The U.S. must abandon the Middle East

Amy we the United States just by drastically increasing oil production a few years ago when Russia manufactured the Crimean Revolt were able to stop Putin from annexing even more Ukrainian Territory as Putin wanted to annex a large swath of the Ukraine all along the Black Sea shoreline from the Crimea to Russia effectively connecting them.

We the U.S. massively increased Oil Production.

Oil prices dropped like a rock and dropped so low that a barrel of Siberian Oil COST RUSSIA MORE TO MAKE than what the U.S. was selling oil at!!

THAT IS CONTROL!!

AA

 

That's not the reason that US oil companies increased rig count and production, AA. .. and US oil is NOT run by the government.

They went to drilling like crazy because the ppb was $100.

 

Margot I am aware of that but you are not aware of a few things I am aware of.

If you are able go check U.S. Oil Production stats for 6 months prior to the Russian annexation of the Crimea.

Then look at the stats right after the annexation.

Then look at the stats right after the OPEC Vote not to lower Oil Production right after we had Saudi Arabia vote NOT to lower oil production.

Then right after Putin saw that and Putin watched that OPEC vote LIVE.....Putin then decided to withdraw Spetsnaz all along the Black Sea shoreline from the Crimea to Russia.

THEN...as soon as Putin did that....look at U.S. oil Production stats RIGHT AFTER THAT!!

We lowered oil production DRAMATICALLY!!!

AA

 

Thank you for pointing that out. There are too many who think fighting ISIS will be conventional war. It will not. ISIS fighters are guerilla fighters. They will not stand and fight. They will disappear into the populace to pop up somewhere else. One must not be misled by the fighting for control of Mosul and Raqqa. ISIS will eventually lose both, but they will not be defeated. Many will travel to Europe to dispense their terror. That is a good reason not to fight ISIS in the Middle East. Better for the West if their primary targets remain in the Middle East.

To provide a good example of this, yesterday two attacks by ISIS were reported. The Islamic State terror network claimed responsibility for two bombings that each killed dozens of people Thursday -- one at a shrine in Pakistan and one at an auto dealership in Iraq. The suicide bomber at the world-famous shrine in southern Pakistan killed at least 75 people and wounding more than 200 others, according to health officials. They said the dead included 20 women and nine children. Also Thursday, a car bomb exploded in Baghdad's southwestern al-Bayaa neighborhood shortly before sunset, killing at least 55 people and wounding more than 60 others, according to Iraq's Interior Ministry. It was the third blast to hit the Iraqi capital in three days.

Do we want this to happen in Paris, Brussels, Berlin ... or New York? No, better to keep Islamic terrorism in the Middle East. ISIS can be controlled in the West with superb law enforcement and intelligence. And it works. Trump doesn't know this, but there has never been a successful Islamic terrorist attack in the U.S. by a refugee.

We already have extreme vetting and it is working just fine. It takes 18 months to two years of grueling examination before anyone comes to the U.S. If they don't have the proper paper work, they don't come here. Trump doesn't know that, either.

 

Well said.....
but there might be a way for the USA to act like she is taking a little bit of a back seat while encouraging several other groups to go in first.......
with proposals that are mostly diplomatic, economic and perhaps somewhat experimental in nature.


http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=496117&p=1067115300#post1067115300

and......


http://www.politicalforum.com/econo...teerism-hour-dollar-alternative-currency.html

Proposed Green Party Volunteerism Hour or Dollar alternative currency.

 

Phenomenal answer on this.......
had to read that one three times just to begin to grasp the implications.........

Wow!

 

Yup, that would be nice and I certainly believe that all options are considered to make ends meet. Factors are there for consideration like competition, supply and demand, and the viability of the products, and of course the capability of competing markets involved.

 

The US gov doesn't control domestic producers.. 213 went bankrupt because they couldn't compete when the price fell. You have the tail wagging the dog.. Wait and see what happens next.. Domestic producers are drilling like crazy and will soon fill the 1.5 million barrel cut by Saudi ARAMCO, drive the price down and put themselves out of business again. Greed with speed....................

 

Listen to him. AA knows his stuff. My only problem with him is that he thinks we should send troops to the Middle East to defeat ISIS. That would be a very serious mistake.

 

As I said Margo look at the production levels at the times I denoted.

AA

 

That's not exactly what I want nor is it exactly what we will do.

Look POTUS made a campaign promise to eradicate ISIS and he fully intends to do this.

The issue is there is a right way and a wrong way to do it.

Right now plans are being made to do this and the ONLY way this will work is to have large numbers of U.S. Special Forces, Special Teams and CIA Teams on the ground directing airstrikes.

We can't do this without these forces on the ground and I am not advocating deploying large numbers of Ground Forces.

