Russian SU-24 - Shot Down by Turkey

Roar87 · 1 Dec 2015 at 19:59

Trig said:
Yes, but, as I have asked many people to do, and none have done, get 3 maps, on the first have where foreign conflicts are that cover things that they have used as an excuse to go into places like Iraq etc, second, where they have actaully gone in, and third, where the oil is...

Overlay the three..

In fact just for **** and giggles, get a fourth map with all of the places where bombing has helped the situation..

Countries protect their interests, low oil prices are a huge interest of the US and Europe as it is vital for our economy. Imagine if the price of everything doubled tomorrow, imagine the effect that would have on our country - it's hardly surprising we protect oil supplies

Nutella33 · 1 Dec 2015 at 20:05

Trig said:
Yes, but, as I have asked many people to do, and none have done, get 3 maps, on the first have where foreign conflicts are that cover things that they have used as an excuse to go into places like Iraq etc, second, where they have actaully gone in, and third, where the oil is...

Overlay the three..

In fact just for **** and giggles, get a fourth map with all of the places where bombing has helped the situation..

I don't think that works quite as well as you think it does.

Of the top 20 Oil producers in the world (63% of world production), Only 2 have been bombed or invaded by "the west". In which 1 of them, the bombing/conflict actually helped...Kuwait. You can actually take it to the top 40 producers and only include two other nations (libya) however as western dealing oil contracts were signed with the old regime it would be nonsensical to include that as the "west" already had its supply, which you are contending is the reason for conflict. The other is vietnam, whose oil production occurred after the conflict.

Another two are considered politically "hostile" with the west but generally for internal political reasons (1979 revolution and the other a left over from the cold war and its ideologies ) and no western conflicts/invasions have been fought there.

RoboCod · 1 Dec 2015 at 20:40

Nutella33 said:
I don't think that works quite as well as you think it does.

Of the top 20 Oil producers in the world (63% of world production), Only 2 have been bombed or invaded by "the west". In which 1 of them, the bombing/conflict actually helped...Kuwait. You can actually take it to the top 40 producers and only include two other nations (libya) however as western dealing oil contracts were signed with the old regime it would be nonsensical to include that as the "west" already had its supply, which you are contending is the reason for conflict. The other is vietnam, whose oil production occurred after the conflict.

Another two are considered politically "hostile" with the west but generally for internal political reasons (1979 revolution and the other a left over from the cold war and its ideologies ) and no western conflicts/invasions have been fought there.

Oh you. This doesn't validate that the big bad West rapes and plunders everywhere for oil, so therefore it can't be true and we must discard it as nonsense immediately.

Trig · 1 Dec 2015 at 20:54

Nutella33 said:
Of the top 20 Oil producers in the world (63% of world production), Only 2 have been bombed or invaded by "the west". In which 1 of them, the bombing/conflict actually helped...Kuwait.

Who did bombing Kuwait help?
If you are on about the two Iraq wars, remind me how they became issues, and what the bombing has helped with since it happened and what the fallout of those wars is, perhaps the reasons that the wars started in the first place, as in actual valid reasons, not the ones the media and governments peddled and not the ones that were lies..

dowie · 1 Dec 2015 at 21:01

Trig said:
Who did bombing Kuwait help?

It helped Kuwait, the other poster pointed that out already!

If you are on about the two Iraq wars, remind me how they became issues, and what the bombing has helped with since it happened and what the fallout of those wars is, perhaps the reasons that the wars started in the first place, as in actual valid reasons, not the ones the media and governments peddled and not the ones that were lies..

basically a dictator decided to invade his southern neighbour and capture their oil fields after accumulating lots of debt as a result of fighting his eastern neighbour

Dis86 · 1 Dec 2015 at 21:50

Trig said:
Who did bombing Kuwait help?

Lol. Durgh.

drunkenmaster · 1 Dec 2015 at 22:16

Zethor said:
The US is in the Middle East because it has had an interventionist foreign policy since the events of WWI and WWII. We should be thankful for it, terrorism is a small price to pay for peace in the West.

Before the US got involved Iran was liberalising, it was the US's direct intervention that prevented it. It is in fact the US's constant interference that has generated generation after generation of those who hate the west and want to stop being oppressed. The US used liberal friends in Iran to push an agenda against it's supposed enemies. When Iran was fed up of being pushed around and used as a US play thing they had a student led revolution who were looking for peace but the revolution was taken over and controlled by religious leaders who took power and turned Iran into what it's been since... a monumental problem.

Almost every one of our enemies, every current terrorist group that targets the west exists because of the interference not in spite of it... half of them were trained and armed by the west as well.

Your literally couldn't be more wrong. If we left the middle east alone one by one those countries would have liberalised, educated themselves and a good portion of them would be secular by now with most of the current generation teaching the next generation that education, working and providing for their families were goals to aspire to. Instead the current generation has been bombed, beaten, brutalised and people looking for power point the finger at the West(fairly in many cases) and provide a common enemy.

RoboCod said:
Oh you. This doesn't validate that the big bad West rapes and plunders everywhere for oil, so therefore it can't be true and we must discard it as nonsense immediately.

