Oh Sarah, you tease!

reply to post by Janky Red

Gulf I which included several oil rich nations, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iraq, and the current war in Iraq

That is a huge misrepresentation if I ever saw one.

We were not at war with Saudi Arabia, and yet Osama was of Saudi nationality, and most of the 9-11 hijackers were of Saudi nationality. Iraq set the Kuwait oil fields ablaze. Iraq launched an invasion of Kuwait. They also were building up military power on the border of Iran. We seem to have saved Iran from Iraq. Do you ever research any of this or just go with your local communist party ideologues?

Originally posted by Janky Red

Gulf I which included several oil rich nations, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iraq, and the current war in Iraq

Afganistan also holds oil, but more importantly it has long been discussed as a strategic conduit
to deliver oil to Afghani neighbors, via western controlled sources in the middle East.

What point of contention are you trying to illuminate?

Iraq is one nation, not two, and I missed the wars waged on Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. We pushed Iraq out of Kuwait, true enough, but we didn't wage war on Kuwait, we waged it on Iraq because of Kuwait. Afghanistan is nothing like "oil rich", and Libya was started by something other than a neocon, unless you are perhaps claiming Obama to be a neocon? If you ARE making that claim, I'm OK with that - can't see much difference between what he does and what they do, and as they say actions speak louder than words.

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus


I read the names been used, I will never use names like that to refer to party followers or leaders, I prefer the term conservatives or liberals on the two main parties. Or when talking about politicians I call them whores to private interest pimps.

The destabilization of "unfriendly nations with oil" is a private interest agenda, but both elite parties in power have to fulfill, This is a long term strategy that started many years ago.

This should be a big red flag for anybody that thinks our political elite parties are different from each other, both serve the same masters, no matter what party comes to power they will fulfill the same agendas.

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus

Truth be told, the liberals want us to just have wind turbines and solar panels.

They only want those as long as they are in someone ELSE'S back yard - they've been raising hell about having their landscapes messed up and eagles flying into turbine blades and such.

now I have just heard that OBama and the EPA has just levied the highest ever fine against the coal industry. Thus that is one promise I guess he is making good on, shutting down the coal mines.

Funny thing about that is that I know people in coal country who voted for Obama - voted to cut their own throats because, well, "yes they can!"

reply to post by Janky Red


How would Sarah get the State to weigh in on abortion any more than it already has(by making it legal to kill your unborn)? Are you suggesting she would use the Presidency to overturn Roe V Wade? And if that were the case what ultimately would make that worse than the State already using Roe V Wade ?
Who is pushing the gay marriage agenda? Who marches every year in San Francisco? Who appointed Kevin Jennings as school safety czar ? Who opposed legislation which would have given at least some palliative care to babies who survived botched abortions? Who is promoting sex ed for kindergartners? The fact that you oppose Sarah's conservative values speaks volumes.

reply to post by nenothtu


Yeah I heardabout the eagles too. The environmentalists will never be appeased.

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus


see they are cutting their own throats there the more babies they have the more money they can spend and tax and put people on welfare etc,

silly liberals.

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by nenothtu

 

Yeah I heard about the eagles too. The environmentalists will never be appeased. They will still push the green agenda even when it's not practical and not even a better solution.

Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by Janky Red

Gulf I which included several oil rich nations, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iraq, and the current war in Iraq

Afganistan also holds oil, but more importantly it has long been discussed as a strategic conduit
to deliver oil to Afghani neighbors, via western controlled sources in the middle East.

What point of contention are you trying to illuminate?

Iraq is one nation, not two, and I missed the wars waged on Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. We pushed Iraq out of Kuwait, true enough, but we didn't wage war on Kuwait, we waged it on Iraq because of Kuwait. Afghanistan is nothing like "oil rich", and Libya was started by something other than a neocon, unless you are perhaps claiming Obama to be a neocon? If you ARE making that claim, I'm OK with that - can't see much difference between what he does and what they do, and as they say actions speak louder than words.

