No Military Action - Ever! Another Trudeau Gaffe?

[PrimeNumber]

I never suggested that Iraq or Afghanistan were part of a Canadian Empire, but as suggested by Smith, both are/were clearly countries without "regular Government" until established by Western force.

False. Both countries had Governments in place at the time we declared war with them. Smith never defined a "Regular Government" and I can tell you many Afghani and Iraq citizens will admit to having a government at that time. Just because you didn't agree with those governments, doesn't mean that they weren't governments. The Taliban and the current Iraqi government led by President Fuad Masum were both in power at the time of war in the respective countries mentioned. Your confusing your opinion with the truth. Obviously they are not mixing.

You said that a "non-interventionist foreign policy" is not a libertarian policy. I have proved you wrong. Now you backtrack by saying they are fringe so it doesn't matter, which doesn't change the fact that it is a libertarian foreign policy.

I never said they were, nor the NDP being Communist......

You're attributing Libertarian principles to them more so than a Libertarian party. I am pretty sure the Libertarian parties are more libertarian than the Conservative Party and the GOP. That goes without saying.

Edited January 29, 2015 by PrimeNumber

[Derek 2.0]

False. Both countries had Governments in place at the time we declared war with them. Smith never defined a "Regular Government" and I can tell you many Afghani and Iraq citizens will admit to having a government at that time. Just because you didn't agree with those governments, doesn't mean that they weren't governments. The Taliban and the current Iraqi government led by President Fuad Masum were both in power at the time of war in the respective countries mentioned. Your confusing your opinion with the truth. Obviously they are not mixing.

I never said either country didn't have a Government.......quite the opposite really, as both those examples had Governments that allowed terrorists to train/plan attacks against the West and posed a threat to an economically important region of the World. With this second go around in Iraq, we're clearly there aiding the Iraqi Government in:

defending the society from the violence and injustice

And no, there is no confusion on my part, I clearly qualify both my opinions and fact...i.e.

-Western Governments justified military action because of a threat against their societies...that being fact

-I agree with the Government's justification for military action.....my opinion

-You disagree with the Government's justification for military action....your opinion

As such, if said Governments determine and act against a threat, they align with Smith's writings.....

You said that a "non-interventionist foreign policy" is not a libertarian policy. I have proved you wrong. Now you backtrack by saying they are fringe so it doesn't matter, which doesn't change the fact that it is a libertarian foreign policy.

Would Libertarians responds if threatened?

And no, I didn't backtrack the slightest......you stated "Conservatives love authority" and then I provided several examples in counter to your wide brush....

You're attributing Libertarian principles to them more so than a Libertarian party. I am pretty sure the Libertarian parties are more libertarian than the Conservative Party and the GOP. That goes without saying.

How so? I never suggested the CPC/GOP were more "Libertarian" then the Libertarian Party (Likewise the NDP not being more Commie than the Communists), that is your projection.......

I did state however, parties like the CPC and GOP will encompass various Libertarian principles, likewise even statist principles, landing somewhere in between both extremes....Likewise the LPC/NDP or Democrats.....Clearly such things are not black and white, as such, claiming one side to have the monopoly on State authority is myopic......

[PrimeNumber]

I never said either country didn't have a Government.......quite the opposite really, as both those examples had Governments that allowed terrorists to train/plan attacks against the West and posed a threat to an economically important region of the World. With this second go around in Iraq, we're clearly there aiding the Iraqi Government in:

"both are/were clearly countries without "regular Government" until established by Western force."

Please define what a "regular government" is then, because it appears to be very clear you did say neither of them had governments.

defending the society from the violence and injustice

You must be confused again, Smith was refering to the society in question. Which would be Canada, not Iraq. We have no obligations to Iraq.

Western Governments justified military action because of a threat against their societies...that being fact

Iraq being in upheaval does not pose a threat against Canadian Society. That is not a fact, that is your opinion, once again. It's pretty obvious that for the 12 years prior to Canada not being involved in Iraq there was absolutely no threat against our society from Iraq..at all.. ever and furthermore the only threats to our society due to the conflict in Iraq are because of the fact that we entered the conflict in Iraq. We brought the fight here by getting involved.

Would Libertarians responds if threatened?

They would obviously defend themselves. You can't say that the Canadian military is responding to a threat against Canada because the threats didn't come until we announced our support and joined the war. Harper provoked them and there has been a response.

and no, I didn't backtrack the slightest......you stated "Conservatives love authority" and then I provided several examples in counter to your wide brush....

And I provided several examples to reinforce it.

How so? I never suggested the CPC/GOP were more "Libertarian" then the Libertarian Party (Likewise the NDP not being more Commie than the Communists), that is your projection.......

"Both being fringe parties that will never govern in our lifetimes........versus the GOP and CPC that both contain varying Classic Liberal virtues."

By saying Versus you are effectively trying to compare the two and attempting to convince me that both the GOP and CPC hold more libertarian values than "fringe libertarian parties" which is just plain wrong.

claiming one side to have the monopoly on State authority is myopic......

