ISIS Takes Control of Mosul

#1,476
#1,476
barknoxbrawler said:
Yes. It's a conspiracy from the second highest office in America. Dick Cheney is behind it all. Hide your kids...... Hide your wives......
Click to expand...

You don't find all of this to be a bit too coincidental?

Well, nonetheless, I think we can all agree Iraq was the worst American foreign policy decision most likely in our nation's history. And if anyone can't admit that, then there's no point to even have a discussion with him/her about it.
 
#1,477
#1,477
volprof said:
You don't find all of this to be a bit too coincidental?

Well, nonetheless, I think we can all agree Iraq was the worst American foreign policy decision most likely in our nation's history. And if anyone can't admit that, then there's no point to even have a discussion with him/her about it.
Click to expand...

I thought Dick Cheney wanted the profits from Iraq's oil fields. How is he going to get that with ISIS taking control (which is also a Saudi funded group)?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#1,478
#1,478
volprof said:
Can't do anything now. Iraq's Iranian masters and Dick Cheney friends wanted us out, so Maliki forced us out.

Isn't it funny, how we get rid of two of Iran's greatest existential threats in Saddam's Iraq and in Sunni Taliban Afghanistan?

Coincidence? Or Dick Cheney helping out his Iranian oil partners?

You make the call.
Click to expand...

yep getting rid of the Taliban was a secret Cheney plot :crazy:
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#1,479
#1,479
davethevol said:
I thought Dick Cheney wanted the profits from Iraq's oil fields. How is he going to get that with ISIS taking control (which is also a Saudi funded group)?
Click to expand...

Nope. Just Iran. For access to Iranian markets through his foreign subsidiaries, he made a deal.

You don't have to believe me, but there is video of him before he was president (I do not misspeak) giving a lecture to his Halliburton execs and major shareholders where he rues the fact that US companies unfortunately can't get in with Iran at the moment.

Once the Iranian beast has been unleashed, as he allowed, it will be very difficult to put it back in its cage. Unfortunately, Obama and the next president have to deal with that. Not former President Dick.
 
#1,480
#1,480
If you don't agree with me that Dick Cheney should be tried and then promptly executed for his role in betraying and weakening this nation more than any other individual within the last century, then can you at least admit he's a slimeball?

I don't hold much against Bush. He strikes me as a well-intentioned novice who probably still hasn't figured which way is up or down.

But Dick, Dick is a genuinely evil human being, if you can even call him a "human being."
 
#1,481
#1,481
volprof said:
Nope. Just Iran. For access to Iranian markets through his foreign subsidiaries, he made a deal.

You don't have to believe me, but there is video of him before he was president (I do not misspeak) giving a lecture to his Halliburton execs and major shareholders where he rues the fact that US companies unfortunately can't get in with Iran at the moment.

Once the Iranian beast has been unleashed, as he allowed, it will be very difficult to put it back in its cage. Unfortunately, Obama and the next president have to deal with that. Not former President Dick.
Click to expand...
Look, I don't doubt Cheney is a bad guy, but why would he want Iran unleashed? For war profits?
 
#1,483
#1,483
davethevol said:
Look, I don't doubt Cheney is a bad guy, but why would he want Iran unleashed? For war profits?
Click to expand...

Good, so we can at least agree on that point.

I know it's all speculative on my part, but it is something I happen to believe. I don't tend towards conspiracy thinking, but on this issue, I do think there is something there.

And regarding his exact role with Iran, I don't know for certain. But I do think something very shady went on there in rallying the American people to war. Someone (most likely Dick leading the charge) decided to strike when the iron was hot, and they did. And now we're in a mess.

Once Humpty Dumpty has broke, he can't be put back together again. Iran is stronger now than it has been since it was the Persian Empire, and we have enabled it.
 
#1,485
#1,485
Velo Vol said:
Worse than Vietnam?
Click to expand...

In terms of American lives, yes, you're right. Vietnam was much worse.

But in terms of strategy, no. Here's the difference:

1. Vietnam was and is a coherent nation. The Vietnamese are a coherent people. We could reasonably expect to invade Vietnam and then leave with it being a stable, coherent nation, whether we won or lost.

