• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Back to Iraq?

Back to Iraq?


  • Total voters
    36
Saudi Arabia's economy is 92.5 percent oil revenue.

Economy of Saudi Arabia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

if we were to transition from oil as a transportation fuel, then a lot fewer of our dollars would go to those who seek to funnel money to extremists.

You can't infer from this that the majority of terrorist funding comes from oil, the funders have very diverse backgrounds. And this funding also comes from nations that aren't wealthy and have no oil deposits. Laundering through charities alone (often from western donors) is significant.
 
You can't infer from this that the majority of terrorist funding comes from oil, the funders have very diverse backgrounds. And this funding also comes from nations that aren't wealthy and have no oil deposits. Laundering through charities alone (often from western donors) is significant.

The Taliban in Afghanistan got a substantial amount of funding from the opium yielding poppies they grew. They had Russian made AK's, which I'm sure came at bargain prices, they steal from the banks of towns they overrun and get some backing from terrorist states. Though, I have to agree with Helix that the Saudi's have probably been the single biggest monetary supporters according to Media sources for the Sunni's.

DUBAI, United Arab Emirates – Saudi Arabia and other petro-powerhouses of the Gulf for years encouraged a flow of private cash to Sunni rebels in Syria. Now an al-Qaida breakaway group that benefited from some of the funding has stormed across a wide swath of Iraq, and Gulf nations fear its extremism could be a threat to them as well.

Those countries are now trying to put the brakes on the network of private fundraisers sending money to the rebel movement, hoping to halt the financing going to the radical Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. But at the same time, they sharply oppose any U.S. military assistance to Iraq's Shiite-led government aimed at stopping the extremists' rapid advance — and are furious at the possibility Washington could cooperate with their top rival Iran to help Iraq.
After backing Sunni rebels in Syria, Gulf nations face blowback in militant campaign in Iraq | Fox News
 
The Taliban in Afghanistan got a substantial amount of funding from the opium yielding poppies they grew. They had Russian made AK's, which I'm sure came at bargain prices, they steal from the banks of towns they overrun and get some backing from terrorist states. Though, I have to agree with Helix that the Saudi's have probably been the single biggest monetary supporters according to Media sources for the Sunni's.

Yes, the opium trade has been beneficial to terrorists. And yes, Saudi Arabia is a major exporter of terrorism (financially, politically, and philosophically) however, that does not equate to the majority of funding coming from oil. Thats too simplistic and does not reflect the nature of the funding of terrorism, including non-islamic terror.

We still see Islamic terrorism in nations with NO western presence, and with very little money (including from oil). So its about much more.
 
And that will keep the terrorist from doing another 9-11 or worse.

You do understand nothing we've done has stopped them from growing. It is likely the invasion of Iraq itself grew terrorist. We'll be seeing the fruits of that misguided effort for a long time.
 
Yes, the opium trade has been beneficial to terrorists. And yes, Saudi Arabia is a major exporter of terrorism (financially, politically, and philosophically) however, that does not equate to the majority of funding coming from oil. Thats too simplistic and does not reflect the nature of the funding of terrorism, including non-islamic terror.

They'll take money from any source they can get it, including criminal activities. Which for a bunch of religious zealots, is completely hypocritical of them and the US gov't, to say that 'it's ok to do the wrong thing for the right reasons'. Internment, water boarding, torture, preemptive or proactive killings/attacks. But the majority of money that the Gulf Arab states have is from their oil and that's what they give to backing terrorists groups with resources, weapons and artillery.

It's not the only funding but in the case of the Sunni's it's probably the main flow. The Saudi's oil profits are basically an ATM for the rebels. Unless you know something more than the News outlets? Probably the biggest cash infusion they've gotten to date is $400 million from the Mosul Central Bank.
 
They'll take money from any source they can get it, including criminal activities. Which for a bunch of religious zealots, is completely hypocritical of them and the US gov't, to say that 'it's ok to do the wrong thing for the right reasons'. Internment, water boarding, torture, preemptive or proactive killings/attacks. But the majority of money that the Gulf Arab states have is from their oil and that's what they give to backing terrorists groups with resources, weapons and artillery.

It's not the only funding but in the case of the Sunni's it's probably the main flow. The Saudi's oil profits are basically an ATM for the rebels. Unless you know something more than the News outlets? Probably the biggest cash infusion they've gotten to date is $400 million from the Mosul Central Bank.

