Poll: Is the American military over coddled in today's world?
Yes
No
Not enough information
[Show Results]
Note: This is a public poll, other users will be able to see what you voted for.
Military Coddlers
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
16-09-2011, 05:25 PM
RE: Military Coddlers
So if the Iraq war isn't about the control of oil what was it about? Freedom from an oppressive regime? There are far more oppressive regimes why not free the people living under them?, 9/11 it's well known that bin laden hated Saddam,

Saddam was also a Ba'athist, which is very much at odds with political Islamism. The founder of Ba'athism, Michel Aflaq was a Christian something bin laden wouldn't like. The 9/11 Commission stated in its report that bin Laden had been sponsoring anti-Saddam Islamists in Iraqi.

WMD's? Well we all know how that turned out.

Here's a quote from a crs report to congress "With 115 billion barrels of proven crude oil reserves, Iraq has the world's second-largest endowment of oil, amounting to 11% of the global total. Only 17 of 80 oil fields have been developed; the most significant are Kirkuk in the north and Rumaila in the south. There has been virtually no exploration for many years, suggesting that Iraq may have much more oil than currently estimated. Iraq also has significant proven natural gas reserves"link

The world 2nd largest endowment of oil most of which hasn't been tapped into yet, none of the reasons we were given for the war turned out to be true. The Iraq war wasn't about oil really?

Behold the power of the force!
[Image: fgYtjtY.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-09-2011, 05:45 PM
RE: Military Coddlers
Well... What I wonder is about those numbers that 17thnight posted.

Are those numbers just American owned oil (that our country personally buys)... or is it including oil bought by American companies?

I've also done some digging and found out that Chinese companies bought a lot of oil from the overthrown oil companies in Iraq.

IDK... I think this war is as shady as religion

Everyone involved seems to have a different reason for going, and no one can really justify why we are there with evidence...

[Image: 1471821-futurama_bender_s_big_score_imag...er-1-1.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-09-2011, 06:32 PM
RE: Military Coddlers
(16-09-2011 05:45 PM)monkeyshine89 Wrote:  Well... What I wonder is about those numbers that 17thnight posted.

Are those numbers just American owned oil (that our country personally buys)... or is it including oil bought by American companies?

I've also done some digging and found out that Chinese companies bought a lot of oil from the overthrown oil companies in Iraq.

IDK... I think this war is as shady as religion

Everyone involved seems to have a different reason for going, and no one can really justify why we are there with evidence...

The whole war was definitely shady, the reasons we were given as justification for it are proven lies.

Behold the power of the force!
[Image: fgYtjtY.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-09-2011, 10:29 PM (This post was last modified: 16-09-2011 10:43 PM by 17thknight.)
RE: Military Coddlers
(16-09-2011 05:45 PM)monkeyshine89 Wrote:  I've also done some digging and found out that Chinese companies bought a lot of oil from the overthrown oil companies in Iraq.

The Chinese are about 6% of the Iraqi oil exports, give or take, the US is 25% or so, India 15%, Italy 10%, and then a plethora of others.

Keep in mind, the Chinese opposed the Iraq War.

(16-09-2011 05:25 PM)FSM_scot Wrote:  WMD's? Well we all know how that turned out.

Here's a quote from a crs report to congress "With 115 billion barrels of proven crude oil reserves, Iraq has the world's second-largest endowment of oil, amounting to 11% of the global total. Only 17 of 80 oil fields have been developed; the most significant are Kirkuk in the north and Rumaila in the south. There has been virtually no exploration for many years, suggesting that Iraq may have much more oil than currently estimated. Iraq also has significant proven natural gas reserves"link

The world 2nd largest endowment of oil most of which hasn't been tapped into yet, none of the reasons we were given for the war turned out to be true. The Iraq war wasn't about oil really?

The world's second largest allotment, which is NOT being tapped. My numbers above demonstrate where America's oil imports come from, and that's from the Department of Energy, and numerous other independent sources. Iraq is 6% or less of the US's oil.

They sit on the 2nd largest untapped reserve but, again as I very explicitly showed, the reason that isn't being tapped is because we destroyed their oil-making infrastructure in the Gulf War. Their oil capacity was LARGER in 1988 than it is NOW, and it will still be years, possibly a decade, before we're able to really tap their oil reserves.

All of which could have been easily easily avoided by simply lifting sanctions and helping Saddam rebuild the damaged infrastructure. We already had that exact same business arrangement prior to the 1990's. How many countries have we defeated in war and then rebuilt their infrastructure? It would have been a matter of ease.