Again, I said

TWO wars into oil rich nations

You Said

which TWO "oil rich nations"

Then you said AGAIN

Iraq is one nation, not two,

I can refer you back to a quote of my words

TWO wars into oil rich nations

The War, singular, involved Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, just like the Vietnam War involved China as a proxy to
the war. The cost of securing the region was funded by American Tax payer and ensured by the American
war machine. I am making the assertion that the entire war was waged on behalf of corporations to
secure corporate holdings and acquire new Oil reserves in the process. If you want to believe sending
a Million of American service men to Gulf was about saving one nation from invasion be my guest. I think it
is much more plausible to that presidents with big ties to Oil and Defense was looking after industry and
the strategic role the regional conflict threatened.

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by Janky Red

 

How would Sarah get the State to weigh in on abortion any more than it already has(by making it legal to kill your unborn)? Are you suggesting she would use the Presidency to overturn Roe V Wade? And if that were the case what ultimately would make that worse than the State already using Roe V Wade ?
Who is pushing the gay marriage agenda? Who marches every year in San Francisco? Who appointed Kevin Jennings as school safety czar ? Who opposed legislation which would have given at least some palliative care to babies who survived botched abortions? Who is promoting sex ed for kindergartners? The fact that you oppose Sarah's conservative values speaks volumes.

However, the only thing Sarah could even do from the Presidency is to appoint a conservative judge and looks like Obama already got first dibs on that. The only other thing would be to promote the repeal of Obamacare and stop federal funding of abortions, which is after all the right thing to do.

edit on 5-9-2011 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by Janky Red

 

Gulf I which included several oil rich nations, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iraq, and the current war in Iraq

That is a huge misrepresentation if I ever saw one.

We were not at war with Saudi Arabia, and yet Osama was of Saudi nationality, and most of the 9-11 hijackers were of Saudi nationality. Iraq set the Kuwait oil fields ablaze. Iraq launched an invasion of Kuwait. They also were building up military power on the border of Iran. We seem to have saved Iran from Iraq. Do you ever research any of this or just go with your local communist party ideologues?

You should stop doing your impression of a moron here on ATS, it makes you appear smarter than you are.

We were not at war with South Korea were we???

Or how bout South Vietnam???

The Korean War and the Vietnam war included both countries

FYI Iran and Iraq had been at war for many years, the U.S, namely Reagan's handlers helped fund both sides
of that conflict.

reply to post by Janky Red


Oh did my comment about the communist party rhetoric hurt your feelings?

reply to post by Janky Red

We were not at war with South Korea were we???

Do you want to get into the Korean and Viet Nam wars? Your assertion was originally about oil-rich nations, remember? So now is it just war in general to change the focus?
Reality check: Both the Viet Nam war and the Korean war were incursions by Communist China by proxy, and both the South Koreans and the South Viet Namese were on our side. But we know that the powers of the NWO kept those wars from ultimately being won.

If I didn't know better, Id' think you were bording on sounding anti American.


Here's a simple power point on Viet Nam if you really need to understand why we were there.

www.schoolhistory.co.uk...

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by Janky Red

 

Oh did my comment about the communist party rhetoric hurt your feelings?

Nope

Are you sad that Sarah Palin is the quintessential Neocon operative???

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by Janky Red

 

We were not at war with South Korea were we???

Do you want to get into the Korean and Viet Nam wars? Your assertion was originally about oil-rich nations, remember? So now is it just war in general to change the focus?
Reality check: Both the Viet Nam war and the Korean war were incursions by Communist China by proxy, and both the South Koreans and the South Viet Namese were on our side. But we know that the powers of the NWO kept those wars from ultimately being won.

If I didn't know better, Id' think you were bording on sounding anti American.

Did I ever say we bombed or attacked Saudi Arabia or Kuwait?
Did are troop stage from both nations?

Did we attack South Korea? Was South Korea involved in the Korean War?