Im not debating that there is a large amount of funding from the saudi's. Im saying its NOT just oil money, we see this elsewhere as well. An interesting fact about islam is that lying is seen as acceptable IF its done in Islams name. Over the centuries many adversaries were tricked by these lies and killed just after.
 
Im not debating that there is a large amount of funding from the saudi's. Im saying its NOT just oil money, we see this elsewhere as well. An interesting fact about islam is that lying is seen as acceptable IF its done in Islams name. Over the centuries many adversaries were tricked by these lies and killed just after.

Yea, that Mosul money I'm sure was petrol dollars. But I agree with you it's not all purely from oil funding.

I asked my old man what made these people so vicious and looney, and he said uneducated and brainwashed with religion. Ignorance, hate and greed is the cause of most the unwarranted violence we see in the world.
 
Yea, that Mosul money I'm sure was petrol dollars. But I agree with you it's not all purely from oil funding.

I asked my old man what made these people so vicious and looney, and he said uneducated and brainwashed with religion. Ignorance, hate and greed is the cause of most the unwarranted violence we see in the world.

They have always been this way, its like a living time machine looking back to the dark ages. They aren't going away.
 
They have always been this way, its like a living time machine looking back to the dark ages. They aren't going away.

But our constant manipulating of that region for it's natural resources has finally caught up to us. By buying all that oil for so long, we've given those crazy desert rats the ability and munitions to fight us. For decades, they never attempted or had the ability to directly attack us and haven't been very successful since 9/11, but it's becoming a war of attrition and they may eventually get through again.

If we could somehow, supply ourselves with enough oil, till we can become self sufficient and transition over to alternative energy, then maybe we could beef up our borders and self defense, until they eventually run out of money and go back to camel riding.
 
But our constant manipulating of that region for it's natural resources has finally caught up to us. By buying all that oil for so long, we've given those crazy desert rats the ability and munitions to fight us. For decades, they never attempted or had the ability to directly attack us and haven't been very successful since 9/11, but it's becoming a war of attrition and they may eventually get through again.

If we could somehow, supply ourselves with enough oil, till we can become self sufficient and transition over to alternative energy, then maybe we could beef up our borders and self defense, until they eventually run out of money and go back to camel riding.

I disagree. Radical Islam became prominent in the last 150 years or so, and acts of terror are committed all over the globe-including nations that have nothing to do with the west or oil. The west could become completely energy independent today and we would still be a target. They have stated as much, and their actions reflect this. At the very least-they are open and direct about what they want-and its a world living under Islam.
 
I disagree. Radical Islam became prominent in the last 150 years or so, and acts of terror are committed all over the globe-including nations that have nothing to do with the west or oil. The west could become completely energy independent today and we would still be a target. They have stated as much, and their actions reflect this. At the very least-they are open and direct about what they want-and its a world living under Islam.

We can't control what the rest of the world does about radical Islam. And we're never going to eliminate it completely, by fighting them indefinitely. If we become energy independent and aren't in their sight we won't be as much in their minds. And it's much easier to defend than continually be proactive. We simply can't afford to fight them for decades unending.

If some group manages a successful attack, then we can retaliate but that's going to have to be the extent of our action. Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Egypt, Libya, Syria, Jordan, Yemen and almost all the Arab nations are more radical and unstable, since we've been fighting the last decade. All we've succeeded in doing is stirring up a hornet's nest, not winning a 'War on Terror'.
 
We can't control what the rest of the world does about radical Islam. And we're never going to eliminate it completely, by fighting them indefinitely. If we become energy independent and aren't in their sight we won't be as much in their minds. And it's much easier to defend than continually be proactive. We simply can't afford to fight them for decades unending.

If some group manages a successful attack, then we can retaliate but that's going to have to be the extent of our action. Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Egypt, Libya, Syria, Jordan, Yemen and almost all the Arab nations are more radical and unstable, since we've been fighting the last decade. All we've succeeded in doing is stirring up a hornet's nest, not winning a 'War on Terror'.

We both agree that we are losing the war on terror. However a chump president who makes it known that we wont fight isn't helping. Im reminded of comments by several terror groups-who thought they respected the American left until they came into power and suddenly flipped on terrorism-demonstrating their hackery to the world-at that point they decided the American left was even worse.

