You ignore the plain fact that the US has no oil field contracts in Iraq and that if it truly were war for oil that those contracts would never have been let go...just a few years later.

People who DIDN'T take the decision to go to war can say what they like...People talk out of their backsides everyday. Only a few people actually know.

You stubbornly ignore all those who have stated it wasn't for war....Which include those who actually took the decision.

You can bring a horse to water.......

We both passionately believe in the polar opposite here....Which means we carry it on probably a bit much....So to your good self on this matter I will do the mature thing and genuinely stop here.

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

They must be newly minted ones....Companies have the right to bid I suppose4. But the fact is that America and allies lost their contracts in 2009.....mainly to Russia and China.

The point is a war for oil wouldn't have allowed the freedom for these contracts to have competition nor take such a low profit margin.

That's the undeniable point......You don't invade for something that you give up....yet still want.

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Thinking back to the second Iraq war - didn't it basically happen that every time 'the west' pissed off Saddam he reduced oil exports? The first Gulf War was about politics and an invasion of another state - albeit that it gave the US a chance to test its weaponry and tactics. Motives for the second gulf war were purely invented and were more likely to do with economic and political pressure from various lobby groups. The ultimate justification was weapons of mass destruction - which I don't believe anyone would think existed if asked today. Seemingly a lot of people knew that at the time as well - including a member of the cabinet who was privvy to all the information and a defence analyst who gave his reports in the UK. Even the US seem to admit that there were no weapons and they made it all up - or am I mistaken?
In all fairness there was probably a decent enough reason for Operation Desert Storm but there was no real, justifiable reason for the second invasion which has left us with what we have today.
Whether it is helpful or not to recognise this anymore I don't know, as the situation now is probably the worst it has ever been.
The only positive part of ISIS I can see is the chance to oust Islamic fundamentalism from the secular countries in Europe. No doubt, that chance will not be taken, however, as clearly our intelligence services, border controls and military are likely too overstretched to deal with anything that major. The political will for any action that will see our own come home draped in flags does not seem to exist. Our
current policy is merely a sticking plaster for a severed head. Air-strikes have little or no effect, precision or blanket or whatever they are. Every military analyst can explain this - no war has ever been won from the air. I could list where it has been tried but suspect that most of you know.

Red and Blue Army!

Absolutely and fairplay bud. My contention is that this, along with many other 'wars'(?) in history, are due to the wishes/power of those that have the real control............The private bankers who own the Fed, The Bank of England etc etc.

As you say, only in the long term will we find out. But don't hold your breath

Meanwhile ISIS confirm capture and sexual enslavement of Yazidi woman and justify it under salafist ideology.

[Link]

Sadly, and as with all wars the civilians are just stuck in the middle paying the heaviest price and having least to do with it. So it becomes classic Catch 22 for the world & NATO in particular.

If NATO destroys ISIS then it will have aided the Assad regime and help it stay in repressive power. If it does nothing it will be seen to condone the repugnent and appallingly muderous actions of ISIS, who under the guise of religion are just a bunch of extreme thugs. In reality there isn't too much difference between what ISIS are doing in the Middle East and the drug cartels are doing to Mexico, it's just that the Mexicans are staying inside their borders

Turkey is playing a particularly nasty and cowardly role of indifference. For political reasons it will not see the Kurds as being any different to ISIS, in that the former want an independant Kurdish state that will ultimately cross the Syrian/Iraq/Turkish borders whilst ISIS don't care about anybody but themselves and want it all. However, as soon as ISIS start attacking the Turks they will invoke article 5 of the NATO Treaty which would then draw the whole of NATO into the conflict.

If that should happen you shouldn't be surprised to see a few more "exercises" at the very least being conducted by Russian units along their Western and Baltic borders.

So whilst we aren't on the edge of nuclear armageddon, as in 1962, this is probably as unstable as the world has been in the last three decades and probably the last five. Sadly, it won't be getting better anytime soon.

Edited by Dweeb (14 Oct 2014 6.44am)

Taking the bungy jump since 1964. Never to see John Jackson in a shirt again

Sorry to see Lee Hills go, did we ever see Alex Marrow? We did January 2013