our Government he was going to start selling his oil in Euros and not US currency. 

 

It's always about the oil and the petro dollar. Nothing more, nothing less. It's an elephant in the room that the majority of us can clearly see but choose to ignore. It's been said before but it deserves repeating. 

 

"Do you think we'd be in Iraq if their major export was Broccoli?". 

 

The fact that people just forget or ignore what General Wesley Clark was told just 10 days after 9/11 is pretty sad. They had the plans in advance to take out seven countries in five years. Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and with the coup de grace being accomplished in Iran. Obviously it's been met with some speed bumps but that path was already started 15 years ago and we're still on it today. 

 

Nobody wants to say that. Look at how much turmoil is in Africa. The Middle East has oil. Africa doesn't. Nobody threatens to intervene in Africa. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to put that altogether. 

---

"What do I know of cultured ways, the gilt, the craft and the lie? I, who was born in a naked land and bred in the open sky. The subtle tongue, the sophist guile, they fail when the broadswords sing; Rush in and die, dogs - I was a man before I was a king."

We can never win the war on terror.

---

No, not really.

To an American , probably not.

---

To an American , probably not.

 

If you can't tell the difference between the extreme lengths our military goes to in order to prevent civilian casualties and collateral damage and barbarians putting bomb vests on 10 year old girls to blow up a marketplace then I don't know that we can reach a level of understanding here.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

If you can't tell the difference between the extreme lengths our military goes to in order to prevent civilian casualties and collateral damage and barbarians putting bomb vests on 10 year old girls to blow up a marketplace then I don't know that we can reach a level of understanding here.

There is a big difference between you guys and those barbarians. Very different styles and extremes but the process is still the same, use of violence, fear or military power in order to advance political or financial goals.

---

That would be fair if all you guys were doing in the middle east was fighting terrorists to make the world safer, but that's not the only the only reason you guys are in the middle east. You are there for power, money, oil etc etc.

I don't disagree at all. 

---