But you're telling me that rather than that, we decided to wait 10 years, start a second war, blow up the infrastructure all over again, and set back our ability to tap those oil reserves by 20 more years. Yeah, wow, what a brilliant plan.

This all plays out of 9/11 Truther bullshit. If it's a "war for oil" then that explains their idiotic "false flag" nonsense. They then use that as the "motive" for the "crime". Buying into it denies all facts, logic, and reason.



And yes, it WAS about WMD's. Maybe you're too young to remember, but even the countries that opposed the Iraq War were flat-out saying they thought he had WMD's. Everyone in the UN was convinced of it. Everyone in the American government was convinced of it. France said they opposed the war even though they believed he had WMD's. They were simply wrong. Everyone was.

That's not even the right way to put it, because we know for a FACT he had WMD's, he'd used them on his own people, killed hundreds of thousands. What everyone failed to realize is that he was no longer utilizing them. Acting like they never existed is flat-out inaccurate.

Occam's Razor, what's more likely:
1. Everyone thought he still had weapons he'd used in the past and were proven mostly wrong.
2. A massive super conspiracy spanning the globe to get involved in a war to get at the oil of a country by blowing up their infrastructure, the war is potentially unwinnable, there are easier/faster/cheaper solutions that don't involve war but no one wants to do those for whatever unimaginable reason, and all this has thus-far culminated in an increase of oil production that is still lagging by decades.

[Image: 81564_gal-1.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-09-2011, 04:56 AM (This post was last modified: 17-09-2011 05:17 AM by FSM_scot.)
RE: Military Coddlers
The oil infrastructure was one if the first things that the coalition forces secured they didn't destroy them.
It's not about what oil we can get from them NOW it's about the control of oil in the not to distant future. Oil is estimated to run dry or atleast dangerously low within the next century or so if trends continue, so whoever controls large deposits of oil will have a significant advantage.

As for the Wmds as far as I remember it was only Britain and America that claimed he still had them? (I may be wrong I'm going off memory here) and thanks to a fictional report was "capable of deploying them within 45 mins".
The UN sent in weapons inspectors who searched the sites where it is claimed Saddam had the weapons and found nothing. But we still invaded anyway. 8 or so years on none have been found.
I never said he never had Wmds I'm well aware he used them on the Kurds. What I'm saying is he disposed of them long before the 2nd gulf war. Something that was well known at the time.

There are documents released under the freedom of information act that shows during the preparations for war, oil was a central concern for the UK government, disproving the claims that it was not interested in Iraq’s oil(something they claimed publicly)

Foreign Office memo,13 November 2002,(the year before the war) following meeting with BP: "Iraq is the big oil prospect. BP are desperate to get in there and anxious that political deals should not deny them the opportunity to compete. The long-term potential is enormous". They also show that the main reason to action over Iraq was not the threat posed by weapons of mass destruction, as Blair later told the country, but the desire to overthrow Saddam. There was little talk of WMD at all.
due to the way the foreign office site is archived I can only view freedom of information documents going back to 2007 but if I find the ones I mentioned above I will post them.

I am also only talking about the UK's involvement, I've not looked in to the USA's motivations.

Behold the power of the force!
[Image: fgYtjtY.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-09-2011, 09:34 AM
RE: Military Coddlers
If that's the case, then why are we still in the middle east, 10 years later (I was 11 when the world trade centers blew up and 12 when we went to war, I paid attention to the news at the time because my dad was over there as well)

But this is all deeply confusing

9/11
Fight war on terror
Either convince president of false WMDs or He's on the gig
Start war with Iraq
???
Profit

I'm just not connecting the dots here.

The war on 'Terror' has been admitted by some of the most brilliant military minds to be self defeating and ultimately pointless. Even Colin Powell left Washington in disgust.

WMDs were not found after extensive reconnaissance, so we toppled Saddam's regime (the only person keeping the country from civil war).

I just don't understand what the united states is trying to do...

[Image: 1471821-futurama_bender_s_big_score_imag...er-1-1.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-09-2011, 10:44 AM
RE: Military Coddlers
The WMD argument is a red herring. at the same time that the US was pushing Saddam's possible WMD's Korea openly admitted to having them and using them as a threat. If people seriously had cared they would've turned their attention on Korea. The oil argument is founded because most of the involvement with the middle east from many western countries have been placed in areas with known oil reserves. Brittain started, the US joined in, France tapped a bit whether oil seems imminently necessary or not it is an important resource for the people who do control countries like the US. People who have become rich due to finding oil.

