Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Albatross wrote:
Soooo... Any Americans on here starting to understand how the British Empire came into existence yet? No?

OK, I'll come back in a few years and ask again.

You may have to come back. It shows why it ended though...

 Frazzled wrote:

 Albatross wrote:
Soooo... Any Americans on here starting to understand how the British Empire came into existence yet? No?

OK, I'll come back in a few years and ask again.

You may have to come back. It shows why it ended though...

Nope. You literally could not be more wrong, and that's why this gak keeps happening on America's watch. You want to be able to sit thousands of miles away and access other people's resources without getting your hands dirty. You expect them to just act in your interests more or less spontaneously, or through a series of comparitively 'light-touch' economic and/or diplomatic levers, but what happens when that fails? You can install puppets, but what happens when the people try to overthrow them? It seems like the USA has yet to figure out what we figured out a couple of hundred years ago which is sometimes you have to just take over, and once you've taken over, stay the course. Even if it takes decades. The problem you have is that you start out by selling it to the American public in terms of 'regime change', 'Iraqi Freedom' and other such wooly terms, as if you're doing 'the natives' a favour. When bodies draped in flags start coming home, the public naturally grow fatigued of it. Even in this thread (and in other such threads) you have people blaming the Iraqis and Syrians for this mess, and making grotesquely ignorant statements to the effect of 'just bomb them all'. Everything that is happening in the ME is more or less a direct result of Western foreign policy; we sneezed, the whole region caught a cold.

We need to start telling the truth which is that our nations went to war with Iraq to safeguard our economic interests, and with that being the case we had a responsibility to stay there until Iraq was truly stable, however long that took, even if it meant annexing the country temporarily. The problem is, Yanks have no appetite for Empire because they think its primary purpose is power for its own sake, as opposed to expedience.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
tl;dr - you break it, you bought it

Er no.
Syria has no oil.
Iraq is still selling oil. Frankly its in the US's interest to discontinue all production of Iraqi oil, and Iranian oil. The US economy is partially a petrodollar economy now. We want $100 a barrel oil.

We could respond with a heavier touch but "nuke everything" seems to be frowned on in certain quarters.

I love how you somehow just made this into "America BAAD!" Did you miss that, even if we wanted to play empire, we pulling back. You want someone to play empire, call the Chinese bad.

I always said, the world will miss us when we're gone. This is what happens. Too bad.

What is America's strategy though?

Obama has 20 months left, and he seems content to run down the clock and pass it over to the next resident of 1600 Pennslyvania Avenue to deal with.

Iraq is turning into a sectarian bloodbath, and if things continue the way they are, then we're heading into Saigon territory.

It's been a bloodbath over there since 2002- what difference does it make whether it's sectarian or secular?

The United States has zero capability to positively influence the events going on over there, so again I'm waiting for someone to provide a viable strategy for what it is we should be doing once we get there.

Maybe Obama is sitting on this because he realizes that the situation is fethed and there's nothing American troops can do over there except die?

 BlaxicanX wrote:
It's been a bloodbath over there since 2002- what difference does it make whether it's sectarian or secular?

The United States has zero capability to positively influence the events going on over there, so again I'm waiting for someone to provide a viable strategy for what it is we should be doing once we get there.

Maybe Obama is sitting on this because he realizes that the situation is fethed and there's nothing American troops can do over there except die?

It's not just the Middle East - there's challenges all over the world for America to face. Putin on the march in Eastern Europe, China flexing its muscles etc etc

So far, Obama has failed to rise to any of these. To be fair to Obama, none of the contenders for President in 2016 look likely to do anything about them either, but the next decade will be crucial for the USA.

If ever the USA needed a FDR, or a Harry Truman, then it's 2016.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 BlaxicanX wrote:
It's been a bloodbath over there since 2002- what difference does it make whether it's sectarian or secular?

The United States has zero capability to positively influence the events going on over there, so again I'm waiting for someone to provide a viable strategy for what it is we should be doing once we get there.

Maybe Obama is sitting on this because he realizes that the situation is fethed and there's nothing American troops can do over there except die?

It's not just the Middle East - there's challenges all over the world for America to face. Putin on the march in Eastern Europe, China flexing its muscles etc etc

So far, Obama has failed to rise to any of these. To be fair to Obama, none of the contenders for President in 2016 look likely to do anything about them either, but the next decade will be crucial for the USA.

