Saudi national in custody. I'm sure he wasn't muslim though.

Saudi national in custody. I'm sure he wasn't muslim though.
- kingbrehm

He's a catholic (E5)

Yep remember what happened when the US packed up and went home after WW1 and left Europe to deal with Europe.

The whole blood for oil thing is ridiculous too, the US gets 12% of its oil from the ME, only 3% from Iraq and Kuwait. China by comparison gets 40% of their oil from the ME, Europe 26% and India 60%. Someone has to maintain peace in that region, not saying it has to be the US but what happens if the supplies breakdown?
- ShooterMcGavin

Yep, this has all just started coming to light for me in recent years. I used to hate the American Military machine but I do look at the other side of the fence now.

When Britain's empire faded they handed the reins over to America - what I am trying to say is, we may be kidding ourselves that the transition could be that smooth this time 'round. Because the fact is, America does have so many internal economic problems building up over the decades with unfunded liabilities (one example) that they're role in the world....seems to be changing. As all things do I suppose.

Dude, you would love books by Mark Steyn. Seriously. Canadian guy, Oxford educated, historian, cultural and political commentator and pundit.
"America Alone" and "After America". True they sound like the type of literature most people in Canada and France would absolutely despise but like it or not - his journalism is top-tits, he's hilarious and he's compelling for sure.

He's a catholic (E5)
- muhammed

- ruttager17

so whos not playing tonight?

so whos not playing tonight?
- AlEx_OiL

Smithson, Jones, Whitney and Peckham.

The issue is that you are talking about foreign states national resources. As long as places like Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq and Kuwait's economies are fully dependent on oil exports the supply will never break down.

Iraq for example has 90% of its total economy dependent on oil exports, the issue has never been about these nations reducing oil exports, but foreign nations wishing to maintain influence over the control and profitability of these resources. The current conflict in Nigeria is a perfect example of this.
- Whiskey-Tango

The problem you have is that you don't care what happens as long as the oil keeps flowing. Doesn't matter if Iran invades Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Kuwait and puts millions to death as long as the oil flows. If the USA pulls out of all these places there is a huge power void that needs to be filled and the people poised to do that are scary. US presence in SEA is at the request of the countries involved, they are scared of current Chinese aggression in the South China Sea. Should the US just leave these countries that ask for help on their own?
The US has been great at letting Iraq go free market and not making Iraq feel beholden to them. Most of the new companies awarded contracts for expansion of the oil fields are Chinese, German and French petrochemical companies. None of these countries sent troop to help liberate their country. The US pays market price for oil from Iraq and Kuwait, they do buy cheaper from Saudi Arabia because of a oil for protection deal from the 60s, it's a lot cheaper for SA than creating their own military.
If its not the US it will be someone else, we are not going to all of the sudden start playing nice with each other, and I would rather have the devil we know that the devil.

Edit

you're probably some dirty, hippy, cheese eating, French surrender monkey anyways so enjoy the freedom to be a dirty, hippy, cheese eating, French surrender monkey that has been paid for by the blood of the soldiers and policies you despise so much.

Marincin having a good game ...

that was a soft call on Pitlick

that was a soft call on Pitlick
- AlEx_OiL

This is a soft call... *Zzzziiiiiiiiiipppppppppp*

This is a soft call... *Zzzziiiiiiiiiipppppppppp*
- laughs2907

There are pills you can get to fix that problem.

The problem you have is that you don't care what happens as long as the oil keeps flowing. Doesn't matter if Iran invades Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Kuwait and puts millions to death as long as the oil flows. If the USA pulls out of all these places there is a huge power void that needs to be filled and the people poised to do that are scary. US presence in SEA is at the request of the countries involved, they are scared of current Chinese aggression in the South China Sea. Should the US just leave these countries that ask for help on their own?
The US has been great at letting Iraq go free market and not making Iraq feel beholden to them. Most of the new companies awarded contracts for expansion of the oil fields are Chinese, German and French petrochemical companies. None of these countries sent troop to help liberate their country. The US pays market price for oil from Iraq and Kuwait, they do buy cheaper from Saudi Arabia because of a oil for protection deal from the 60s, it's a lot cheaper for SA than creating their own military.
If its not the US it will be someone else, we are not going to all of the sudden start playing nice with each other, and I would rather have the devil we know that the devil.

Edit

you're probably some dirty, hippy, cheese eating, French surrender monkey anyways so enjoy the freedom to be a dirty, hippy, cheese eating, French surrender monkey that has been paid for by the blood of the soldiers and policies you despise so much.
- ShooterMcGavin

I'm not going to bother continuing this discussion with you as it would appear that Foxnews and CNN has done a superb job of informing you on geopolitics and global affairs. One thing you fail to acknowledge is that your little world police theory is hypocritical as every example you just named holds a financial benefit for the United States. Going by the thesis you just stated in relation to preventing countless deaths in the middle east, why hasn't the U.S implemented this same strategy in terms of conflicts such as Rwanda, Darfur and Latin America? Furthermore, the fact that you, along with the country you are currently defending feels the arrogant need to defend these nations from hypothetically destroying each other without ever asking, or at the very least understanding if those foreign governments and populations want you there in the first place brings about the bigger question of if these strategies cause more harm than good.

The fact that you feel the need to critically insult another merely for having a different point of view is extremely symbolic and relevant to the very argument we are having.

Have a good one man.

Edit: Furthermore, that little B.S theory relating to me having freedom because it"has been paid for by the blood of the soldiers and policies you despise so much" is infuriating. Sweden, Denmark, Iceland and Switzerland are a few examples of Nations that arguably enjoy more "freedom" then both you and I yet do you see these guys launch of to war every 5 years in the name of it?

This is a soft call... *Zzzziiiiiiiiiipppppppppp*
- laughs2907

http://www.rojadirecta.me...esharing.com/stream1.html



okc vs toronto

I'm not going to bother continuing this discussion with you as it would appear that Foxnews and CNN has done a superb job of informing you on geopolitics and global affairs. One thing you fail to acknowledge is that your little world police theory is hypocritical as every example you just named holds a financial benefit for the United States. Going by the thesis you just stated in relation to preventing countless deaths in the middle east, why hasn't the U.S implemented this same strategy in terms of conflicts such as Rwanda, Darfur and Latin America? Furthermore, the fact that you, along with the country you are currently defending feels the arrogant need to defend these nations from hypothetically destroying each other without ever asking, or at the very least understanding if those foreign governments and populations want you there in the first place brings about the bigger question of if these strategies cause more harm than good.

The fact that you feel the need to critically insult another merely for having a different point of view is extremely symbolic and relevant to the very argument we are having.

Have a good one man.
- Whiskey-Tango

Latin America is doing better with out the USA involvement of any type

I'm not going to bother continuing this discussion with you as it would appear that Foxnews and CNN has done a superb job of informing you on geopolitics and global affairs. One thing you fail to acknowledge is that your little world police theory is hypocritical as every example you just named holds a financial benefit for the United States. Going by the thesis you just stated in relation to preventing countless deaths in the middle east, why hasn't the U.S implemented this same strategy in terms of conflicts such as Rwanda, Darfur and Latin America? Furthermore, the fact that you, along with the country you are currently defending feels the arrogant need to defend these nations from hypothetically destroying each other without ever asking, or at the very least understanding if those foreign governments and populations want you there in the first place brings about the bigger question of if these strategies cause more harm than good.

The fact that you feel the need to critically insult another merely for having a different point of view is extremely symbolic and relevant to the very argument we are having.

Have a good one man.

Edit: Furthermore, that little B.S theory relating to me having freedom because it"has been paid for by the blood of the soldiers and policies you despise so much" is infuriating. Sweden, Denmark, Iceland and Switzerland are a few examples of Nations that arguably enjoy more "freedom" then both you and I yet do you see these guys launch of to war every 5 years in the name of it?
- Whiskey-Tango

No but Sweden, Denmark, Iceland and Switzerland would have been Soviet satellites without US intervention after WW2.

Edit: every time US hasn't gone into a situation they get blamed for not going in, that was the point I was making. Also financial gains? Did you read what I wrote about Iraq and Kuwait, they are getting no concessions from those countries on what little oil they purchase from them (3% of national usage). You take what you want and ignore the rest of what I write. I think these countries have shown that they will destroy each other if no one is there, that's all they have done throughout recorded history why would now be any different. For some reason pinko hippies think that everyone will love each other and world peace will break out once the policemen go home. All this whole thing started from me saying watch a documentary and see another point of view, you obviously have your POV and aren't interested in seeing anything else. I am not a ra ra go USA guy, but honestly without them right now the map of the world would be totally different and I don't think it would be for the better.[/img]

Latin America is doing better with out the USA involvement of any type
- AlEx_OiL

I meant historically in terms of conflict, tell that to the Guatemalans, Nicaraguans and Salvadorians in the 1980s.

No but Sweden, Denmark, Iceland and Switzerland would have been Soviet satellites without US intervention after WW2.
- ShooterMcGavin

No, Sweden, Iceland and Switzerland were Neutral both before and after WW2. And the argument that the U.S single handily prevented the spread of Communism is no better then the Soviet propaganda of the time as well.