Who paid for that again???


If it is anti American to question imperialist wars and incursions, so be it.

I suppose you hate the government, but can't stand the thought of others criticizing the same governments policies?

If I didn't know better I would were you are a Neoconservative who is obsessed with geopolitical
conquest and the righteousness of such...

Originally posted by Janky Red

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by Janky Red

 

We were not at war with South Korea were we???

Do you want to get into the Korean and Viet Nam wars? Your assertion was originally about oil-rich nations, remember? So now is it just war in general to change the focus?
Reality check: Both the Viet Nam war and the Korean war were incursions by Communist China by proxy, and both the South Koreans and the South Viet Namese were on our side. But we know that the powers of the NWO kept those wars from ultimately being won.

If I didn't know better, Id' think you were bording on sounding anti American.

Did I ever say we bombed or attacked Saudi Arabia or Kuwait?
Did are troop stage from both nations?

Did we attack South Korea? Was South Korea involved in the Korean War?

Who paid for that again???


If it is anti American to question imperialist wars and incursions, so be it.

I suppose you hate the government, but can't stand the thought of others criticizing the same governments policies?

If I didn't know better I would were you are a Neoconservative who is obsessed with geopolitical
conquest and the righteousness of such...

edit on 5-9-2011 by Janky Red because: (no reason given)

No, I just despise the communist leftist hatred of American for hatred sake. That is part of why there is so much broken discord in this country. The communists promoted anti-war efforts in order to quash our ability to win these wars. However, I will not argue the point that Bush, Rockefellers, Harrimans, and many others financed the Bolshevik revolution and the Nazis. That is not to say that all the war efforts were neessarily bad. But those who financed them, financed both sides for profit.

reply to post by Janky Red


No, we did not attack S Korea. We fought with S Koreans against the North Koreans and we fought with S Vietnamese agaisnt the Viet Cong.

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by Janky Red

 

No, we did not attack S Korea. We fought with S Koreans against the Viet Cong. What part of that don't you get?

did you read this???

Simple fact is South Koreans did fights on behalf of the Americans in Vietnam too, but I am not
sure what the hell you are getting at otherwise.

Originally posted by Janky Red

Again, I said

TWO wars into oil rich nations

You Said

which TWO "oil rich nations"

Then you said AGAIN

Iraq is one nation, not two,

I can refer you back to a quote of my words

TWO wars into oil rich nations

The War, singular, involved Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, just like the Vietnam War involved China as a proxy to
the war. The cost of securing the region was funded by American Tax payer and ensured by the American
war machine. I am making the assertion that the entire war was waged on behalf of corporations to
secure corporate holdings and acquire new Oil reserves in the process. If you want to believe sending
a Million of American service men to Gulf was about saving one nation from invasion be my guest. I think it
is much more plausible to that presidents with big ties to Oil and Defense was looking after industry and
the strategic role the regional conflict threatened.

Nice, artful sidestep and attempt to redefine your own words. "Nations" is plural, as is "war", so the implication of the sentence construction, as well as the letter of it, is multiple wars in multiple oil-rich nations. So you've established that Iraq was one, I'm waiting to hear what the other was. If your contention is that it is Libya, and Obama is the neocon at fault, I'm still OK with that.

Trying to push peripheral nations into the cross hairs is an odd tactic, but if you really want to go that route, we can. I'm not quite clear on why you tried to warp China into it, but it's appropriate, I suppose, considering that they are the ones we "secured oil resources" for.

Of course Iraq was about oil, in both cases. In the first, Kuwait wouldn't have even blipped the radar, tiny as it is, if Iraq hadn't been trying to take over Kuwait for the oil fields!

Afghanistan, not so much. After 10 years, I'm still looking for this "oil pipeline" that everyone wants to claim that it was about, and I'm looking for those large scale mining concessions they vaunt as well, without much luck at finding them. Seems like they could have gotten started on a pipeline or opened a mine or something after 10 years....