When they're the ones in power and calling the shots and giving the State more authority it is not myopic, it is warranted. They are the ones who are making the decisions and it's pretty damn obvious those decisions are giving more power to the state and it's agencies.

Edited January 30, 2015 by PrimeNumber

[Derek 2.0]

"both are/were clearly countries without "regular Government" until established by Western force."

Please define what a "regular government" is then, because it appears to be very clear you did say neither of them had governments.

Government as experienced by Smith…….does stable democracy work for you?

You must be confused again, Smith was refering to the society in question. Which would be Canada, not Iraq. We have no obligations to Iraq.

I'm not confused the slightest.......clearly its within Canada's interests that the Government of Iraq is able to defend its own society from violence and injustice wrought by ISIS.....

Iraq being in upheaval does not pose a threat against Canadian Society. That is not a fact, that is your opinion, once again.

Ahh no, I clearly made the distinction between what was fact and opinion..........

It's pretty obvious that for the 12 years prior to Canada not being involved in Iraq there was absolutely no threat against our society from Iraq..at all.. ever and furthermore the only threats to our society due to the conflict in Iraq are because of the fact that we entered the conflict in Iraq. We brought the fight here by getting involved.

In your opinion.......

They would obviously defend themselves. You can't say that the Canadian military is responding to a threat against Canada because the threats didn't come until we announced our support and joined the war. Harper provoked them and there has been a response.

ISIS was not present in Iraq prior to our involvement in the conflict? Now I'm confused....

And I provided several examples to reinforce it.

Where?

By saying Versus you are effectively trying to compare the two and attempting to convince me that both the GOP and CPC hold more libertarian values than "fringe libertarian parties" which is just plain wrong.

You're confused......

When they're the ones in power and calling the shots and giving the State more authority it is not myopic, it is warranted. They are the ones who are making the decisions and it's pretty damn obvious those decisions are giving more power to the state and it's agencies.

But claiming conservatives desire an authoritarian Government is wrong........as demonstrated by the current Government's actions

[Argus]

Well I've seen them challenge the Authority of both the Armed Forces and the various Police Services of this country more so than the conservatives ever have and probably ever will.

A large part of the core constituencies for both parties, esp the NDP are anti-military in particular, and anti-police.

The NDP have never been in power, but the Liberals in power have never shied from abusing their power over policing and the miiltary both for the profit of their allies and to make life difficult for their opponents.

[Argus]

So you don't think that giving the national police service and government surveillance agencies more powers is not a more relevant example of authority of state?

The Liberals gave national police services and government surveillance agencies more power following 9/11.

[PrimeNumber]

Government as experienced by Smith…….does stable democracy work for you?

So a government has to be a stable democracy in order to be considered a government? So you think we should invade China and North Korea right now? They don't have stable democracies after all.

I'm not confused the slightest.......clearly its within Canada's interests that the Government of Iraq is able to defend its own society from violence and injustice wrought by ISIS.....

Your opinion again and one that is really mislead in my opinion. So we should be attacking Saudi Arabia and the DRC and China and North Korea right now! Because it is in our best interest that their societies are free of violence and injustice?

Ahh no, I clearly made the distinction between what was fact and opinion..........

Yes you have, and everything you have said so far is just your opinion. Numerous people in this country disagree with it can make an argument against it, which does not make it fact, fact is absolute.

ISIS was not present in Iraq prior to our involvement in the conflict? Now I'm confused....

ISIS has existed as Al-Qaeda in the middle east since at least 1999, it wasn't until 2006 that the group started splitting into the Islamic State of Iraq (ISI) Sometime around 2008 other insurgency groups began calling them out for their brutallity. It wasn't until April 2013 that they changed their name to the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. The group remained closely aligned with Al-Qaeda until February 2014, when after an eight-month power struggle, al-Qaeda cut all ties with ISIL. On 29 June 2014, the group proclaimed itself to be a worldwide caliphate under the name "Islamic State (IS).

So yes, yes they have. You don't even know a single thing about the people you want our army to kill. You're the shoot first ask questions later type aren't you? Makes sense why you would be a conservative supporter.

But claiming conservatives desire an authoritarian Government is wrong........as demonstrated by the current Government's actions

Not wanting social programs such as daycare doesn't mean they're against authoritarian policies all while they are currently tabling authoritarian bills in parliament. You're funny bud.

[PrimeNumber]

The Liberals gave national police services and government surveillance agencies more power following 9/11.

The Liberals are cut from the same cloth just slightly more left of the Conservatives.

Edited January 30, 2015 by PrimeNumber

[Bonam]

So you don't think that giving the national police service and government surveillance agencies more powers is not a more relevant example of authority of state?

If there was any mainstream party anywhere that was serious (and sincere) about rolling back mass surveillance, I am sure they would enjoy considerable support from a good number of libertarians. However, such a party does not exist. As far as I know, every party elected in every English-speaking nation this century has gone only one way: more surveillance.

So we have to take our "less authority" where we can find it. Every government is gonna grow the surveillance apparatus, spy on us, seek to control the internet, etc. But some parties will seek to cut taxes while others won't. "Starving the beast" is the only way that any of the aspects of government overreach could ever diminish: simple lack of money.