If ever the USA needed a FDR, or a Harry Truman, then it's 2016.

So it's the US fault?

Where's Europe?

 whembly wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 BlaxicanX wrote:
It's been a bloodbath over there since 2002- what difference does it make whether it's sectarian or secular?

The United States has zero capability to positively influence the events going on over there, so again I'm waiting for someone to provide a viable strategy for what it is we should be doing once we get there.

Maybe Obama is sitting on this because he realizes that the situation is fethed and there's nothing American troops can do over there except die?

It's not just the Middle East - there's challenges all over the world for America to face. Putin on the march in Eastern Europe, China flexing its muscles etc etc

So far, Obama has failed to rise to any of these. To be fair to Obama, none of the contenders for President in 2016 look likely to do anything about them either, but the next decade will be crucial for the USA.

If ever the USA needed a FDR, or a Harry Truman, then it's 2016.

So it's the US fault?

Where's Europe?

Europe is up to its neck in debt, worried about health and safety, and decided in 1945 that warfare is definently a bad thing.

You guys have the $600 billion defence budget, take it for a drive.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 BlaxicanX wrote:
It's been a bloodbath over there since 2002- what difference does it make whether it's sectarian or secular?

The United States has zero capability to positively influence the events going on over there, so again I'm waiting for someone to provide a viable strategy for what it is we should be doing once we get there.

Maybe Obama is sitting on this because he realizes that the situation is fethed and there's nothing American troops can do over there except die?

It's not just the Middle East - there's challenges all over the world for America to face. Putin on the march in Eastern Europe, China flexing its muscles etc etc

So far, Obama has failed to rise to any of these. To be fair to Obama, none of the contenders for President in 2016 look likely to do anything about them either, but the next decade will be crucial for the USA.

If ever the USA needed a FDR, or a Harry Truman, then it's 2016.

So it's the US fault?

Where's Europe?

Europe is up to its neck in debt, worried about health and safety, and decided in 1945 that warfare is definently a bad thing.

Dude... our unfunded liabilities are ginormous!

You guys have the $600 billion defence budget, take it for a drive.

We have the toys... so what? The world seems to want "Team 'Murrica" to take a hike.

 Albatross wrote:

Nope. You literally could not be more wrong, and that's why this gak keeps happening on America's watch. You want to be able to sit thousands of miles away and access other people's resources without getting your hands dirty. You expect them to just act in your interests more or less spontaneously, or through a series of comparitively 'light-touch' economic and/or diplomatic levers, but what happens when that fails? You can install puppets, but what happens when the people try to overthrow them? It seems like the USA has yet to figure out what we figured out a couple of hundred years ago which is sometimes you have to just take over, and once you've taken over, stay the course. Even if it takes decades. The problem you have is that you start out by selling it to the American public in terms of 'regime change', 'Iraqi Freedom' and other such wooly terms, as if you're doing 'the natives' a favour. When bodies draped in flags start coming home, the public naturally grow fatigued of it. Even in this thread (and in other such threads) you have people blaming the Iraqis and Syrians for this mess, and making grotesquely ignorant statements to the effect of 'just bomb them all'. Everything that is happening in the ME is more or less a direct result of Western foreign policy; we sneezed, the whole region caught a cold.

I agree with this. The 2003 campaign had a long term goal of divide and rule. However the US led coalition didn't expect this type of division. The crap that happened post Iraq invasion was convertable, and that mission was accomplished. Troops in, instill a puppet government in a divided country, troops out. Now the oil flows and the profits are skimmed.

However when you get division you get a melting pot of extremism, add in other factors like the 'Arab spring' and Israel in particular and the melting pot overheats. Islamic extremism is becoming more and more extreme. I was watching an ISIS new video about the rape auctions yesterday (no its doesn't show the rapes). The feth-heads had devolved so low that the extremes of societies ills are the norm. Once a region gets that bad there is no stopping them beyond either pulling out or going in fully.

One of Bush seniors bees in his bonnet was burying Vietnam ghosts, Mogadishu put a downer on this and effected the Clinton administration, then Bush junior compounded on he dad and lots of flags were waved when Iraq was taken. 9/11 ironically isn't a major factor as even Bush didn't try to blame Saddam for Al Quaeda.
However now the hornets nest is well and truly stirred, and for all Obama's many faults he can see that actually trying to sort ISIS out in thier own backyard, even with todays tech will be even more unwinable than Vietnam was, and considerably more viscious.