No, Sweden, Iceland and Switzerland were Neutral both before and after WW2. And the argument that the U.S single handily prevented the spread of Communism is no better then the Soviet propaganda of the time as well.
- Whiskey-Tango

Do you honestly believe that the soviets would have recognized a neutral country? The allies launched DDay not to beat the Germans but to stop the Soviets from swallowing up all of Europe, they were 90 kilometres away from Berlin when the allies landed.

Do you honestly believe that the soviets would have recognized a neutral country? The allies launched DDay not to beat the Germans but to stop the Soviets from swallowing up all of Europe, they were 90 kilometres away from Berlin when the allies landed.
- ShooterMcGavin

and Patton said not driving them all the way back was a mistake.

I meant historically in terms of conflict, tell that to the Guatemalans, Nicaraguans and Salvadorians in the 1980s.
- Whiskey-Tango

I do understand and yes those country's had bad times,there's a different tho down in South America with maybe the exception of Chile(they are British and American ass kissers)most South Americans Country's dont want part of the Americans involvement of any type,lots of Resources in South America I would say rich of Natural Resources and most Governments down there know better to keep away from well you know who.

I was just yanking yer chain man......but curious how you think you are "rarely wrong" when posting a different viewpoint.
- ruttager17

sarcastic cockiness???

No but Sweden, Denmark, Iceland and Switzerland would have been Soviet satellites without US intervention after WW2.

Edit: every time US hasn't gone into a situation they get blamed for not going in, that was the point I was making. Also financial gains? Did you read what I wrote about Iraq and Kuwait, they are getting no concessions from those countries on what little oil they purchase from them (3% of national usage). You take what you want and ignore the rest of what I write. I think these countries have shown that they will destroy each other if no one is there, that's all they have done throughout recorded history why would now be any different. For some reason pinko hippies think that everyone will love each other and world peace will break out once the policemen go home. All this whole thing started from me saying watch a documentary and see another point of view, you obviously have your POV and aren't interested in seeing anything else. I am not a ra ra go USA guy, but honestly without them right now the map of the world would be totally different and I don't think it would be for the better.
- ShooterMcGavin[/img]

There is validity here. There are tribal feuds that pre-date US involvement in the middle east by centuries. Shia and Sunni muslims spring to mind. That is also why US occupation anywhere over there is pointless though, and really does nothing but give ammo to the extremists. They need to sort out their own problems. Nobody intervened for the US during the revolution and they emerged from it ok.

No but Sweden, Denmark, Iceland and Switzerland would have been Soviet satellites without US intervention after WW2.

Edit: every time US hasn't gone into a situation they get blamed for not going in, that was the point I was making. Also financial gains? Did you read what I wrote about Iraq and Kuwait, they are getting no concessions from those countries on what little oil they purchase from them (3% of national usage). You take what you want and ignore the rest of what I write. I think these countries have shown that they will destroy each other if no one is there, that's all they have done throughout recorded history why would now be any different. For some reason pinko hippies think that everyone will love each other and world peace will break out once the policemen go home. All this whole thing started from me saying watch a documentary and see another point of view, you obviously have your POV and aren't interested in seeing anything else. I am not a ra ra go USA guy, but honestly without them right now the map of the world would be totally different and I don't think it would be for the better.
- ShooterMcGavin[/img]

I'm going to apologize for the "firmly entrenched" comment. I thought you were leaning that way, but regardless,it wasn't really fair. As for the rest of your arguemnt, you make some pretty compelling points. I'm not going to say I agree with all of it, but appreciate your knowledge base on the subject, and I think you've done your research, and for that, I respect your right to express it. Hope we're all good!

I do understand and yes those country's had bad times,there's a different tho down in South America with maybe the exception of Chile(they are British and American ass kissers)most South Americans Country's dont want part of the Americans involvement of any type,lots of Resources in South America I would say rich of Natural Resources and most Governments down there know better to keep away from well you know who.
- AlEx_OiL

Plus, those countries would be an absolute logistical nightmare to even think about invading.

There is validity here. There are tribal feuds that pre-date US involvement in the middle east by centuries. Shia and Sunni muslims spring to mind. That is also why US occupation anywhere over there is pointless though, and really does nothing but give ammo to the extremists. They need to sort out their own problems. Nobody intervened for the US during the revolution and they emerged from it ok.
- sanfordnson

Honestly I would love to see the Middle East blow each other up, but the problem with that a country like China is way more reliant on it than NA is. They are going to have to go get oil somewhere and what will they be willing to do to get it?

Edit (again) Japanese aggression in WW2 was largely based on lack of petroleum, can you imagine a beast like China getting cut off.