These people respect power, not lefties who want to feel tolerant.
 
We both agree that we are losing the war on terror. However a chump president who makes it known that we wont fight isn't helping. Im reminded of comments by several terror groups-who thought they respected the American left until they came into power and suddenly flipped on terrorism-demonstrating their hackery to the world-at that point they decided the American left was even worse.

These people respect power, not lefties who want to feel tolerant.

He believed we could retreat out of the situation quicker than was possible. Unfortunately, all they understand is might but being too brutal in retaliation does not settle well with the rest of the world either. We're not going to eradicate billions of Muslims because we don't see eye to eye, at some point a stasis need to be reached for everyone's sake.
 
He believed we could retreat out of the situation quicker than was possible. Unfortunately, all they understand is might but being too brutal in retaliation does not settle well with the rest of the world either. We're not going to eradicate billions of Muslims because we don't see eye to eye, at some point a stasis need to be reached for everyone's sake.

Im not calling for the eradication of billions of muslims, merely the terrorists. They are already balls deep and know the consequences of their actions. Its us in the west that want to believe we can mitigate things, but that does not work, appeasement wont work.

As I see it, we need merely help them get to their 40 virgins asap.
 
Im not calling for the eradication of billions of muslims, merely the terrorists. They are already balls deep and know the consequences of their actions. Its us in the west that want to believe we can mitigate things, but that does not work, appeasement wont work.

As I see it, we need merely help them get to their 40 virgins asap.

Yeah, but they could potentially grow into untold amounts when you unjustly persecute them, which creates a situation for recruitment. And we assess anyone even remotely tied to them as "terrorists" or associates.

Peace always has a chance. You don't have to have everyone thinking exactly the same for a global community to have a little more harmony.
 
Yeah, but they could potentially grow into untold amounts when you unjustly persecute them, which creates a situation for recruitment. And we assess anyone even remotely tied to them as "terrorists" or associates.

Peace always has a chance. You don't have to have everyone thinking exactly the same for a global community to have a little more harmony.

We are constantly told we cant do anything because it will make more terrorists-but we tried it Bush's way, and we tried it Obama's way-and yet here they still are. And its not just against the west, there is more terrorism EVERYWHERE.

Appeasement will result in more dead everywhere-in the middle east as they expand, and here as they gain the ability to attack us again. At some point you have to decide if its worth fighting for. I think it is, if nothing else to prevent another 9/11. Your desire for peace is immaterial to those who have decided EVERYTHING ABOUT US needs to go, to be replaced by something that looks like ISIS. I think fighting against that is worth it.

You might think differently but at least admit that you dont think its worth the fight.
 
We are constantly told we cant do anything because it will make more terrorists-but we tried it Bush's way, and we tried it Obama's way-and yet here they still are. And its not just against the west, there is more terrorism EVERYWHERE.

Appeasement will result in more dead everywhere-in the middle east as they expand, and here as they gain the ability to attack us again. At some point you have to decide if its worth fighting for. I think it is, if nothing else to prevent another 9/11. Your desire for peace is immaterial to those who have decided EVERYTHING ABOUT US needs to go, to be replaced by something that looks like ISIS. I think fighting against that is worth it.

You might think differently but at least admit that you dont think its worth the fight.

I believe we have no choice now but to go over there and stomp the bus piss outta them. If we don't it'll spread into a mess that lasts for decades.

We could possibly build a frightening force of carrier groups in the Med and approaching ground forces to encourage them into some kind of peace, but it most likely wouldn't work.

We should've never removed the gov't and infrastructure in Iraq or even fostered the Arab Spring. Those were big mistakes on our part, two years in Afghanistan would've been enough and an appropriate response. We had Al Qaeda almost eradicated at that point and could've kept some spec ops there to continue monitoring the situation, getting intel on Osama.
 
I believe we have no choice now but to go over there and stomp the bus piss outta them. If we don't it'll spread into a mess that lasts for decades.

We could possibly build a frightening force of carrier groups in the Med and approaching ground forces to encourage them into some kind of peace, but it most likely wouldn't work.

We should've never removed the gov't and infrastructure in Iraq or even fostered the Arab Spring. Those were big mistakes on our part, two years in Afghanistan would've been enough and an appropriate response. We had Al Qaeda almost eradicated at that point and could've kept some spec ops there to continue monitoring the situation, getting intel on Osama.

The only good news (though that may change if ISIS is actually established) is that the needed interventions are NOT high intensity conventional conflicts. They are low intensity, and asymmetric. A presence and the knowledge that those held responsible WILL be killed or captured would be effective. The bad news-is that looks very much like what we did in Iraq and are doing (for a time) in Afghanistan. A carrier group wont do it. A constant presence will.

I think you have a case regarding removing the Bathists from iraq post invasion, in fact much of the recent ISIS gains are because of the defection of several key Iraqi officers, many of whom cited the removal of the Bathists (who were sunni). Im also no fan of Maliki. But we can't sit here and do nothing because of that. At the same time, allowing Iran and Russia more influence is a bad idea, and they wont leave once they are there.

In Afghanistan, we face a similar scenario, and to follow with another withdrawal would result only in more destabilization.

Its a **** sandwich, but if the options are leaving an ever expanding islamist state who has directly stated they will attack and destroy us, and staying to fight so another 9/11 doesn't happen here I say we stay. If we dont we are saying that everything done since 9/11 does not matter, and we are signing off on another attack here.
 
The only good news (though that may change if ISIS is actually established) is that the needed interventions are NOT high intensity conventional conflicts. They are low intensity, and asymmetric. A presence and the knowledge that those held responsible WILL be killed or captured would be effective. The bad news-is that looks very much like what we did in Iraq and are doing (for a time) in Afghanistan. A carrier group wont do it. A constant presence will.

I think you have a case regarding removing the Bathists from iraq post invasion, in fact much of the recent ISIS gains are because of the defection of several key Iraqi officers, many of whom cited the removal of the Bathists (who were sunni). Im also no fan of Maliki. But we can't sit here and do nothing because of that. At the same time, allowing Iran and Russia more influence is a bad idea, and they wont leave once they are there.

In Afghanistan, we face a similar scenario, and to follow with another withdrawal would result only in more destabilization.

Its a **** sandwich, but if the options are leaving an ever expanding islamist state who has directly stated they will attack and destroy us, and staying to fight so another 9/11 doesn't happen here I say we stay. If we dont we are saying that everything done since 9/11 does not matter, and we are signing off on another attack here.

Russia would love to stop any and all competing pipelines and China would love more oil anyway they can get it. I have to agree that we can't leave a power vacuum in that area right now, it's just still too strategic an asset. I read an article the other day that ISIS claimed they actually had a nuke and would use it. Haven't heard anymore about it but that's a stupid thing to say, even if true. I don't think they're going to attack the US directly, though I'm sure if it were possible they would.

We're not too far off in our assessment of the problem and need for action. Though, I would rather we extract ourselves as soon as possible, when the time comes. We keep trying to do everything on the cheap, half assing it and that's where all our problems get started. They need to make a real commitment to the take over and controlling of the country, until a real gov't can be set up. And honestly, Obama may say he doesn't want to go back but he's putting off the inevitable, unless ISIL decides to keep what they got and go no further. I do believe that Obama will try air strikes of some sort first, maybe in accompaniment with cruise missiles. The problem with those kind of armaments is not destroying innocent civilians. They won't let Baghdad fall and that's probably going to be the tipping point of whether/when we act or not.
 
Russia would love to stop any and all competing pipelines and China would love more oil anyway they can get it. I have to agree that we can't leave a power vacuum in that area right now, it's just still too strategic an asset. I read an article the other day that ISIS claimed they actually had a nuke and would use it. Haven't heard anymore about it but that's a stupid thing to say, even if true. I don't think they're going to attack the US directly, though I'm sure if it were possible they would.

We're not too far off in our assessment of the problem and need for action. Though, I would rather we extract ourselves as soon as possible, when the time comes. We keep trying to do everything on the cheap, half assing it and that's where all our problems get started. They need to make a real commitment to the take over and controlling of the country, until a real gov't can be set up. And honestly, Obama may say he doesn't want to go back but he's putting off the inevitable, unless ISIL decides to keep what they got and go no further. I do believe that Obama will try air strikes of some sort first, maybe in accompaniment with cruise missiles. The problem with those kind of armaments is not destroying innocent civilians. They won't let Baghdad fall and that's probably going to be the tipping point of whether/when we act or not.

I think Israel is much more in danger of a nuke than we are (even getting on close would be hard, but not impossible), but the bigger point is they would if they could. AQ actually captured a major airport in Pakistan recently, a nuclear power.

My solution (of course Im no expert) would be a fighting force minimally supported by the US-one that fights the way arabs do-meaning like how assad and saddam and Iran fight-without the PC rules of engagement of western nations. This is proven effective against terrorists, and we dont take the casualties or headlines of bombing an entire city block. The us presence would be behind this force, mainly to provide intelligence and air cover, and for maintaining a presence AFTER areas are cleared by the Iraqi military. We should dissolve shia militias, which would diminish fears of reprisal by sunni civilians while minimizing Iran's presence. If Iran wants to fight, let them do it through Syria. Our timelines should be based on outcomes, not a calendar. And frankly, I think we should do the same in Afghanistan.

None of this is easy. None of this will be entirely safe for anyone, including us. None of this is politically popular (until the next attack here in the US). But we need to be up front and clear in our goals and own it-because this problem is enveloping the world and WILL get worse. Id rather fight them there, where they are attracted like bugs to light, than here. This war wont end like WW2, it wont have a clear ending, and it will be with us for decades to come, frankly.
 
You can't infer from this that the majority of terrorist funding comes from oil, the funders have very diverse backgrounds. And this funding also comes from nations that aren't wealthy and have no oil deposits. Laundering through charities alone (often from western donors) is significant.

basically at some level, you understand that oil revenue is a big part of the funding for Middle Eastern terrorism / extremism. if you don't, your level of willful blindness is a bit disturbing, but fine.

for argument's sake, let's entertain the theory that oil revenue isn't funding terrorism and extremism. i still support replacing oil so that we have to be a lot less involved in that area of the world. even if we drill more of our own, oil is still fungible, and is thus affected by whatever is going on in the Middle East and in other hostile areas of the world. our involvement lets Saudi Arabia off the hook. they need to establish order in their own region, as we would be required to do should Mexico devolve into a civil war.

it's way past time to look ahead and consider other transportation fuel options that don't require the US to get involved every time there's some sort of unrest in that region, in my opinion.

i'll add this : every time that we are sucked into a war, wartime tax rates need to go into effect to pay for it, and the marginal increases need to be significant. perhaps that would make the hawks a bit less enthusiastic. if we're going to war, we need to have a national discussion, and then we need to pay for it.
 
basically at some level, you understand that oil revenue is a big part of the funding for Middle Eastern terrorism / extremism. if you don't, your level of willful blindness is a bit disturbing, but fine.

for argument's sake, let's entertain the theory that oil revenue isn't funding terrorism and extremism. i still support replacing oil so that we have to be a lot less involved in that area of the world. even if we drill more of our own, oil is still fungible, and is thus affected by whatever is going on in the Middle East and in other hostile areas of the world. our involvement lets Saudi Arabia off the hook. they need to establish order in their own region, as we would be required to do should Mexico devolve into a civil war.

it's way past time to look ahead and consider other transportation fuel options that don't require the US to get involved every time there's some sort of unrest in that region, in my opinion.

i'll add this : every time that we are sucked into a war, wartime tax rates need to go into effect to pay for it, and the marginal increases need to be significant. perhaps that would make the hawks a bit less enthusiastic. if we're going to war, we need to have a national discussion, and then we need to pay for it.

I agree that reducing any dependence on the ME is a good thing. Tragically the fact is that we can't run a 21st century economy on any green solution. This is reality. So I think we should expand drilling and utilize other techniques here and amongst friendly nations. Even just historically speaking, there will almost certainly be effective advancements in energy, but we aren't there yet, so we should not rely on something that wont work.

As for taxes, its remarkable that the left only seems concerned with fiscal responsibility when it suits them. There is a radical islamist state forming as I type. If you would prefer to bury your head in the sand than do it.
 
Let's keep the U.S. out of it.

What reason should we go back? It doesn't help us nor them.

Why did we go there in the first place? If we leave Iraq and Afghanistan to the islamists, we are setting a precedence that we wont stay and fight, and we WILL be attacked again.
 
Back
Top Bottom