Well once ISIS take Baghdad, secure the various oil fields and start selling more of it on the black market who does everyone think their target is going to be eh? Europe and Russia isn't immune but lone wolf style attacks this year have lead to a hardening of security in the major countries, not to mention some countries have far less scruples about dealing with terrorism than others.

Exercise Jade Helm is being done by the US military in, I think, 10 states that just happen to be close to the highly porous US / Mexico border. It's not hard to connect the dots to see what the fear is and why the military is either, at best, training for this or, at worst, using this as a cover to put forces in place in response to intelligence.

Strategy wise; I honestly think that Obama's strategy is the Democrat strategy to not be associated with beginning a conflict ever. In the same way that strikes on Syria in 2014 were torpedoed by UK MPs voting it down through the same fear.

History tells us that in this situation then the only way to stop ISIS is force. It's the modern equivalent of the Third Reich, you cannot negotiate peace because their objective is unacceptable.

Way I see it is this plays out one of two ways;

1) The US builds the will, once Obama is gone, for a multi national force to engage them in Iraq and Syria, and ensures the overthrow of Assad.

2) The current inaction plays out to the point ISIS mount a major attack on the US, which then leads to a NATO force going in anyway, except by that point the civilian population in Iraq is close to 100% sympathetic to ISIS and it results in something that makes Iran and Afghanistan look like a training exercise.

Current literature suggests ISIS actually wants the US to engage it for their "end of days" style prophecy, and logically the current policy of inaction would only be changed by an attack.

A key factor in the balance of power between nations is retaliation; North Korea can shout all it wants about miniaturisation of nukes, but ultimately the power structure supports the status quo. Think ISIS cares ?

A danger lies in how far they believe they have to go to incite it, in a way that's probably why they continue to showcase what they do to build a general level of fear around the group. How far could they go, well try looking up a case study of biological terrorism, a wargames scenario called "Dark winter" that took place pre 9/11. It's a truly terrifying scenario, not just for the impact it has in terms of life but the financial damage which then changes everything, worldwide.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
What is America's strategy though?

Obama has 20 months left, and he seems content to run down the clock and pass it over to the next resident of 1600 Pennslyvania Avenue to deal with.

Iraq is turning into a sectarian bloodbath, and if things continue the way they are, then we're heading into Saigon territory.

Dude that is the strategy. Prevent defense until the clock runs out.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BlaxicanX wrote:
It's been a bloodbath over there since 2002-

You forgot to mention thats 2002 BC. To quote Newt in Aliens "It won't make any difference."


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 TwilightSparkles wrote:
Well once ISIS take Baghdad, secure the various oil fields and start selling more of it on the black market who does everyone think their target is going to be eh? Europe and Russia isn't immune but lone wolf style attacks this year have lead to a hardening of security in the major countries, not to mention some countries have far less scruples about dealing with terrorism than others.

Exercise Jade Helm is being done by the US military in, I think, 10 states that just happen to be close to the highly porous US / Mexico border. It's not hard to connect the dots to see what the fear is and why the military is either, at best, training for this or, at worst, using this as a cover to put forces in place in response to intelligence.

Strategy wise; I honestly think that Obama's strategy is the Democrat strategy to not be associated with beginning a conflict ever. In the same way that strikes on Syria in 2014 were torpedoed by UK MPs voting it down through the same fear.

History tells us that in this situation then the only way to stop ISIS is force. It's the modern equivalent of the Third Reich, you cannot negotiate peace because their objective is unacceptable.

Way I see it is this plays out one of two ways;

1) The US builds the will, once Obama is gone, for a multi national force to engage them in Iraq and Syria, and ensures the overthrow of Assad.

2) The current inaction plays out to the point ISIS mount a major attack on the US, which then leads to a NATO force going in anyway, except by that point the civilian population in Iraq is close to 100% sympathetic to ISIS and it results in something that makes Iran and Afghanistan look like a training exercise.

Current literature suggests ISIS actually wants the US to engage it for their "end of days" style prophecy, and logically the current policy of inaction would only be changed by an attack.

A key factor in the balance of power between nations is retaliation; North Korea can shout all it wants about miniaturisation of nukes, but ultimately the power structure supports the status quo. Think ISIS cares ?