2. Iraq was and is an incoherent nation (and always will be). The Iraqis are not a coherent people. Only a ****-for-brains could reasonably expect to invade Iraq and then leave it being a stable, coherent nation, whether we won or lost.

So, strategically, Iraq was a much worse foreign policy decision, and it is one that will continue to cost us for the unforeseeable future.
 
Last edited:
#1,486
#1,486
why would Haliburton want to go to Iran when they can go to North Dakota and get way more business. The Bakken field alone produces more than Iran. The Eagle Ford shale in Haliburtons backyard produces more than Iran. Lol at your theory
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#1,487
#1,487
volprof said:
You don't find all of this to be a bit too coincidental?

Well, nonetheless, I think we can all agree Iraq was the worst American foreign policy decision most likely in our nation's history. And if anyone can't admit that, then there's no point to even have a discussion with him/her about it.
Click to expand...
You are apparently not as well versed as you pretend to be in American foreign policy. What about Operation Ajax in Iran in 1953, during the Eisenhower administration? How about Truman breaking FDR's 1945 promise to the Arabs to include them in any agreement concerning the implementation of the Balfour Declaration of 1917?

Iraq would have never been a problem without these 2 events, precipitated by, if not directly caused, by the 2 world wars. Every administration since those 2 fatal mistakes have been dealing with the consequences.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#1,488
#1,488
volprof said:
In terms of American lives, yes, you're right. Vietnam was much worse.

But in terms of strategy, no. Here's the difference:

1. Vietnam was and is a coherent nation. The Vietnamese are a coherent people. We could reasonably expect to invade Vietnam and then leave with it being a stable, coherent nation, whether we won or lost.

2. Iraq was and is an incoherent nation (and always will be). The Iraqis are not a coherent people. Only a ****-for-brains could reasonably expect to invade Iraq and then leave it being a stable, coherent nation, whether we won or lost.

So, strategically, Iraq was a much worse foreign policy decision, and it is one that will continue to cost us for the unforeseeable future.
Click to expand...
Racist towards the Arab people.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#1,490
#1,490
volprof said:
In terms of American lives, yes, you're right. Vietnam was much worse.
Click to expand...

Isn't that a first-tier criterion for the success of a policy?

VolsNSkinsFan said:
why would Haliburton want to go to Iran when they can go to North Dakota and get way more business.
Click to expand...

Remind us how much oil Iraq produced in 2002 and how much oil North Dakota produced in 2002?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#1,491
#1,491
utvolpj said:
Exactly. Doing nothing is a strategy even if it's because he doesn't have a clue what's going on
Click to expand...

I think we should let Saudi Arabia and the other neighboring countries handle it. Our role as world protectors, while probably with good intentions, has made us a target. Let's just stay out of stuff that doesn't threaten us.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#1,492
#1,492
VolsNSkinsFan said:
why would Haliburton want to go to Iran when they can go to North Dakota and get way more business. The Bakken field alone produces more than Iran. The Eagle Ford shale in Haliburtons backyard produces more than Iran. Lol at your theory
Click to expand...
The Prof is a hater. Cheney is a good man. I have a trusted friend who once worked with Cheney in the Ford administration.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#1,493
#1,493
Kingston Vol said:
I think we should let Saudi Arabia and the other neighboring countries handle it. Our role as world protectors, while probably with good intentions, has made us a target. Let's just stay out of stuff that doesn't threaten us.
Click to expand...

World trade would almost grind to a halt if our Navy wasn't out keeping the shipping lanes open and relatively pirate free.
 
#1,495
#1,495
Velo Vol said:
Isn't that a first-tier criterion for the success of a policy?



Remind us how much oil Iraq produced in 2002 and how much oil North Dakota produced in 2002?
Click to expand...
Let's be honest about the Middle East. If they didn't have oil, and if religion didn't exist , nobody would ever step foot in that hellhole. We have been meddling there for quite some time. Don't shortchange the power and influence of the large Jewish financial institutions on our foreign policy for the last 100 years. Did you ever notice the last names of the various heads of the fed over the years?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top