ATG i think your figures are wrong seeing as the whole of the english force that 1/4 all the soldiers has only killed 700 taliban in the last year and a bit.ATG wrote:
There are SF and air controller guys all over the place directing that air support.IG-Calibre wrote:
Again i'll reiterate, the US is supplying Air support, while the Ground is being Held by the British/Canadians..
Afganistan; more remote and the fact is the Taliban guys are being butchered there. They mass in formations and are just slaughtered by our air and mortars. They don't learn from their mistakes. I read that one Canadian team has taken out 1500 Taliban in the last two weeks, mostly by calling in airstrikes. Pakistan army does nothing more than shelter Bin Laden.
Iraq; square in the heart of the Middle East we are going to establish and support free elections. The terrorist were surprised by our invansion of Iraq, and terrified of the prospects of us winning the battle for a regime change that would allow the freedom of the people. It was a raise of stakes they had not counted on after 9-11. They expected us to go to Afganistan and had the laughable idea that they would beat us, like they beat the Russians.
Freedom always blossoms once planted. As the Russians proved before their collapse as a "super-power" you can't give the people just a little freedom and expect them to live under tyranny. The numbers of cell phone, internet users as doubled sinse the war and the number of independant newspapers has increased by 4 times in Iraq. We are giving them a taste of freedom and the purple stained fingers proved they like it.
This is a bigger threat to radical Islamofacisism than our missles and bombsand Al Queda knows it, thats why they have tried so hard to stop us. Most of the world refuses to admit that a free part of the middle east may have the entire region demanding the same.
We picked Iraq because it is next to Iran, Syria etc., trouble makers and problemed peoples all, and there was U.N. sanctions in need of enforcement that gave us a LEGAL justification for the war. The people of Iran, should they see a free and happy Iraq, will overthrow the goat fucking radicals and demand their own freedom. http://www.ahwaz.org.uk/2006/03/execute … ng-by.html
Thats why you'll always here me defend the CONCEPT behind our invasion. Now as for the execution and leadership, I have many complaints.
- Index »
- Community »
- Debate and Serious Talk »
- Why does USA seem to care less about Afghanistan than Iraq?
I'm going to start keeping a tally of the amount of people who have no idea on how the oil market is shaped.ELITE-UK wrote:
OIL....OIL....OIL thats all america cares about these days
ELITE-UK just made the list. Do yourself a favor and educate yourself on the subject before you make a statement you obviously know nothing about. Start here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OPEC .
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Kmarion - explain plz.Kmarion wrote:
I'm going to start keeping a tally of the amount of people who have no idea on how the oil market is shaped.ELITE-UK wrote:
OIL....OIL....OIL thats all america cares about these days
ELITE-UK just made the list. Do yourself a favor and educate yourself on the subject before you make a statement you obviously know nothing about. Start here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OPEC .
Because canada is doing it for us.
I was gonna be a jerk and say "Why does CameronPoe seem to care less about Ireland than USA?" but I didn't. Oops.
Short answer.. OPEC controls production thus controlling the price per barrel. This is the most influencing factor on the price of gas/oil . People look at the profit margins of oil companies and think that the price of oil is dictated by what size yacht the oil execs have. This is small beans compared to what happens when OPEC decides to turn the faucet off.Pug wrote:
Kmarion - explain plz.Kmarion wrote:
I'm going to start keeping a tally of the amount of people who have no idea on how the oil market is shaped.ELITE-UK wrote:
OIL....OIL....OIL thats all america cares about these days
ELITE-UK just made the list. Do yourself a favor and educate yourself on the subject before you make a statement you obviously know nothing about. Start here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OPEC .
Last edited by Kmarion (2006-09-13 13:42:10)
Xbone Stormsurgezz
I'll find the story.Vilham wrote:
ATG i think your figures are wrong seeing as the whole of the english force that 1/4 all the soldiers has only killed 700 taliban in the last year and a bit.ATG wrote:
There are SF and air controller guys all over the place directing that air support.IG-Calibre wrote:
Again i'll reiterate, the US is supplying Air support, while the Ground is being Held by the British/Canadians..