A danger lies in how far they believe they have to go to incite it, in a way that's probably why they continue to showcase what they do to build a general level of fear around the group. How far could they go, well try looking up a case study of biological terrorism, a wargames scenario called "Dark winter" that took place pre 9/11. It's a truly terrifying scenario, not just for the impact it has in terms of life but the financial damage which then changes everything, worldwide.

Russian has no problem curb stomping Islamic terrorist armies with extreme prejudice. They are happily bombing entire regions in Chechnya as we speak.

Europe? Well thats your problem. Your civilization goes back 3,000 years. I think you can deal.

The world seems to want "Team 'Murrica" to take a hike.

Not me. I love the country. I'll never forgive America for Anne Coulter, but apart from that, the USA is a-ok in my book


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

The world seems to want "Team 'Murrica" to take a hike.

Not me. I love the country. I'll never forgive America for Anne Coulter, but apart from that, the USA is a-ok in my book

Europe? Well thats your problem. Your civilization goes back 3,000 years. I think you can deal.

But your ancestors were probably European. What about historic debts to the old country

But your ancestors were probably European. What about historic debts to the old country

Lithuania? Lithuania says they bring the pain.

 Albatross wrote:

Nope. You literally could not be more wrong, and that's why this gak keeps happening on America's watch. You want to be able to sit thousands of miles away and access other people's resources without getting your hands dirty. You expect them to just act in your interests more or less spontaneously, or through a series of comparitively 'light-touch' economic and/or diplomatic levers, but what happens when that fails? You can install puppets, but what happens when the people try to overthrow them? It seems like the USA has yet to figure out what we figured out a couple of hundred years ago which is sometimes you have to just take over, and once you've taken over, stay the course. Even if it takes decades. The problem you have is that you start out by selling it to the American public in terms of 'regime change', 'Iraqi Freedom' and other such wooly terms, as if you're doing 'the natives' a favour. When bodies draped in flags start coming home, the public naturally grow fatigued of it. Even in this thread (and in other such threads) you have people blaming the Iraqis and Syrians for this mess, and making grotesquely ignorant statements to the effect of 'just bomb them all'. Everything that is happening in the ME is more or less a direct result of Western foreign policy; we sneezed, the whole region caught a cold.

We need to start telling the truth which is that our nations went to war with Iraq to safeguard our economic interests, and with that being the case we had a responsibility to stay there until Iraq was truly stable, however long that took, even if it meant annexing the country temporarily. The problem is, Yanks have no appetite for Empire because they think its primary purpose is power for its own sake, as opposed to expedience.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
tl;dr - you break it, you bought it

I agree with you that U.S. has done a pretty godawful job trying to "help" Iraq. However, there's a few things I disagree with.

1) Not all Americans feel entitled to other people's resources. Don't generalize we're not a hive mind.

2) Install a puppet? Never mind that they don't always provide stability what about the egregious human rights abuses they involve?

3) You're seriously advocating taking over? Besides there being a massive conflict of interests for the U.S., consider that most of the horrible things happening around the world are a direct result of of colonialism and how it bled countries dry of resources and bred divisiveness. LOOKING AT YOU BRITISH EMPIRE. The U.S. has pretty much done the same in South America. Are you suggesting that the same happen again?

 Frazzled wrote:

But your ancestors were probably European. What about historic debts to the old country

Lithuania? Lithuania says they bring the pain.

I remember when Lithuania was the last Pagan kingdom in Europe before it was wiped out by the Catholics.

Now you live in a Christian Country.

Your ancestors are ashamed of you.

Mustela wrote:

 Albatross wrote:

Nope. You literally could not be more wrong, and that's why this gak keeps happening on America's watch. You want to be able to sit thousands of miles away and access other people's resources without getting your hands dirty. You expect them to just act in your interests more or less spontaneously, or through a series of comparitively 'light-touch' economic and/or diplomatic levers, but what happens when that fails? You can install puppets, but what happens when the people try to overthrow them? It seems like the USA has yet to figure out what we figured out a couple of hundred years ago which is sometimes you have to just take over, and once you've taken over, stay the course. Even if it takes decades. The problem you have is that you start out by selling it to the American public in terms of 'regime change', 'Iraqi Freedom' and other such wooly terms, as if you're doing 'the natives' a favour. When bodies draped in flags start coming home, the public naturally grow fatigued of it. Even in this thread (and in other such threads) you have people blaming the Iraqis and Syrians for this mess, and making grotesquely ignorant statements to the effect of 'just bomb them all'. Everything that is happening in the ME is more or less a direct result of Western foreign policy; we sneezed, the whole region caught a cold.

