ISIS Threatens Putin/Russia

[desertfox470]

The US and Russia may not be best friends, but I welcome Russia's sentiments and wish more countries would follow suit to put an end to ISIS and middle eastern terror groups once and for all.

I agree with you.
In order to stop ISIS, the most dangerous terrorist group in history, everybody should work together, friends and enemies, USA, NATO, EU; Russia and even Iran.

I agree, although it is more complicated then that they might all have one common enemy together.

[1714715748]

1714715748

[Rassah]

Al Qaeda has dealt a MASSIVE blow to USA, not in the forms of jets hitting buildings, but in the form of a totally unnecessary and wasteful $3 trillion dollar war, which in part led to massive economic damage to US. I wonder if these guys are just trying to provoke anyone they can to try to screw countries like Al Qaeda did?

[Honeypot]

Al Qaeda has dealt a MASSIVE blow to USA, not in the forms of jets hitting buildings, but in the form of a totally unnecessary and wasteful $3 trillion dollar war, which in part led to massive economic damage to US. I wonder if these guys are just trying to provoke anyone they can to try to screw countries like Al Qaeda did?

This again?

Do some better research. I bet you think housing crisis happened because of the war expenses too.

Just a hint - global economics and national budget doesn't work the same way as a personal checkbook.

[Rassah]

Al Qaeda has dealt a MASSIVE blow to USA, not in the forms of jets hitting buildings, but in the form of a totally unnecessary and wasteful $3 trillion dollar war, which in part led to massive economic damage to US. I wonder if these guys are just trying to provoke anyone they can to try to screw countries like Al Qaeda did?

This again?

Do some better research. I bet you think housing crisis happened because of the war expenses too.

Just a hint - global economics and national budget doesn't work the same way as a personal checkbook.

Did 9/11 and Iraq/Afghanistan war contribute to the economic depression in 2001/2002?

[Honeypot]

Al Qaeda has dealt a MASSIVE blow to USA, not in the forms of jets hitting buildings, but in the form of a totally unnecessary and wasteful $3 trillion dollar war, which in part led to massive economic damage to US. I wonder if these guys are just trying to provoke anyone they can to try to screw countries like Al Qaeda did?

This again?

Do some better research. I bet you think housing crisis happened because of the war expenses too.

Just a hint - global economics and national budget doesn't work the same way as a personal checkbook.

Did 9/11 and Iraq/Afghanistan war contribute to the economic depression in 2001/2002?

You need to educate yourself on the definition of 'depression'.

[Rassah]

Al Qaeda has dealt a MASSIVE blow to USA, not in the forms of jets hitting buildings, but in the form of a totally unnecessary and wasteful $3 trillion dollar war, which in part led to massive economic damage to US. I wonder if these guys are just trying to provoke anyone they can to try to screw countries like Al Qaeda did?

This again?

Do some better research. I bet you think housing crisis happened because of the war expenses too.

Just a hint - global economics and national budget doesn't work the same way as a personal checkbook.

Did 9/11 and Iraq/Afghanistan war contribute to the economic depression in 2001/2002?

You need to educate yourself on the definition of 'depression'.

Sorry, recession. Did an economic recession follow the attack and the US actions in Iraq? Or did the Iraq war play no part in in the economic woes that US experienced in 2002 through 2004?

[Honeypot]

Al Qaeda has dealt a MASSIVE blow to USA, not in the forms of jets hitting buildings, but in the form of a totally unnecessary and wasteful $3 trillion dollar war, which in part led to massive economic damage to US. I wonder if these guys are just trying to provoke anyone they can to try to screw countries like Al Qaeda did?

This again?

Do some better research. I bet you think housing crisis happened because of the war expenses too.

Just a hint - global economics and national budget doesn't work the same way as a personal checkbook.

Did 9/11 and Iraq/Afghanistan war contribute to the economic depression in 2001/2002?

You need to educate yourself on the definition of 'depression'.