Afganistan; more remote and the fact is the Taliban guys are being butchered there. They mass in formations and are just slaughtered by our air and mortars. They don't learn from their mistakes. I read that one Canadian team has taken out 1500 Taliban in the last two weeks, mostly by calling in airstrikes. Pakistan army does nothing more than shelter Bin Laden.
Iraq; square in the heart of the Middle East we are going to establish and support free elections. The terrorist were surprised by our invansion of Iraq, and terrified of the prospects of us winning the battle for a regime change that would allow the freedom of the people. It was a raise of stakes they had not counted on after 9-11. They expected us to go to Afganistan and had the laughable idea that they would beat us, like they beat the Russians.
Freedom always blossoms once planted. As the Russians proved before their collapse as a "super-power" you can't give the people just a little freedom and expect them to live under tyranny. The numbers of cell phone, internet users as doubled sinse the war and the number of independant newspapers has increased by 4 times in Iraq. We are giving them a taste of freedom and the purple stained fingers proved they like it.
This is a bigger threat to radical Islamofacisism than our missles and bombsand Al Queda knows it, thats why they have tried so hard to stop us. Most of the world refuses to admit that a free part of the middle east may have the entire region demanding the same.
We picked Iraq because it is next to Iran, Syria etc., trouble makers and problemed peoples all, and there was U.N. sanctions in need of enforcement that gave us a LEGAL justification for the war. The people of Iran, should they see a free and happy Iraq, will overthrow the goat fucking radicals and demand their own freedom. http://www.ahwaz.org.uk/2006/03/execute … ng-by.html
Thats why you'll always here me defend the CONCEPT behind our invasion. Now as for the execution and leadership, I have many complaints.
500+ dead taliban in the last two weeks alone.
At work, sorry can't spend too much time looking right now.
A lot more than 700 Taliban have been killed by British forces over the past year. Although from what I've heard the Canadians have been the most involved in combat. I don't know what your source is on that, but I have numerous sources which show much higher figures than that.ATG wrote:
I'll find the story.Vilham wrote:
ATG i think your figures are wrong seeing as the whole of the english force that 1/4 all the soldiers has only killed 700 taliban in the last year and a bit.ATG wrote:
There are SF and air controller guys all over the place directing that air support.
Afganistan; more remote and the fact is the Taliban guys are being butchered there. They mass in formations and are just slaughtered by our air and mortars. They don't learn from their mistakes. I read that one Canadian team has taken out 1500 Taliban in the last two weeks, mostly by calling in airstrikes. Pakistan army does nothing more than shelter Bin Laden.
Iraq; square in the heart of the Middle East we are going to establish and support free elections. The terrorist were surprised by our invansion of Iraq, and terrified of the prospects of us winning the battle for a regime change that would allow the freedom of the people. It was a raise of stakes they had not counted on after 9-11. They expected us to go to Afganistan and had the laughable idea that they would beat us, like they beat the Russians.
Freedom always blossoms once planted. As the Russians proved before their collapse as a "super-power" you can't give the people just a little freedom and expect them to live under tyranny. The numbers of cell phone, internet users as doubled sinse the war and the number of independant newspapers has increased by 4 times in Iraq. We are giving them a taste of freedom and the purple stained fingers proved they like it.
This is a bigger threat to radical Islamofacisism than our missles and bombsand Al Queda knows it, thats why they have tried so hard to stop us. Most of the world refuses to admit that a free part of the middle east may have the entire region demanding the same.
We picked Iraq because it is next to Iran, Syria etc., trouble makers and problemed peoples all, and there was U.N. sanctions in need of enforcement that gave us a LEGAL justification for the war. The people of Iran, should they see a free and happy Iraq, will overthrow the goat fucking radicals and demand their own freedom. http://www.ahwaz.org.uk/2006/03/execute … ng-by.html
Thats why you'll always here me defend the CONCEPT behind our invasion. Now as for the execution and leadership, I have many complaints.