We need to start telling the truth which is that our nations went to war with Iraq to safeguard our economic interests, and with that being the case we had a responsibility to stay there until Iraq was truly stable, however long that took, even if it meant annexing the country temporarily. The problem is, Yanks have no appetite for Empire because they think its primary purpose is power for its own sake, as opposed to expedience.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
tl;dr - you break it, you bought it

I agree with you that U.S. has done a pretty godawful job trying to "help" Iraq. However, there's a few things I disagree with.

1) Not all Americans feel entitled to other people's resources. Don't generalize we're not a hive mind.

The US economy patently has need of access to foreign markets. That is just a fact.

2) Install a puppet? Never mind that they don't always provide stability what about the egregious human rights abuses they involve?

Well, yes. Did you not read my post. Puppets governments are of limited effectiveness unless the territory in question has been your colony for long enough that the people living their have roughly comparable culture, values, aims etc. You can't just take over, install a puppet and then feth off home, expecting it to all 'just work out because freedom yay', as Iraq and Afghanistan have proven.

3) You're seriously advocating taking over? Besides there being a massive conflict of interests for the U.S., consider that most of the horrible things happening around the world are a direct result of of colonialism and how it bled countries dry of resources and bred divisiveness. LOOKING AT YOU BRITISH EMPIRE.

Your understanding of Empire, specifically the British empire is poor, and that's being generous. Seriously, to the point that I'm questioning whether or not it's worth discussing this with you.

The U.S. has pretty much done the same in South America. Are you suggesting that the same happen again?

Nope. I'm not suggesting that invading Iraq was necessary or even desirable, but there's no such thing as light-touch imperialism. The US engineered a unipolar world post WWII and that comes with responsibilities, responsibilities that the USA has shirked with disastrous consequences. Iraq: You break it, you bought it. You can't remake the world in your image without boots on the ground and flags in it. The USA ousted Saddam and just expected that Iraq would coalesce miraculously into a fully functioning US-style democracy. You should (if you haven't already) read 'Imperial Life in the Emerald City'. There is evidence that the UK tried to basically say to the US what I'm saying here now and received much the same response.

What's happening in the ME is a direct result of these failures. Basically, if you're going to do Empire, do Empire. If not, mind your own fething business and let people run their own affairs.

The US economy patently has need of access to foreign markets. That is just a fact.

Nope it's dependent on foreign resources. If we went through foreign markets we wouldn't be invading anyone for their resources.

Well, yes. Did you not read my post. Puppets governments are of limited effectiveness unless the territory in question has been your colony for long enough that the people living their have roughly comparable culture, values, aims etc. You can't just take over, install a puppet and then feth off home, expecting it to all 'just work out because freedom yay', as Iraq and Afghanistan have proven.

I agreed with you. You didn't read mine. I think that even if it did work it shouldn't be done as a result of the human rights abuses these governments inevitably commit.

Your understanding of Empire, specifically the British empire is poor, and that's being generous. Seriously, to the point that I'm questioning whether or not it's worth discussing this with you.

So what are you saying? That empires don't exploit other countries resources? That the shoddily constructed political borders, dictators, and class systems haven't caused genocide and civil wars? As of now you are discussing it with me. You're just doing a terrible job. If you're not going to tell me what I have wrong with no support and drop a thinly veiled insult, then by all means don't discuss it with me.

Nope. I'm not suggesting that invading Iraq was necessary or even desirable, but there's no such thing as light-touch imperialism. The US engineered a unipolar world post WWII and that comes with responsibilities, responsibilities that the USA has shirked with disastrous consequences. Iraq: You break it, you bought it. You can't remake the world in your image without boots on the ground and flags in it. The USA ousted Saddam and just expected that Iraq would coalesce miraculously into a fully functioning US-style democracy. You should (if you haven't already) read 'Imperial Life in the Emerald City'. There is evidence that the UK tried to basically say to the US what I'm saying here now and received much the same response.

What's happening in the ME is a direct result of these failures. Basically, if you're going to do Empire, do Empire. If not, mind your own fething business and let people run their own affairs.

Fair enough. I propose the second option.

Your opening line on that last post just shows you've got zero right to be discussing this.