Sorry, recession. Did an economic recession follow the attack and the US actions in Iraq? Or did the Iraq war play no part in in the economic woes that US experienced in 2002 through 2004?

Global instability of any kind leads to varying degrees of economic stagnation - that's a basic fact. You seem to believe that this cycle of economic growth followed by slight recession is the fault of the war. You need to understand basic economics first.

Had US not taken action, it would have resulted in complete instability of global oil supply stretching from europe, india to east asia and we would have had it much worse.

Iraq war played a mitigating role, but none of you fools are appreciative of the fact that we avoided a worse scenario, only what's in front of you 2 feet away.

You fuckers just try to gather together dots without even connecting them properly.

I bet you think you can say 'economic woes' for anything less then a positive growth

[Rassah]

I was actually referring to (and leading into the direction) the economic stagnation that followed, in large part due to uncertainty and dread surrounding the ongoing war, which had to be "fixed" by trying to stimulate the economy on with very low interest rates, which led to the housing bubble, which, combined with a massively increased government debt, fights over the debt ceiling, and general political and economic instability of the US, at least in small part contributed to the recession we had in 2008, and the current decline that we can't seem to get ourselves out of (is that good for connecting the dots?) Yes, I'm saying if US didn't spend $3 trillion to invade Iraq, it would have been much better off.

[Honeypot]

I was actually referring to (and leading into the direction) the economic stagnation that followed, in large part due to uncertainty and dread surrounding the ongoing war, which had to be "fixed" by trying to stimulate the economy on with very low interest rates, which led to the housing bubble, which, combined with a massively increased government debt, fights over the debt ceiling, and general political and economic instability of the US, at least in small part contributed to the recession we had in 2008, and the current decline that we can't seem to get ourselves out of (is that good for connecting the dots?) Yes, I'm saying if US didn't spend $3 trillion to invade Iraq, it would have been much better off.

How simple

Connecting the dots where economics are concerned must not be your forte. Going by that logic, I could also easily argue that not doing anything or not invading iraq would have caused the largest drain of oil resources the world has ever seen, causing an even bigger shock that would have eventually lead to a greater depression due to a housing bubble. The uncertainty from 9/11 would have caused a dip in the economies anyway, and be assured that economic cycle is in full swing now. But it's all because of the war, I assume

The housing bubble was in the making since the 90s and especially late 90s when the dot com bubble was coming to a head. Your ulterior motive of trying to slander the war itself at all costs ignores this very obvious fact that the seeds of economic recessions were planted before any war decisions were even considered, certainly before 9/11 and iraq war.

You did not even try to address what greater detrimental impact there would have been if US did not secure anything in the middle east to begin with. The resources themselves were secured better than ever, both physically and economically as a result of US intervention, though you would have to work through the usual bullshit 'waaa you set it all on fire' bitching to actually see the facts.

Why not answer my question? I have already answered yours point by point.

[Rassah]

I was actually referring to (and leading into the direction) the economic stagnation that followed, in large part due to uncertainty and dread surrounding the ongoing war, which had to be "fixed" by trying to stimulate the economy on with very low interest rates, which led to the housing bubble, which, combined with a massively increased government debt, fights over the debt ceiling, and general political and economic instability of the US, at least in small part contributed to the recession we had in 2008, and the current decline that we can't seem to get ourselves out of (is that good for connecting the dots?) Yes, I'm saying if US didn't spend $3 trillion to invade Iraq, it would have been much better off.

How simple

Connecting the dots where economics are concerned must not be your forte. Going by that logic, I could also easily argue that not doing anything or not invading iraq would have caused the largest drain of oil resources the world has ever seen

Where does that come from? Were we heavily dependent on Iraq oil? I don't remember Iraq threatening to stop selling it.

[dankkk]

Al Qaeda has dealt a MASSIVE blow to USA, not in the forms of jets hitting buildings, but in the form of a totally unnecessary and wasteful $3 trillion dollar war, which in part led to massive economic damage to US. I wonder if these guys are just trying to provoke anyone they can to try to screw countries like Al Qaeda did?