People are stupid, that is why, oil isn't the issue directly. Military is, if you don't have a conflict you don't have a reason to keep spending massively on the military. How many trillions get pushed into military contractors pockets with each skirmish? The US has been in near perpetual conflict for a reason. Oil isn't a small reason to go to certain places and having influence over oil production helps your own oil prices, but that is one small part of a way to make profit out of war.

It irks me that every time someone mentions America go to war for money 98% of people jump to oil and others say it's wrong because they don't go in for oil while ignoring the ridiculously profitable sectors that make 100's of billions in profit out of war.

Trig · 1 Dec 2015 at 22:42

Dis86 said:
Lol. Durgh.

Ahh yes, USA, they bomb a country, then get to put who they want in power, and then send in their own companies to rebuild that said country and make a mint from it..

Yup, most definately in the Kuwait side of the park that one..

Dis86 · 1 Dec 2015 at 23:13

Trig said:
Ahh yes, USA, they bomb a country, then get to put who they want in power, and then send in their own companies to rebuild that said country and make a mint from it..

Yup, most definately in the Kuwait side of the park that one..

I think you need to go do some reading. You're making yourself look very stupid.
Kuwait was invaded by iraq. A coalition of countries repelled them. There was no change in power. There was no rebuilding.

Trig · 1 Dec 2015 at 23:54

Think you just missed my point there chap...

RaohNS · 2 Dec 2015 at 07:53

dowie said:
It helped Kuwait

basically a dictator decided to invade his southern neighbour and capture their oil fields after accumulating lots of debt as a result of fighting his eastern neighbour

Media misinformation works!!!! This is proof.

Go looking for the real reasons he invaded

leaskovski · 3 Dec 2015 at 13:03

I see Russia has laid out how it thinks Turkey are trading with ISIS...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-34990548

Love how they even link the MPs family to the trading as well!!!

doodah · 3 Dec 2015 at 13:09

Wonder if those Russian satellites have images of troops movements of Russian soldiers on their border with Ukraine

?

leaskovski · 3 Dec 2015 at 13:11

Of course not!! They have always been over Turkey!

dowie · 3 Dec 2015 at 13:25

RaohNS said:
Media misinformation works!!!! This is proof.

Go looking for the real reasons he invaded

given that I don't have a crystal ball I'm not sure what your personal opinion of the 'real' reasons are

perhaps you could simply explain here - some claim by Saddam over them because they were together under the Ottoman Empire or something? Or something to do with Jews?

RaohNS · 3 Dec 2015 at 14:11

dowie said:
given that I don't have a crystal ball I'm not sure what your personal opinion of the 'real' reasons are

perhaps you could simply explain here - some claim by Saddam over them because they were together under the Ottoman Empire or something? Or something to do with Jews?

He invaded because the al Sabah family reneged on an agreement and the reason he seized oil fields were that they used American technology to slant drill into Saddams southern oilfield(s). There are many other reasons as well that I have neither the time or effort to go into such as the oil being stolen was sold for below market prices to the US and Japan. Amazing how a man accused of millions of deaths (if you watch his trial not the US edition or UK edition) was found guilty not of 1,000,000s of deaths, not 100,000s not 10,000s or 1,000s but of 140 odd. Even the evidence was shaky.

Now let me say I know Sadman Insane was somewhat a tyrant and yes was brutal but compared to ISIS he is a summer breeze. His natural death would have been his end. I view any western article of such importance with a great deal of skepticism especially from the BBC

Nelly · 3 Dec 2015 at 14:16

Ignore, will post in the Daseh thread.

Dis86 · 3 Dec 2015 at 14:25

Raoh. I suppose the thousands of kurds he killed just gassed themselves then?

dowie · 3 Dec 2015 at 14:51

RaohNS said:
He invaded because the al Sabah family reneged on an agreement and the reason he seized oil fields were that they used American technology to slant drill into Saddams southern oilfield(s). There are many other reasons as well that I have neither the time or effort to go into such as the oil being stolen was sold for below market prices to the US and Japan. Amazing how a man accused of millions of deaths (if you watch his trial not the US edition or UK edition) was found guilty not of 1,000,000s of deaths, not 100,000s not 10,000s or 1,000s but of 140 odd. Even the evidence was shaky.

Now let me say I know Sadman Insane was somewhat a tyrant and yes was brutal but compared to ISIS he is a summer breeze. His natural death would have been his end. I view any western article of such importance with a great deal of skepticism especially from the BBC

slant drilling was his claimed reason yes, but the bigger issue for him really was the huge debt after the Iran/Iraq war which he wanted Kuwait and Saudi to forgive

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Kuwait

KingOfTheDaves · 3 Dec 2015 at 15:01

RaohNS said:
Amazing how a man accused of millions of deaths (if you watch his trial not the US edition or UK edition) was found guilty not of 1,000,000s of deaths, not 100,000s not 10,000s or 1,000s but of 140 odd. Even the evidence was shaky.

What's that got to do with the price of bread? :confused:

You charge on what is easiest to prove he did in a court of law, not what you think he did. It isn't easy to prove a crime 20-30 years after an event, especially if you happen to be President and have enough power erase the evidence.

For example, Harold Shipman was only found guilty of 15 murders, doesn't mean he only killed 15 people.