Please, show me what resources we have gained from invading Iraq of Afghanistan. Just about zero. Iraqi oil, and Afghani mineral resources are just about all being consumed by China.

 djones520 wrote:
Your opening line on that last post just shows you've got zero right to be discussing this.

Please, show me what resources we have gained from invading Iraq of Afghanistan. Just about zero. Iraqi oil, and Afghani mineral resources are just about all being consumed by China.

Military industrial complex.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, the U.S. shut down Iraq's nationalized cement industry and replaced it with foreign companies. EDIT: Either way some groups in the U.S. are benefiting economically. Not everyone is.

Also, both the U.S. and China are huge participants in the global economy. To a large extent what benefits one can benefit the other.

I think obama/america are doing the right thing (at the moment) by letting the countries with enough broadly similar values alone. Look at egypt, they're about to execute mubarak along with 100 other guys and america is basically keeping quiet (which i think they should). Countries like these need to be supported so they can remain stable and defend themselves/provide a barrier when the time comes. Iraq is a culturally fractured society with no significant leadership structure in place at the moment, it is going to be a s***fight for decades to come.

 Orlanth wrote:
it is about time that joining ISIS = voluntary abandonment of citizenship.

I'm not sure that abandoning the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is the best way to fight ISIS, but whatever floats your boat.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

I'm not sure that abandoning the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is the best way to fight ISIS, but whatever floats your boat.

To be fair, we ruin people's lives for less.

Just when you think things can't get any worse, Vladimir Putin has offered military assistance to Iraq.

Putin describes Iraq "as an old and reliable ally."

The Iraqi PM, visiting Moscow, has not ruled out accepting Russian help...

Back in Washington, John McCann is threatening to invade Iraq, the US military wants to rush 1000 anti-tank missiles to the Iraq army, but Al-Jazeera is saying that not enough people in Iraq are trained in their use...

This is a complete and utter mess. I'd be laughing if it weren't so tragic.

 djones520 wrote:
Your opening line on that last post just shows you've got zero right to be discussing this.

Please, show me what resources we have gained from invading Iraq of Afghanistan. Just about zero. Iraqi oil, and Afghani mineral resources are just about all being consumed by China.

A whole lot of nothing.

 Frazzled wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
Your opening line on that last post just shows you've got zero right to be discussing this.

Please, show me what resources we have gained from invading Iraq of Afghanistan. Just about zero. Iraqi oil, and Afghani mineral resources are just about all being consumed by China.

A whole lot of nothing.

Are you not concerned about Senator McCann launching a one man invasion of Iraq?

Looks like ISIS has started on its usual killing spree.
Warning: link contains graphic image.
http://en.alalam.ir/news/1704988

 Frazzled wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
Your opening line on that last post just shows you've got zero right to be discussing this.

Please, show me what resources we have gained from invading Iraq of Afghanistan. Just about zero. Iraqi oil, and Afghani mineral resources are just about all being consumed by China.

A whole lot of nothing.

Next time we have to invade, we should do a little pillaging. This whole spending trillions and (failing) to make friends if for the birds. 21st century Viking raids should be the American military's new modus operandi. Seriously, next time, we depose you government, destroy your institutions, and secure your oil fields… and that's it. We'll pump out whatever we need to to pay for the war and then we leave.



and yes, I'm being facetious.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
Your opening line on that last post just shows you've got zero right to be discussing this.

Please, show me what resources we have gained from invading Iraq of Afghanistan. Just about zero. Iraqi oil, and Afghani mineral resources are just about all being consumed by China.

A whole lot of nothing.

Are you not concerned about Senator McCann launching a one man invasion of Iraq?

Do you mean Senator McCain? Cause Senator McCann is an Illinois State Senator, and quite frankly, I couldn't care less about what any state senator has to say.

 djones520 wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
Your opening line on that last post just shows you've got zero right to be discussing this.

Please, show me what resources we have gained from invading Iraq of Afghanistan. Just about zero. Iraqi oil, and Afghani mineral resources are just about all being consumed by China.

A whole lot of nothing.

Are you not concerned about Senator McCann launching a one man invasion of Iraq?

Do you mean Senator McCain? Cause Senator McCann is an Illinois State Senator, and quite frankly, I couldn't care less about what any state senator has to say.

I did mean McCain. Damn that auto-correct!!

Anyway, strange things are afoot in Washington. The defence secretary is criticising Iraq, Iraq says it can re-capture Ramadi within 'days'

and I think Obama's away playing golf again