AA

 

I have .. the US gov doesn't tell domestic producers when to drill, where or how much oil they can pump. Currently, the US has a glut of oil AND inventories so we'll hurt ourselves again.

 

Well if you have then you KNOW U.S. Oil Production dramatically increased right up to the point that Russian Spetsnaz returned back to Russia from their positions in the Ukraine all along the Black Sea Shoreline from the Crimea to Russia.

Margot Putin fully intended to annex that swath of the Ukraine to directly connect the Crimea to Russia.

And you and I BOTH KNOW we made sure Saudi Arabia voted NO to decrease Oil Production.

AA

 

If..... the death of a hundred American and allied troops means
ten thousand..... to a hundred thousand..... or even a million
Middle Eastern minorities living a relatively long and healthy life.....
then was it worth it?

Was it worth it if a hundred thousand or a million Afghanistani
girls are freed up to become educated?

Most of our troops who went to Afghanistan would say yes....

- - - Updated - - -

So just to be clear,
you mean by this that the threat of lowered oil prices caused Putin to
give up on the idea of annexing the Crimea?

Impressive!

So this was actually done by President Obama and his team wasn't it?

 

I am very glad to hear that. Mattis has one more week to come up with a plan to defeat ISIS, Trump's dream. Here's hoping Mattis tells him no, we should not send ground troops. That would be a military disaster that would spill over to Western cities.

 

The dollar is based upon oil.

 

What simplistic thinking. You can control distribution with taxes, transportation, fuel costs, bribes, political prowess, force, shutting down distribution sources, etc....The list is endless.

 

AA, the US will have a strong presence and influence in any major oil producing country as long as oil is a vital necessity to a thriving economy.

 

What choices are there fuel wise in your area and the costs?

 

You know, Trump says "if" a lot. At times it seems his entire foreign policy is based on "if." If the U.S. and Russia could be friends. If Russia would help us with ISIS. Now you are saying If the death of a hundred American and allied troops means ten thousand..... to a hundred thousand..... or even a million Middle Eastern minorities living a relatively long and healthy life.....then was it worth it?

It is nice to dream, but American foreign policy is not based on dreams. It is based on hard facts. Consider, Muslims have been killing Muslims since the days of Muhammad. What makes you think the blood of Americans can change that? Consider, in modern history military force has never defeated an Islamic terrorist organization. What makes you think the blood of Americans can change that?

The war in Afghanistan began over fifteen years ago. American troops are still there. Yes, Afghan girls are getting an education while our troops remain. However, after over fifteen years we haven't changed a thing. The Taliban is stronger now than in 2001. Once we leave, if we ever do leave, Afghanistan will revert to the old ways. Afghanistan is not called the "graveyard of empires" for nothing.

Don't misunderstand. I was not comparing you to Trump. Heaven forbid.

 

Sending American troops to the Middle East to defeat ISIS is exactly what the enemy wants, to, once again, kill the soldiers of the Great Satan on his turf. The want the American commander to be stupid enough to send 30,000, 50,000 Americans to die in a Muslim desert. It worked in Iraq in the first decade of the 21st Century. It can work again.

Islamic terrorist organizations have never been defeated by military force. They are guerilla fighters. They disappear into the populace.

 

We don't need to engage in traditional and conventional warfare anymore. We can go in, set up fortified bases with air support, then send in remote controlled armoured vehicles and tanks to wipe out the enemy. These remote controlled armoured vehicles and tanks can have a self-destruct option that will detonate a bomb blast to wipe out a ~50 metre radius. We have no time limit, the bases can remain for as long as it takes to destroy ISIS systematically and in a way that will ensure minimal coalition military and civilian casualties. Announcements should be made throughout the cities/towns for all civilians to leave immediately.

 

Getting involved in the Mideast, makes as much sense as jumping into a fight between ticks, and fleas.

 

This barbaric Islamic 7th century ideology has already infiltrated our Western democracies. It is only going to get worse if we don't eradicate it now and reform Islam. Perhaps our coalition forces should have a look at the Battle of Alesia to see how Caesar defeated Vercingetorix's led Gallic tribes. Such a method looks effective and might be able to be applied in the Middle East to cities that are controlled by ISIS.

 

Didn't we kind of try that in Iraq, and Afghanistan, and just got more refugees headed West, in response?

What you seem to speak of is eradicating Islam from the core, which is obviously not morally feasible, and would definitely cost a lot of lives on both sides, and could even start WW3.

Besides, it would take generations to reform Islam, or eradicate it, if even done so.

You're also assuming the Islamic issue is only a religious one, I'm quite skeptical of that, seeing that Muslims around Europe like Tatars, Bosniaks, and Albanians don't behave like ones in the Mideast.