500+ dead taliban in the last two weeks alone.
At work, sorry can't spend too much time looking right now.
500+ sounds plausible. Although they weren't quite keeping pace over the last 5 days apparently. I'm suprised it wasn't more (although I suppose you did say 500+).
5 Canadians and one American soldier were killed in those 9 days, 14 British troops died in a plane accident, another Canadian died in a friendly fire incident.The Guardian wrote:
Nato's battle to subdue the Taliban in southern Afghanistan intensified at the weekend when the international force said it had killed 94 Taliban fighters in air strikes and ground attacks in the Kandahar region, bringing the toll from nine days of combat to more than 420 deaths.
The British currently have the most troops in Afghanistan and are in command of the NATO backed ISAF. Requests to NATO for another 2500 troops have been denied, British commanders are still calling on other countries to live up to the commitments they made earlier and send in more troops.
There are other US troops in Afghanistan though - not as part of the ISAF.
Estimates place remaining Taliban numbers at around 7000. Only another few months to go then.
Last edited by Bertster7 (2006-09-13 14:08:20)
Right...but what Elite is saying (at least I think he is saying) is that we invaded for Oil. I think he's incorrect. But there's a conspiracy theory that goes like this: 1) Invade Iraq, 2) Puppet government gives US good prices, 3) by Iraq leaving OPEC. If so thats a good reason for Iraq and not Afghanistan?Kmarion wrote:
Short answer.. OPEC controls production thus controlling the price per barrel. This is the most influencing factor on the price of gas/oil . People look at the profit margins of oil companies and think that the price of oil is dictated by what size yacht the oil execs have. This is small beans compared to what happens when OPEC decides to turn the faucet off.Pug wrote:
Kmarion - explain plz.Kmarion wrote:
I'm going to start keeping a tally of the amount of people who have no idea on how the oil market is shaped.
ELITE-UK just made the list. Do yourself a favor and educate yourself on the subject before you make a statement you obviously know nothing about. Start here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OPEC .
Of course, I do not believe the Iraq = oil theory. I also do not believe that the new Iraq gov't will be rolling out the barrells. The above is a circumstantial argument in my opinion.
However, if Elite believes the Iraq = oil theory, then you're argument does not apply...it doesn't mean he doesn't understand the oil market...
Last edited by Pug (2006-09-13 14:03:57)
That is what I was saying my man. BTW we still purchase oil from Iraq. The cost of oil is determined on availability in which invading Iraq would not change. It is the Organization OPEC that controls availability. If they wanted to they could cut the cost of gas in half in an instant (or double it).Pug wrote:
Right...but what Elite is saying (at least I think he is saying) is that we invaded for Oil. I think he's incorrect. But there's a conspiracy theory that goes like this: 1) Invade Iraq, 2) Puppet government gives US good prices, 3) by Iraq leaving OPEC. If so thats a good reason for Iraq and not Afghanistan?Kmarion wrote:
Short answer.. OPEC controls production thus controlling the price per barrel. This is the most influencing factor on the price of gas/oil . People look at the profit margins of oil companies and think that the price of oil is dictated by what size yacht the oil execs have. This is small beans compared to what happens when OPEC decides to turn the faucet off.Pug wrote:
Kmarion - explain plz.
Of course, I do not believe the Iraq = oil theory. I also do not believe that the new Iraq gov't will be rolling out the barrells. The above is a circumstantial argument in my opinion.
However, if Elite believes the Iraq = oil theory, then you're argument does not apply...it doesn't mean he doesn't understand the oil market...
I do understand the puppet theory by the way but Iraq does not have the influence that a nation like Saudi Arabia
Last edited by Kmarion (2006-09-13 14:15:33)
Xbone Stormsurgezz
No offense, but obviously you would know this living here and all. Many (if not all) dont care about one more than the other. There are troops in both, both have places where they are shot at, attacked, bombed, etc, etc. There is less media coverage because essentially there is "less" that happens there. There isnt much less that happens, but Afghanistan is more remote so "less" happens. In reality, its just not as frequent. I give a big thank you to the Canadian/British troops that are helping us there. BTW, there are still plenty of Americans in Afghanistan.ELITE-UK wrote:
OIL....OIL....OIL thats all america cares about these days
NOTE: someone mentioned the Canadian/British are occupying the southern region. FYI, there is more to Afghanistan than that region.
I don't think the oil was a big factor. I don't think the US invaded for oil, especially since many oil companies pleaded with the US government not to go into Iraq because it would raise oil prices, which it has.Pug wrote:
Right...but what Elite is saying (at least I think he is saying) is that we invaded for Oil. I think he's incorrect. But there's a conspiracy theory that goes like this: 1) Invade Iraq, 2) Puppet government gives US good prices, 3) by Iraq leaving OPEC. If so thats a good reason for Iraq and not Afghanistan?Kmarion wrote:
Short answer.. OPEC controls production thus controlling the price per barrel. This is the most influencing factor on the price of gas/oil . People look at the profit margins of oil companies and think that the price of oil is dictated by what size yacht the oil execs have. This is small beans compared to what happens when OPEC decides to turn the faucet off.Pug wrote:
Kmarion - explain plz.
Of course, I do not believe the Iraq = oil theory. I also do not believe that the new Iraq gov't will be rolling out the barrells. The above is a circumstantial argument in my opinion.
However, if Elite believes the Iraq = oil theory, then you're argument does not apply...it doesn't mean he doesn't understand the oil market...
The cost of the war could in no way be outweighed by any preferential oil deals the US may make with Iraq in future. At the moment there are no amazing oil deals between the US and Iraq.
I really don't think oil was an issue. The only way you could realistically claim that oil was a factor in the decision would be if certain government officials were getting big financial incentives to go to war with Iraq by companies who would get lucrative contracts associated with the oil. I find that scenario unlikely as well.
If anything invading caused oil cost to increase.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
It did. As the oil companies had warned it would.Kmarion wrote:
If anything invading caused oil cost to increase.
The only reason people claim the war is about oil is that there is oil there.
I don't get why the war did happen though. There doesn't seem to be any sensible explaination.
If the Iraq war hadn't happened, much more money would have been available for the reconstruction of Afghanistan. Reconstruction is important, it builds support. If more effort (money really) had been put into the reconstruction in Afghanistan the recent surge in Taliban support would not be an issue. Having a stable Afghanistan would be much better than the current situation. I think that would have been achieved by this time had it not been for the Iraq war.
Last edited by Bertster7 (2006-09-13 14:24:45)
So how is covering Brits and Canadians from the sky "leaving them to pick up the peices?" And don't even start on something along the lines of "omg friendly fire!" because FF has existed since the beginning of war, and has lower rates now than any point in history. Plus as already stated, we have SF guys in there working with the Afgan forces to fight the remnants of the Taliban.IG-Calibre wrote:
Again i'll reiterate, the US is supplying Air support, while the Ground is being Held by the British/Canadians..
First, I can't believe I'm arguing about something I absolutely don't believe.Kmarion wrote:
That is what I was saying my man. BTW we still purchase oil from Iraq. The cost of oil is determined on availability in which invading Iraq would not change. It is the Organization OPEC that controls availability. If they wanted to they could cut the cost of gas in half in an instant (or double it).
I do understand the puppet theory by the way but Iraq does not have the influence that a nation like Saudi Arabia
1) Iraq gets invaded
2) Iraq becomes the USA service station by:
a) Leaving OPEC
b) Supplying all gas needed to USA only at cost
Now, the problem - can Iraq supply enough? If not, than the rest of OPEC cuts the supply.
That's the conspiracy theory - Iraq has enough for every American to water their lawns with oil.
You are quite right. Providing air support is very important. There are also plenty of US troops in Afghanistan. It is not the US who is letting the ISAF down, it is other European nations who are unready to commit more troops to a situation where they would do a lot of good.Sgt_Sieg wrote:
So how is covering Brits and Canadians from the sky "leaving them to pick up the peices?" And don't even start on something along the lines of "omg friendly fire!" because FF has existed since the beginning of war, and has lower rates now than any point in history. Plus as already stated, we have SF guys in there working with the Afgan forces to fight the remnants of the Taliban.IG-Calibre wrote:
Again i'll reiterate, the US is supplying Air support, while the Ground is being Held by the British/Canadians..
Although on the friendly fire issue, you are right the levels are lower than ever. The US do still have the highest friendly fire rates in NATO though and that is proportionally to the number of troops they have, so it's not just because they have more troops there.
A number of factors come into play here. The obvious is bad intelligence. I do agree that there needed to be some action taken due to the countless UN violations but a war can only be justified if that country is seen as an immediate threat. Knowing what we know now after the fact we can see they did not have that capacity to pose this threat. It could also be argued that if Iraq had complied with the resolutions set forth by the UN we would have known this. Iraq's lack of desire to participate and follow the rules they agreed to may have eventually led to this invasion.Bertster7 wrote:
It did. As the oil companies had warned it would.Kmarion wrote:
If anything invading caused oil cost to increase.
The only reason people claim the war is about oil is that there is oil there.
I don't get why the war did happen though. There doesn't seem to be any sensible explanation.
If the Iraq war hadn't happened, much more money would have been available for the reconstruction of Afghanistan. Reconstruction is important, it builds support. If more effort (money really) had been put into the reconstruction in Afghanistan the recent surge in Taliban support would not be an issue. Having a stable Afghanistan would be much better than the current situation. I think that would have been achieved by this time had it not been for the Iraq war.
Last edited by Kmarion (2006-09-13 14:46:13)
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Great googlymoogly...agree for once.Bertster7 wrote:
I don't think the oil was a big factor. I don't think the US invaded for oil, especially since many oil companies pleaded with the US government not to go into Iraq because it would raise oil prices, which it has.
The cost of the war could in no way be outweighed by any preferential oil deals the US may make with Iraq in future. At the moment there are no amazing oil deals between the US and Iraq.
I really don't think oil was an issue. The only way you could realistically claim that oil was a factor in the decision would be if certain government officials were getting big financial incentives to go to war with Iraq by companies who would get lucrative contracts associated with the oil. I find that scenario unlikely as well.
To add - after a quick and non-exhaustive websearch - pre-1990 oil exports were 3.5 million barrels/day. Now somewhere between 500k-1.0M bbl/day.
Wow you would think it would increase with time and demand. Prices are coming down locally but that is most likely due to the end of the summer driving season.Pug wrote:
Great googlymoogly...agree for once.Bertster7 wrote:
I don't think the oil was a big factor. I don't think the US invaded for oil, especially since many oil companies pleaded with the US government not to go into Iraq because it would raise oil prices, which it has.
The cost of the war could in no way be outweighed by any preferential oil deals the US may make with Iraq in future. At the moment there are no amazing oil deals between the US and Iraq.
I really don't think oil was an issue. The only way you could realistically claim that oil was a factor in the decision would be if certain government officials were getting big financial incentives to go to war with Iraq by companies who would get lucrative contracts associated with the oil. I find that scenario unlikely as well.
To add - after a quick and non-exhaustive websearch - pre-1990 oil exports were 3.5 million barrels/day. Now somewhere between 500k-1.0M bbl/day.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Well, they are producing 2 M bbl/day. Where's the rest going?
The government they installed in Afghanistan is a joke. Wouldn't you expect a government website to be available in at least one of the official languages of the country? I would.Bertster7 wrote:
It did. As the oil companies had warned it would.Kmarion wrote:
If anything invading caused oil cost to increase.