This again?

Do some better research. I bet you think housing crisis happened because of the war expenses too.

Just a hint - global economics and national budget doesn't work the same way as a personal checkbook.

Did 9/11 and Iraq/Afghanistan war contribute to the economic depression in 2001/2002?

You need to educate yourself on the definition of 'depression'.

Sorry, recession. Did an economic recession follow the attack and the US actions in Iraq? Or did the Iraq war play no part in in the economic woes that US experienced in 2002 through 2004?

The economic woes you reference are the result of the popping of the economic bubble from the late 1990's. If anything the war in Iraq would have stimulated the economy because additional money was spent as a result of war in ways that are the most efficient.

[bryant.coleman]

Where does that come from? Were we heavily dependent on Iraq oil? I don't remember Iraq threatening to stop selling it.

Before the American invasion, Iraq was selling its oil to the Chinese and Russian oil companies. After the invasion, the Americans seized all the fields, and distributed them among the US and EU firms, with a few spare ones going to others. Oil was the main reason why the US invaded Iraq. Don't tell me that they were concerned more with some imaginary WMDs.

[Honeypot]

I was actually referring to (and leading into the direction) the economic stagnation that followed, in large part due to uncertainty and dread surrounding the ongoing war, which had to be "fixed" by trying to stimulate the economy on with very low interest rates, which led to the housing bubble, which, combined with a massively increased government debt, fights over the debt ceiling, and general political and economic instability of the US, at least in small part contributed to the recession we had in 2008, and the current decline that we can't seem to get ourselves out of (is that good for connecting the dots?) Yes, I'm saying if US didn't spend $3 trillion to invade Iraq, it would have been much better off.

How simple

Connecting the dots where economics are concerned must not be your forte. Going by that logic, I could also easily argue that not doing anything or not invading iraq would have caused the largest drain of oil resources the world has ever seen

Where does that come from? Were we heavily dependent on Iraq oil? I don't remember Iraq threatening to stop selling it.

Global oil supply. That includes oil transportation routes.

Are you blind to geography?

I don't think you have the slightest idea about how things actually work.

[Honeypot]

Where does that come from? Were we heavily dependent on Iraq oil? I don't remember Iraq threatening to stop selling it.

Before the American invasion, Iraq was selling its oil to the Chinese and Russian oil companies. After the invasion, the Americans seized all the fields, and distributed them among the US and EU firms, with a few spare ones going to others. Oil was the main reason why the US invaded Iraq. Don't tell me that they were concerned more with some imaginary WMDs.

Imaginary? So I assume saddam gassed kurds by telling his people to collectively pass wind in the kurd's general direction?

Saddam long tried to acquire such weapons and obviously had no qualms about using them for extermination purposes even though he only had fraction of what other nations have.

What really matters is not who holds the biggest stick - it's a matter of who is holding any kind of stick in the first place.

Sargat, northern Iraq. They did find a chemical weapons manufacturing and storage facility during operation viking hammer that was conducted in conjunction with kurdish fighters and US special forces.

Considering US equipment and training, half baked usage of unreliable WMD with inaccurate delivery sytem against moving mobile US troops would have been a waste of time, not to mention not using them would have given idiots like you a reason to be manipulated.

Get the picture? If so, think twice before you bitch about 'WAAH WMD' 'WAAAH oil'

[Rassah]

I was actually referring to (and leading into the direction) the economic stagnation that followed, in large part due to uncertainty and dread surrounding the ongoing war, which had to be "fixed" by trying to stimulate the economy on with very low interest rates, which led to the housing bubble, which, combined with a massively increased government debt, fights over the debt ceiling, and general political and economic instability of the US, at least in small part contributed to the recession we had in 2008, and the current decline that we can't seem to get ourselves out of (is that good for connecting the dots?) Yes, I'm saying if US didn't spend $3 trillion to invade Iraq, it would have been much better off.

How simple

Connecting the dots where economics are concerned must not be your forte. Going by that logic, I could also easily argue that not doing anything or not invading iraq would have caused the largest drain of oil resources the world has ever seen

Where does that come from? Were we heavily dependent on Iraq oil? I don't remember Iraq threatening to stop selling it.

Global oil supply. That includes oil transportation routes.

Are you blind to geography?

I don't think you have the slightest idea about how things actually work.

I wasn't aware that Iraq was interfeering with global oil supply routes, or with oil production at all. When that whole thing happened, he wasn't really doing much of anything at all. And now Iraq's oil is being pumped by Lukoil, a Russian company. So the only switch was China, then US, and now Russia. I still don't understand how this would affect global oil supplies and prices. Iraq doesn't have a monopoly on the stuff.

[bryant.coleman]

Get the picture? If so, think twice before you bitch about 'WAAH WMD' 'WAAAH oil'

Iraq was under American occupation for almost a decade. Show me evidences found by the Americans of those imaginary WMDs held by Saddam, or just shut up. The United States Armed Forces is having the possession of the largest chemical and biological weapon inventory in the world. Before accusing someone else of WMDs, first destroy yours.

[dankkk]

I was actually referring to (and leading into the direction) the economic stagnation that followed, in large part due to uncertainty and dread surrounding the ongoing war, which had to be "fixed" by trying to stimulate the economy on with very low interest rates, which led to the housing bubble, which, combined with a massively increased government debt, fights over the debt ceiling, and general political and economic instability of the US, at least in small part contributed to the recession we had in 2008, and the current decline that we can't seem to get ourselves out of (is that good for connecting the dots?) Yes, I'm saying if US didn't spend $3 trillion to invade Iraq, it would have been much better off.

How simple

Connecting the dots where economics are concerned must not be your forte. Going by that logic, I could also easily argue that not doing anything or not invading iraq would have caused the largest drain of oil resources the world has ever seen

Where does that come from? Were we heavily dependent on Iraq oil? I don't remember Iraq threatening to stop selling it.

Global oil supply. That includes oil transportation routes.

Are you blind to geography?

I don't think you have the slightest idea about how things actually work.

There was really never a lot of oil going through Iraq, all the oil that passed through Iraq was produced in the country. What the true threat was that Saddam could have burned the oil fields, destroying a lot of the supply of oil in the country while doing serious harm to the envirement

[bryant.coleman]

There was really never a lot of oil going through Iraq

WTF?

Before the Kuwait invasion, Iraq was producing close to 3,000,000 barrels of crude per day, making it the fifth largest oil producer at that time (behind the USSR, KSA, USA and Iran). And almost 90% of this amount was exported, accounting for almost one-tenth of the global crude exports. Do you still stick to your stand that there was never a lot of oil going through Iraq?

[Rassah]

There was really never a lot of oil going through Iraq

WTF?

Before the Kuwait invasion, Iraq was producing close to 3,000,000 barrels of crude per day, making it the fifth largest oil producer at that time (behind the USSR, KSA, USA and Iran). And almost 90% of this amount was exported, accounting for almost one-tenth of the global crude exports. Do you still stick to your stand that there was never a lot of oil going through Iraq?

You forgot to quote the second sentence

all the oil that passed through Iraq was produced in the country

Maybe your English isn't as good, but going through is not the same as producing. Russian gas is going through Ukraine. Ukraine is not producing a lot of gas.

[bryant.coleman]

Maybe your English isn't as good, but going through is not the same as producing. Russian gas is going through Ukraine. Ukraine is not producing a lot of gas.

You seems to be having an IQ level below 70.

I never said that foreign oil passed through Iraq. But the volumes of Iraqi oil itself was quite significant, at over 10% of the world's exports. So the statement "There was really never a lot of oil going through Iraq" is wrong in the first place. 3 million barrels of crude per day is a very very bog amount.