First  Prev  1  2  3  4  Next  Last
ISIS, Russia, and more woes
12933 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M / Space
Offline
Posted 8/30/14 , edited 8/30/14
The world would be such a better place if everyone just embraced the otaku spirit.
tegan7 
3213 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / F / WA
Offline
Posted 8/30/14

OlympianRed wrote:

Isis isn't a real thing.


^ This, the world isn't going to shit, people just want you to think that.
Google "No agenda"
Posted 8/30/14 , edited 8/30/14
Oh Islam. Religion of peace. Europe especially needs to be concerned, with the sheer number of Muslims they have there - especially the radicals.

Anyway, Isis really concerns me - their cruelty reminds me of Emperor Nero against the Catholics, or Pol Pot's Cambodia or Japan in the Second Sino War/WW2. Isis is horrendously shocking, inhumane and just the most concerning threat in the world at the moment. They are a major global threat, they've infiltrated everywhere, and I cannot believe people are taking it so lightly.

599 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Connecticut
Offline
Posted 8/30/14
This ISIS/Russia situation pisses me off so much

So let me get this straight, when Russia interferes with a country that lies on its own BORDERS then that's a problem, but when the US bombs and invades countries half way around the globe (Pakistan, Yemen, Libya, Somalia, ect.) for the SLIGHT possibility that they might harbor terrorists, then that's completely justified. Especially when those bombs often kill and injure MORE civilians than militants.

ISIS is a US and EU creation, after many years of meddling with the middle east and now they've lost control of the beast; classic Frankenstein syndrome.

The EXCUSE about "WE HAVE TO PREVENT A MASSACRE" is a complete lie too. It's the same thing they said about Libya and Guess what? Libya is WORSE than it was under Gaddafi.They are only thinking about the Oil and resources , they could care less about any thing else.

In my opinion ISIS has every right to create their stupid caliphate, rather than propping up these countries made out of the imaginary lines drew by the French and British i.e Lebanon, Syria, and Iraq.
13791 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Hideout #13
Offline
Posted 8/30/14 , edited 8/30/14

TheGreatHoneyBun wrote:

There's so much shit going on right now in the world I've lost track of what's going on


^ this post was made by God lol
13372 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M
Offline
Posted 8/30/14

elan7aad10 wrote:


TheGreatHoneyBun wrote:

There's so much shit going on right now in the world I've lost track of what's going on


^ this post was made by God lol


I am god
13791 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Hideout #13
Offline
Posted 8/30/14

TheGreatHoneyBun wrote:


elan7aad10 wrote:


TheGreatHoneyBun wrote:

There's so much shit going on right now in the world I've lost track of what's going on


^ this post was made by God lol


I am god


Then you better run for your life dude! Ɑ:
35017 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F
Offline
Posted 8/30/14 , edited 8/30/14

Mugen417 wrote:

So let me get this straight, when Russia interferes with a country that lies on its own BORDERS then that's a problem, but when the US bombs and invades countries half way around the globe (Pakistan, Yemen, Libya, Somalia, ect.) for the SLIGHT possibility that they might harbor terrorists, then that's completely justified. Especially when those bombs often kill and injure MORE civilians than militants.


I really don't see why the US drone strike program and Russia's activities in Ukraine cannot be questioned simultaneously.


The EXCUSE about "WE HAVE TO PREVENT A MASSACRE" is a complete lie too. It's the same thing they said about Libya and Guess what? Libya is WORSE than it was under Gaddafi.They are only thinking about the Oil and resources , they could care less about any thing else.


On Libya

According to the available data the US imported less crude oil from Libya in 2012 than it did from any other OPEC country, importing 20,358 thousand barrels (that's 1.38% of barrels imported from OPEC that year and 0.65% of all oil imported that year). In 2013 the figure declined to 15,864 thousand barrels, making Libya the second lowest contributor of crude oil imports to the US of any OPEC country (Algeria was the lowest at 10,461 thousand barrels). US crude oil imports from Libya rose steadily from 2004 to 2007, sharply declining in 2008 and steadily declining to a low of 3,328 thousand barrels in 2011 (the year of the civil war). In the peak year (2007) the US imported 30,794 thousand barrels from Libya, constituting 1.57% of US imports from OPEC and 0.8% of all US imports that year.

http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/PET_MOVE_IMPCUS_A2_NUS_EPC0_IM0_MBBL_A.htm
http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=MCRIMLY1&f=A

So what is the US interest in Libyan natural resources? It cannot be oil, they export less crude oil to the US than Russia does. The largest single contributor to US crude oil imports in any given year, by the way, is the sandy dunes of Canada.