I'm not suggesting some huge conspiracy but I am discussing the fact that oil has always been focused on as a depleting resource. The same as many minerals have false rarity values oil is something people pay a lot for due to it's limited quantity. If there was no push for oil then long ago cars would run on something else. Many of the emission standards of today are lower than ideas brought forth in the 40's. Oil is still considered a form of power so it is sought.

Now as far as the actual original topic I agree that the military is horribly coddled, though the voice for dissension is starting to come out more thanks to the internet. I'm not super anti-government like some people have gotten but there does need to be a cap. The best statement on the media is this one. Our new journalists are the comedians because the journalists are too busy kissing ass, at least the comedians are going to continue pointing out the blatant idiocy they see in the world.

After vietnam it became obviously clear how little the government cared about veterans but in many ways this has been corrected. Veteran clinics are inexpensive and readily available. Other things veterans get for being in the military: They have a better chance of landing a job, because businesses are encouraged financially to hire veterans. They get their own special type of loan in order to get their house or care whatever they need after returning from service. I could go on. The worst disservice veterans had was that after Vietnam the public hated the military. Now that people love soldiers that just isn't the case anymore. there isn't even as much chemical testing done on troops as there used to be. Yes there are still veterans who suffer from issues caused by serving, but nowadays there is adequate help.

As far as arguments about the military not paying enough to keep someone's family stable try being between jobs. You can get paid a lot less than an infantry's salary.

I seriously dislike the over praising that is happening currently, especially when a lot of talks are focusing on troops and completely ignoring the lives of non serving citizens. For example Bush J.R. made life for troops a lot easier by giving them a larger fund than those not serving. Yes troops need to be rewarded for enlisting, but the public needs to be rewarded for funding the government. Even if the tax payers aren't really the ones funding things anymore.

I'm not a non believer, I believe in the possibility of anything. I just don't let the actuality of something be determined by a 3rd party.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-09-2011, 04:20 AM
RE: Military Coddlers
OK, guys (and gals) please DO NOT put 9/11 in the same sentence with Iraq, I just might think you have no idea about 9/11 or Iraq. 9/11 started the war in Afghanistan not Iraq. And Afghanistan (as we all should know, but don't) is one of the richest countries in the world with mining deposits, huge amounts of gold, copper, coal, iron ore and other minerals, plus huge deposits of natural gas. It is one of the richest countries in the world, if you look at resources. War in Iraq was started because of weapons of mass destruction and chemical weapons, which were never found, not even any trace of those weapons, nothing, so that was a bullshit cover up. All this talk about bringing democracy to these countries is also a BS cover up, because there is no democracy there, the only good thing that happened is the killing of some dictators and their armies, so the people now has a chance of fighting, but it is far from over. You also keep forgetting that one of the biggest (if not the biggest) money machine for the USA is weapons industries and we all know how well that is developed and sold in the time of peace.

So remember these facts, Afghanistan is FULL of mining deposits and natural gas, Iraq is FULL of oil, USA needs to spend and test weapons so it can sell them, both Afghanistan and Iraq are in the Middle East, so now USA has 2 strongholds in the center of that region. Now, tell me, and be honest, do you really think USA is not there for personal interests, but because they are "spreading democracy"?

Here is another example, if they (the USA) wanted to just help other countries and spread democracy, they would have gone to Somalia, in 2 days they would kill all those warlords with AK-47s and gave that land back to the people. Why don't they do it? What is there to gain, Somalia is poor in every way, they have nothing to take there.

So do not be fooled, they go around the world because of their own interests, because of resources, because of displaying their power, because of holding some strategic areas. Nothing more, nothing less, it is very simple, you can't not see that.

P.S.
Quote:But the truth is that the vast majority of the oil the US Imports comes from...Canada. And last I checked we weren't invading the Canucks.

In fact, the top places we get our oil from are

These are the countries the USA IMPORTS their oil from, not the countries with largest amounts of oil in reserves. That is a huge difference and the fact that you IMPORT most of your oil from Canada has nothing to do with this story, the reason for invading Iraq or the amount of oil that Iraq has. Please be careful about these things, Iraq has huge amounts of oil, it is their prime and almost only economy.