The only reason people claim the war is about oil is that there is oil there.
I don't get why the war did happen though. There doesn't seem to be any sensible explaination.
If the Iraq war hadn't happened, much more money would have been available for the reconstruction of Afghanistan. Reconstruction is important, it builds support. If more effort (money really) had been put into the reconstruction in Afghanistan the recent surge in Taliban support would not be an issue. Having a stable Afghanistan would be much better than the current situation. I think that would have been achieved by this time had it not been for the Iraq war.
The current government don't: http://www.af/
^^ I would if that country had a decent amount of people "online". How many afghans do we have here at bf2s..lol
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Was that supposed to prove something?
From your BBC link
Thats 4 times as many soldiers as the UK and 10 times as many Canadiens while we're in Iraq.
I guess you're fluent in hole speaking.IG-Calibre wrote:
the ground is being held by the British and the Canadians so stop talking out your hole.
I can't find troop numbers in the South specifically but its a fact were still there .. alot more than your country is. Be sure to ignore the fact that the 3 1/2 years that America led the coalition and specifically in the south there was no significant resistance and after the 2005 handover to the ISAF they've been unable to maintain troop numbers and quality that allowed the South to become the Taliban haven its becoming.BBC wrote:
Half of them are in the south where Canadian and British forces are sharing the burden with US aircraft support and special forces on the ground.
Heres a few but i figure most if not all are not really Afghani or have never been to the sitekmarion wrote:
^^ I would if that country had a decent amount of people "online". How many afghans do we have here at bf2s..lol
Last edited by ﻍﻏﺱﺖﻇﻸﮚ (2006-09-13 20:10:24)
Kmarion wrote:
That is what I was saying my man. BTW we still purchase oil from Iraq. The cost of oil is determined on availability in which invading Iraq would not change. It is the Organization OPEC that controls availability. If they wanted to they could cut the cost of gas in half in an instant (or double it).Pug wrote:
Right...but what Elite is saying (at least I think he is saying) is that we invaded for Oil. I think he's incorrect. But there's a conspiracy theory that goes like this: 1) Invade Iraq, 2) Puppet government gives US good prices, 3) by Iraq leaving OPEC. If so thats a good reason for Iraq and not Afghanistan?Kmarion wrote:
Short answer.. OPEC controls production thus controlling the price per barrel. This is the most influencing factor on the price of gas/oil . People look at the profit margins of oil companies and think that the price of oil is dictated by what size yacht the oil execs have. This is small beans compared to what happens when OPEC decides to turn the faucet off.
Of course, I do not believe the Iraq = oil theory. I also do not believe that the new Iraq gov't will be rolling out the barrells. The above is a circumstantial argument in my opinion.
However, if Elite believes the Iraq = oil theory, then you're argument does not apply...it doesn't mean he doesn't understand the oil market...
I do understand the puppet theory by the way but Iraq does not have the influence that a nation like Saudi Arabia
QFTWBertster7 wrote:
It did. As the oil companies had warned it would.Kmarion wrote:
If anything invading caused oil cost to increase.
The only reason people claim the war is about oil is that there is oil there.
I don't get why the war did happen though. There doesn't seem to be any sensible explaination.
If the Iraq war hadn't happened, much more money would have been available for the reconstruction of Afghanistan. Reconstruction is important, it builds support. If more effort (money really) had been put into the reconstruction in Afghanistan the recent surge in Taliban support would not be an issue. Having a stable Afghanistan would be much better than the current situation. I think that would have been achieved by this time had it not been for the Iraq war.
I don't see any increase in oil coming TO the U.S. from Iraq, anyone that thinks we went for Oil is looking at outdated talking points and doesn't know a damn thing about how oil trade or finding proof works.
- Index »
- Community »
- Debate and Serious Talk »
- Why does USA seem to care less about Afghanistan than Iraq?