On Iraq

The hypothesis that the Iraq War was fought for the sake of increasing oil imports simply doesn't bear out in the data. The reason US forces were posted at installations important to Iraq's energy sector is because these were consistent and frequent targets for sabotage throughout the war and occupation, and furthermore they were critical for establishing a viable and independent economy for a democratic state in Iraq. Here is a chart displaying US crude oil imports from Iraq from 1996-2013:

http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=MCRIMIZ1&f=A

Notice that the amount of crude oil imported from Iraq to the US between 2009 and 2013 never exceeds 174,080 thousand barrels, an amount roughly comparable with the amount imported during a UN sanction on Iraq. The reason that period is important is because it represents the period immediately after the Iraqi Ministry of Oil awarded development contracts to foreign firms, and therefore should've represented the point where US oil imports would've spiked if the invasion had really been all about crude oil. That didn't happen. Not even close. It's barely a bump.

Looking at the bigger picture, US forces (excluding guards for the consulates and embassies and PMCs) had completely withdrawn from Iraq in 2011, meaning the Iraq War lasted from 2003-2011. Notice that at no point in that period does the amount of barrels imported ever meet or exceeds the amount imported in the peak year (2001; 289,998 thousand barrels), with the peak amount imported during either the war or the occupation being 239,758 barrels in 2004 and the average amount being 188,778 thousand barrels.

TL;DR: The data are against your claim that US foreign policy concerning Iraq and Libya has been driven by an effort to increase oil imports.


In my opinion ISIS has every right to create their stupid caliphate, rather than propping up these countries made out of the imaginary lines drew by the French and British i.e Lebanon, Syria, and Iraq.

.
Bull.
12955 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Apple Valley, CA
Offline
Posted 8/30/14

SoldierSangria wrote:

Oh Islam. Religion of peace. Europe especially needs to be concerned, with the sheer number of Muslims they have there - especially the radicals.

Anyway, Isis really concerns me - their cruelty reminds me of Emperor Nero against the Catholics, or Pol Pot's Cambodia or Japan in the Second Sino War/WW2. Isis is horrendously shocking, inhumane and just the most concerning threat in the world at the moment. They are a major global threat, they've infiltrated everywhere, and I cannot believe people are taking it so lightly.



What does the number of Muslim people have to do with anything? Islam isn't an inherently violent religion, the extremists have just given it a bad name in the west. As for Isis, well, people are taking it lightly because it's not real. It's a terrorist group sanctioned by the CIA and the SIS.
35017 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F
Offline
Posted 8/30/14 , edited 8/30/14

OlympianRed wrote:

What does the number of Muslim people have to do with anything? Islam isn't an inherently violent religion, the extremists have just given it a bad name in the west. As for Isis, well, people are taking it lightly because it's not real. It's a terrorist group sanctioned by the CIA and the SIS.


Is that what Alex Jones is telling people now?

Edit: I just checked, and I hit the nail on the head. That man is an insufferable liar.
Posted 8/30/14
How many people died due to terrorism compared to bad government? Let's watch the coast while the ax approaches from behind.
599 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Connecticut
Offline
Posted 8/30/14 , edited 8/30/14

BlueOni wrote:


Mugen417 wrote:

So let me get this straight, when Russia interferes with a country that lies on its own BORDERS then that's a problem, but when the US bombs and invades countries half way around the globe (Pakistan, Yemen, Libya, Somalia, ect.) for the SLIGHT possibility that they might harbor terrorists, then that's completely justified. Especially when those bombs often kill and injure MORE civilians than militants.


I really don't see why the US drone strike program and Russia's activities in Ukraine cannot be questioned simultaneously.


The EXCUSE about "WE HAVE TO PREVENT A MASSACRE" is a complete lie too. It's the same thing they said about Libya and Guess what? Libya is WORSE than it was under Gaddafi.They are only thinking about the Oil and resources , they could care less about any thing else.


On Libya

According to the available data the US imported less crude oil from Libya in 2012 than it did from any other OPEC country, importing 20,358 thousand barrels (that's 1.38% of barrels imported from OPEC that year and 0.65% of all oil imported that year). In 2013 the figure declined to 15,864 thousand barrels, making Libya the second lowest contributor of crude oil imports to the US of any OPEC country (Algeria was the lowest at 10,461 thousand barrels). US crude oil imports from Libya rose steadily from 2004 to 2007, sharply declining in 2008 and steadily declining to a low of 3,328 thousand barrels in 2011 (the year of the civil war). In the peak year (2007) the US imported 30,794 thousand barrels from Libya, constituting 1.57% of US imports from OPEC and 0.8% of all US imports that year.

http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/PET_MOVE_IMPCUS_A2_NUS_EPC0_IM0_MBBL_A.htm
http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=MCRIMLY1&f=A

So what is the US interest in Libyan natural resources? It cannot be oil, they export less crude oil to the US than Russia does. The largest single contributor to US crude oil imports in any given year, by the way, is the sandy dunes of Canada.

On Iraq

The hypothesis that the Iraq War was fought for the sake of increasing oil imports simply doesn't bear out in the data. The reason US forces were posted at installations important to Iraq's energy sector is because these were consistent and frequent targets for sabotage throughout the war and occupation, and furthermore they were critical for establishing a viable and independent economy for a democratic state in Iraq. Here is a chart displaying US crude oil imports from Iraq from 1996-2013:

http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=MCRIMIZ1&f=A

Notice that the amount of crude oil imported from Iraq to the US between 2009 and 2013 never exceeds 174,080 thousand barrels, an amount roughly comparable with the amount imported during a UN sanction on Iraq. The reason that period is important is because it represents the period immediately after the Iraqi Ministry of Oil awarded development contracts to foreign firms, and therefore should've represented the point where US oil imports would've spiked if the invasion had really been all about crude oil. That didn't happen. Not even close. It's barely a bump.

Looking at the bigger picture, US forces (excluding guards for the consulates and embassies and PMCs) had completely withdrawn from Iraq in 2011, meaning the Iraq War lasted from 2003-2011. Notice that at no point in that period does the amount of barrels imported ever meet or exceeds the amount imported in the peak year (2001; 289,998 thousand barrels), with the peak amount imported during either the war or the occupation being 239,758 barrels in 2004 and the average amount being 188,778 thousand barrels.

TL;DR: The data are against your claim that US foreign policy concerning Iraq and Libya has been driven by an effort to increase oil imports.


In my opinion ISIS has every right to create their stupid caliphate, rather than propping up these countries made out of the imaginary lines drew by the French and British i.e Lebanon, Syria, and Iraq.

.
Bull.


1.) That is my point that you FAILED to see, They should be but Russia is being portrayed as if Putin is some war criminal, while Obama gets a Nobel Peace Prize (for what? bombing Pakistani weddings and american citizens abroad? hypocrisy much?)

2.) All of your "sources" come from US GOVERNMENT WEBSITES so no duh they are going to make it look that way. Besides, Look up the history of Qaddafi and how he changed the oil industry and you'll understand.

I'm sorry but your arguments are a fail and lack critical thinking or analysis. DO SOME REAL HOMEWORK then come back with a stronger argument...

Oh yeah about the oil from LIBYA... here's an article from NY times, a source of news that I trust as much as those government websites you posted...

"Western nations — especially the NATO countries that provided crucial air support to the rebels — want to make sure their companies are in prime position to pump the Libyan crude."

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/23/business/global/the-scramble-for-access-to-libyas-oil-wealth-begins.html?pagewanted=all

in summary, the over throw of Qaddafi benefited EUROPE

NATO bombed Libya and NATO is comprised of EUROPEAN countries. NOT JUST THE USA companies are looking to take advantage of the hostilities there.

Posted 8/30/14 , edited 8/30/14

OlympianRed wrote:

It's a terrorist group sanctioned by the CIA and the SIS.


Lol, I'm done.


ulrier wrote:

How many people died due to terrorism compared to bad government? Let's watch the coast while the ax approaches from behind.


Excellent point, though they're both bad. I especially like your line, "Let's watch the coast while the ax approaches from behind."

I'll also add this from V for Vendetta which I feel is most fitting: "People should never fear their government; the government should fear their people."
35017 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F
Offline
Posted 8/30/14 , edited 8/30/14

Mugen417 wrote:

1.) That is my point that you FAILED to see, They should be but Russia is being portrayed as if Putin is some war criminal, while Obama gets a Nobel Peace Prize (for what? bombing Pakistani weddings and american citizens abroad? hypocrisy much?)


I was agreeing that both the drone program and Russian activities in Ukraine are questionable. I'm not really sure what more you want.


2.) All of your "sources" come from US GOVERNMENT WEBSITES so no duh they are going to make it look that way. Besides, Look up the history of Qaddafi and how he changed the oil industry and you'll understand.

I'm sorry but your arguments are a fail and lack critical thinking or analysis. DO SOME REAL HOMEWORK then come back with a stronger argument...

Oh yeah about the oil from LIBYA... here's an article from NY times, a source of news that I trust as much as those government websites you posted...

"Western nations — especially the NATO countries that provided crucial air support to the rebels — want to make sure their companies are in prime position to pump the Libyan crude."

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/23/business/global/the-scramble-for-access-to-libyas-oil-wealth-begins.html?pagewanted=all

in summary, the over throw of Qaddafi benefited EUROPE

NATO bombed Libya and NATO is comprised of EUROPEAN countries. NOT JUST THE USA companies are looking to take advantage of the hostilities there.


*sigh*

1. You haven't provided any counter figures concerning US oil imports from either country, and your New York Times source agrees with those I provided.

2. Your source clearly states that the US firms of interest made deals with the Gaddaffi regime while NATO air support, the naval blockade, and the missile strikes were designed to stop the same and its supporters from killing civilians. I advanced one (and only one) claim about Libya: that US foreign policy during its civil war was not driven by the motive to increase oil imports. Your source supports this claim whether you realize it or not.

3. If you trust the New York Times as much as you trust the sources I provided that means you don't trust it at all. Do kindly take a moment to calm down before you type your next post. It's obvious this one was rushed and driven by rage.
7016 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M
Offline
Posted 8/30/14
You know the world is shit when rockets fly over your head and you're too desensitized to care and go to the shelter.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.