Now, there is also one other resource you all forgot and it is OPIUM in Afghanistan. Don't be fooled, opium IS a resource, the same way oil and natural gas are, only it is illegal, so it is even more valuable. Heroin and all sorts of other stuff is made from opium and Afghanistan is the worlds biggest supplier. Before all this 9/11 war, the Talibans have almost rooted out opium fields and dealers but now the amount of opium being produced and sold is bigger than ever in Afghanistan's history, so not everything USA did there is good, not everything the Taliban government did was bad.

So there, you can see that the oil is not the only reason for war, there is all sorts of other reasons, none of them are good and noble.

[Image: a6505fe8.jpg]
I have a theory that the truth is never told during the nine-to-five hours.
-Hunter S. Thompson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-09-2011, 07:59 PM (This post was last modified: 20-09-2011 08:14 PM by 17thknight.)
RE: Military Coddlers
(17-09-2011 10:44 AM)Lilith Pride Wrote:  As far as arguments about the military not paying enough to keep someone's family stable try being between jobs. You can get paid a lot less than an infantry's salary.

For the first 4 years of my time in the military I started at about $15,000 a year and moved up to about $25,000 (after taxes). While working 100+ hours a week, all year. I once got one Christmas off. After my 4th year of service I made E-5 and got BAH pay, which jumped me up significantly to about $40,000. I advanced much faster than most infantrymen would, though, by years and years because I was a nuclear reactor operator, a job which they military pays you a lot to stay in and do for them (because it pays about $75,000 starting in the civilian world if you have prior experience). I was fortunate enough to put on E3 right after boot camp. Making E5 is something an infantryman might hope for after a decade.

You will never end up living on the streets while in the military, but they do not make much money at all. For a single guy, it's not much of an issue. For someone with a family, it's impossible. At least civilians get minimum wage. The military is salary, so they can run you into the dirt for every cent you make. There are worse jobs and worse stability than the military, but this is not a profession you do if you want to make money.



(17-09-2011 10:44 AM)Lilith Pride Wrote:  The WMD argument is a red herring. at the same time that the US was pushing Saddam's possible WMD's Korea openly admitted to having them and using them as a threat. If people seriously had cared they would've turned their attention on Korea.

You do realize why no one can go after N. Korea right? It has nothing to do with "Well but but but they has WMD's too!!!" It's because of the people whose border they share and who have a military agreement with them: China.

The first Korean War was a war fought between the US and, by proxy, China. The N. Koreans were pushed completely out of Korea and into China, but then China offered them massive military aid and they fought back to the original border.

So what do you think is going to happen if we invade N. Korea? China is going to sit back and not do anything? No, they would fight back. And the resulting war would be World War 3, primarily between two nations with nuclear capabilities.

THAT is why we don't do anything about N. Korea. Furthermore, China isn't too thrilled with N. Korea threatening other nations with nuclear capabilities. China would rather deal with America economically, and is not about to let that little midget turd run off the rails and start firing missiles. However, if we preemptively strike N. Korea then China will assume we are a threat to them as well. They'll have to, since we'd literally be pushing into their border in order to secure N. Korea.
(19-09-2011 04:20 AM)Filox Wrote:  These are the countries the USA IMPORTS their oil from, not the countries with largest amounts of oil in reserves. That is a huge difference and the fact that you IMPORT most of your oil from Canada has nothing to do with this story, the reason for invading Iraq or the amount of oil that Iraq has. Please be careful about these things, Iraq has huge amounts of oil, it is their prime and almost only economy.

Yeah...I said that. Repeatedly in the same post. I laid out the numbers for why oil is an irrelevant reason for going into Iraq. I demonstrated why lowering sanctions would have been easier, faster, smarter (if oil was the goal). Quite frankly, I don't think you read my post before you responded.

[Image: 81564_gal-1.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-09-2011, 01:09 AM
RE: Military Coddlers
No, no I have read your post, but you keep forgetting that great little sentence: "secure the strategic resources". That is how this world works, those who can, they secure the resources for themselves, that is better that lowering taxes and then again be dependent on how other countries dictate the price and politics. This way the USA can control and therefore dictate (at least a part) of the price and politics about distribution. I really don't see the problem with this, this is all so simple and so plain for everyone to see and is not something the USA government is denying. All wars are being run for the same reasons, securing the strategic resources for your country.

Of course, this is just my opinion, so yeah, you can disagree with me...

Smile

[Image: a6505fe8.jpg]
I have a theory that the truth is never told during the nine-to-five hours.
-Hunter S. Thompson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: