It's simply about the oil

[WTF]

Originally Posted by Unique_Carpenter

. Arguments and wars over tribal resources and grounds have been going on for thousands of years. Why would it stop?

?

No truer words have ever been spoken...all wars are over resources, or control of them. Why does Lusty think we went to war? Because Saddam's sons we bad boys?

[Jackie S]

Originally Posted by Unique_Carpenter

Exactly. And, access to the Jordan river is why the Israelis will never cede control over the West Bank. And also why the 94 treaty line was placed on the river. Btw, the treaty contained a water rights agreement with Jordan that covered other water issues as well.

And for the US, we are so dependent on oil, that the US "supports" friendly governments that will make "reasonable" business deals with the US.

We are dependent on oil because our modern Western Society is dependent on oil.

What we as a Nation will have to decide is what are we willing to give up so that we are not dependent on oil.

http://www.ranken-energy.com/product...0petroleum.htm

I know that we will find other raw products to make many of these items, but it does show how much Petroleum is involved with our every day lives.

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by WTF

No truer words have ever been spoken...all wars are over resources, or control of them. Why does Lusty think we went to war? Because Saddam's sons we (sic) bad boys?

You are a historically illiterate buffoon. Wars have long been fought for reasons having nothing to do with resources. What resources were we seeking in Korea or Vietnam? They had none. We fought to stop the spread of a heinous ideology called communism. What resources prompted Hitler to march into Poland in September 1939? None. He did it to assert Nazi-Aryan hegemony over Europe. What resources were the Hapsburgs coveting when they declared war on Serbia in August 1914? None. They were motivated by a desire to avenge the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand. Would anyone seriously suggest we are fighting in Afghanistan today to control their resources? Of course not. We would never have sent troops to that godawful snakepit if 9/11 hadn't forced our hand.

You show yourself, once again, to be a simple-minded simpleton when you make a sweeping, patently absurd statement such as "all wars are fought over resources". A quick glance at the history of the past century proves otherwise. Evidently you're too much of a shallow, uneducated moronic buffoon to give any thought to history.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by lustylad

...What resources were we seeking in ... Vietnam? ...

The Japanese in the outset of WWII recognized that part of the World (Mekong Delta) as the "Rice Basket" of Asia and the U.S. cherished the titanium found in abundance in Vietnam for military aircraft manufacturing and the aerospace industry.

It's now used in a lot of alloys for other metallic materiel.

A goal can be to prevent other countries from extracting it, also.

(Which, BTW, is THE ISSUE with the Obama-Clinton uranium deal with the Russians! We've helped them in the oil and gas industry. Now help them in the uranium industry?)

[WTF]

Originally Posted by lustylad

You are a historically illiterate buffoon. Wars have long been fought for reasons having nothing to do with resources. What resources were we seeking in Korea or Vietnam? They had none. We fought to stop the spread of a heinous ideology called communism. What resources prompted Hitler to march into Poland in September 1939? None. He did it to assert Nazi-Aryan hegemony over Europe. What resources were the Hapsburgs coveting when they declared war on Serbia in August 1914? None. They were motivated by a desire to avenge the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand. Would anyone seriously suggest we are fighting in Afghanistan today to control their resources? Of course not. We would never have sent troops to that godawful snakepit if 9/11 hadn't forced our hand.

You show yourself, once again, to be a simple-minded simpleton when you make a sweeping, patently absurd statement such as "all wars are fought over resources". A quick glance at the history of the past century proves otherwise. Evidently you're too much of a shallow, uneducated moronic buffoon to give any thought to history.

You are so fucking naïve....you think it was about Communism? In that case we should be at war with China right now.

We do not give two fucks about other governments form of government as long as they do business with us in a friendly manner. Look at the Shah of Iran or the Saudis now. Or Egypt or any number of countries...Jesus.

You're another of those that never served so you think talking all this nationalistic bs talk makes you a warrior.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by lustylad

You are a historically illiterate buffoon. Wars have long been fought for reasons having nothing to do with resources.

Both these statements are factually correct.

I doubt WTF can identify a "natural resource" as THE BASIS for WWI and WWII ... nor the U.S. "War with Mexico" or the U.S. Civil War....just to mention a few.

Unless, of course, he wants claim that "slaves" were a "natural resource" ... and further show his insensitive ignorance and stupidity....like he's done so often ....

[WTF]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

Unless, of course, he wants claim that "slaves" were a "natural resource" ... and further show his insensitive ignorance and stupidity....like he's done so often ....

Slaves were bought and sold just like any other natural resource. Jesus.

I guess you and lustylad think the Civil war was fought over Zulu Political Ideology creeping into North America!






.

[WTF]

What do you think the start of WWII for this country was about? Slant eyes?
Are you the only person on the planet that does not know it was about oil?

http://taskandpurpose.com/japanese-a...rl-harbor-oil/




.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by lustylad

You are a historically illiterate buffoon. Wars have long been fought for reasons having nothing to do with resources.

Both these statements are factually correct.

The first one increasingly so!

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by WTF

Slaves were bought and sold just like any other natural resource. Jesus.

I figured you'd go there and increase the proof of your stupidity.

You're easy to bitch slap!

So you don't know the difference between a "natural resource" and a "commodity"? You really are ignorant. "We" won't indulge in the "theory" of yours that the Civil War was fought over slavery ...

... go tear down some more statues and "Rebel" flags.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

So you don't know the difference between a "natural resource" and a "commodity"? You really are ignorant. .

.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

I figured you'd go there and increase the proof of your stupidity.

You're easy to bitch slap!

WTF is getting into the slave mining business!

Or would it be better if he drilled exploratory wells for slaves?

Or how about if he started a "slave harvesting" business?

Remarkable stupidity ... WTF is hitting the limits of it.

WTF: There really are sharks off the beaches of the Galveston area, irrespective of what your buddy AussUp says, and generally speaking they are not considered "natural resources," but they would have to exist wouldn't they?

Since WTF is such a "word smith"!

nat·u·ral re·sources



noun

noun: natural resource; plural noun: natural resources




materials or substances such as minerals, forests, water, and fertile land that occur in nature and can be used for economic gain.

"minerals, forests, water, and fertile land" are INANIMATE THINGS!

So apparently WTF believes even today that Africans brought to this country (and other places in the Western Hemisphere) are (or were) ....

......INANIMATE THINGS!

A true racist to the core, WTF IS!

And "slaves" were not found here "naturally" ... it was UNNATURAL to introduce them into the Western Hemisphere.

[Unique_Carpenter]

невежественный

Amusement comes in many variations.
Thank you lusty, for todays

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by Unique_Carpenter

Bc,
Actually, the US Army is quite proud (was and still is) of its Model 1913 straight saber designed by Lt. Patton (yes later a general).

I know I don't post in this forum much, but I would think the things I do post on, would clue you guys in, that I know a fair bit on military history. How many of you guys are aware that Patton taught swordsmanship at Fort Riley, KS?

No, i didn't know he was ever in Kansas. but as far as teaching swordsmanship, since i already knew Patton was an expert fencer and marksman it's an assignment he was more than qualified for.. he was in the 1912 Olympics

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George...#1912_Olympics

based on this .. he was at Ft. Riley and re-designed both the US Cavalry sword and tactics.

Sword design

Following the 1912 Olympics, Patton traveled to Saumur, France, where he learned fencing techniques from Adjutant Charles Cléry, a French "master of arms" and instructor of fencing at the cavalry school there.[34] Bringing these lessons back to Fort Myer, Patton redesigned saber combat doctrine for the U.S. cavalry, favoring thrusting attacks over the standard slashing maneuver and designing a new sword for such attacks. He was temporarily assigned to the Office of the Army Chief of Staff, and in 1913, the first 20,000 of the Model 1913 Cavalry Saber—popularly known as the "Patton sword"—were ordered. Patton then returned to Saumur to learn advanced techniques before bringing his skills to the Mounted Service School at Fort Riley, Kansas, where he would be both a student and a fencing instructor. He was the first Army officer to be designated "Master of the Sword",[35][36] a title denoting the school's top instructor in swordsmanship.[37] Arriving in September 1913, he taught fencing to other cavalry officers, many of whom were senior to him in rank.[38] Patton graduated from this school in June 1915. He was originally intended to return to the 15th Cavalry,[39] which was bound for the Philippines. Fearing this assignment would dead-end his career, Patton traveled to Washington, D.C. during 11 days of leave and convinced influential friends to arrange a reassignment for him to the 8th Cavalry at Fort Bliss, Texas, anticipating that instability in Mexico might boil over into a full-scale civil war.[40] In the meantime, Patton was selected to participate in the 1916 Summer Olympics, but that olympiad was cancelled due to World War I.[41]

[Unique_Carpenter]

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

No, i didn't know he was ever in Kansas. but as far as teaching swordsmanship, since i already knew Patton was an expert fencer and marksman it's an assignment he was more than qualified for.. he was in the 1912 Olympics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George...#1912_Olympics
based on this .. he was at Ft. Riley and re-designed both the US Cavalry sword and tactics....

Yup, for anyone that's been at Fort Riley, it's common knowledge.
They've got one of the primary buildings named after him, with a bit of his history.

Of personal interest to me is that there are horse barns at both Riley and Leavenworth.
Shame that Leavenworth's are no longer "official", but a fair amount of military folks have privately owned four leggers there.

Patton was able to convert hay powered horseshoe methods of war to the gasoline powered tracked methods of war.

There's just something about armored cavalry being able to destroy anything that hell spews forth ....