Edited January 30, 2015 by Bonam

[PrimeNumber]

If there was any party anywhere that was serious (and sincere) about rolling back mass surveillance, I am sure they would enjoy considerable support from a good number of libertarians. However, such a party does not exist. As far as I know, every party elected in every English-speaking nation this century has gone only one way: more surveillance.

There are parties that are serious and sincere about doing these things but unfrotunetly no one takes them seriously if they don't have federal funding. Look how long it has taken the Green Party to get to where they are now.

Unfortunately you are right though, the current parties do not favour less surveillance, but to claim that is the only option is silly. There are more than 4 major political parties, 6 if you're in Quebec. Just because people don't want to vote for them doesn't mean they aren't there. The only way for them to gain ground is for people to help them do so with the ballot.

[Derek 2.0]

So a government has to be a stable democracy in order to be considered a government? So you think we should invade China and North Korea right now? They don't have stable democracies after all.

I never made that distinction......again that's your projection.

Your opinion again and one that is really mislead in my opinion. So we should be attacking Saudi Arabia and the DRC and China and North Korea right now! Because it is in our best interest that their societies are free of violence and injustice?

If such nations have/had shared interests like ours, like terrorism, I'd favor working with such nations, inversely, if said nations posed a threat to our interests, if required to protect those interests, I too would favor military action.........

Case in point, I favor working with China combating international piracy, but if China were to attack the Japanese, I'd favor military action in defense of Japan....

Yes you have, and everything you have said so far is just your opinion. Numerous people in this country disagree with it can make an argument against it, which does not make it fact, fact is absolute.

Again distinctions were made..........

ISIS has existed as Al-Qaeda in the middle east since at least 1999, it wasn't until 2006 that the group started splitting into the Islamic State of Iraq (ISI) Sometime around 2008 other insurgency groups began calling them out for their brutallity. It wasn't until April 2013 that they changed their name to the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. The group remained closely aligned with Al-Qaeda until February 2014, when after an eight-month power struggle, al-Qaeda cut all ties with ISIL. On 29 June 2014, the group proclaimed itself to be a worldwide caliphate under the name "Islamic State (IS).

Did you cut and paste wikipedia?

So yes, yes they have. You don't even know a single thing about the people you want our army to kill. You're the shoot first ask questions later type aren't you? Makes sense why you would be a conservative supporter.

I know the threat posed by ISIS.......you suggested ISIS didn't become a threat until after Canada joined the effort against ISIS.....

Not wanting social programs such as daycare doesn't mean they're against authoritarian policies all while they are currently tabling authoritarian bills in parliament. You're funny bud.

What authoritarian polices?

[PrimeNumber]

I never made that distinction......again that's your projection.

Yes you literally just did. Have you had your memory tested lately? They make these great little games nowadays to keep the brain active.

If such nations have/had shared interests like ours, like terrorism, I'd favor working with such nations, inversely, if said nations posed a threat to our interests, if required to protect those interests, I too would favor military action.........

case in point, I favor working with China combating international piracy, but if China were to attack the Japanese, I'd favor military action in defense of Japan....

So what exactly are we protecting in Iraq that is not happening in the nations I described.

I know the threat posed by ISIS.......you suggested ISIS didn't become a threat until after Canada joined the effort against ISIS.....

If you could comprehend reading simple English, what I said was they never posed a threat to Canada until after Canada decided to join the effort. Which is easily verifiable.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/09/21/isis-urges-jihadists-to-attack-canadians-you-will-not-feel-secure-in-your-bedrooms/

These threats from ISIS and their current members never occurred before we announced our support and joined the war effort. Harper has put this whole country at risk all because he wants a war which I might ad will most likely never be won. The groups we are backing and supplying will just end up doing the same thing rinse lather repeat. Conservatives have a hard time learning lessons though. Waste of money that could go into more important things here in Canada.

What authoritarian polices?

The ones that were listed before hand in one of my earlier posts in this discussion. Seriously though, are you even reading what I write or just regurgitating the same questions over and over for fun?

[Derek 2.0]

Yes you literally just did. Have you had your memory tested lately? They make these great little games nowadays to keep the brain active.

Literally? By all means, provide a quoted passage where I did.

So what exactly are we protecting in Iraq that is not happening in the nations I described.

Dinosaur bones that fuel the World economy......

If you could comprehend reading simple English, what I said was they never posed a threat to Canada until after Canada decided to join the effort. Which is easily verifiable.

They didn't pose a threat......in your opinion.

These threats from ISIS and their current members never occurred before we announced our support and joined the war effort. Harper has put this whole country at risk all because he wants a war which I might ad will most likely never be won. The groups we are backing and supplying will just end up doing the same thing rinse lather repeat. Conservatives have a hard time learning lessons though. Waste of money that could go into more important things here in Canada.

In your opinion......my opinion is that a violent force that has destabilized an economically important region is a threat to not only Canada, but the World.

The ones that were listed before hand in one of my earlier posts in this discussion. Seriously though, are you even reading what I write or just regurgitating the same questions over and over for fun?

I've went back and reread your posts......which pieces of legislation do you find authoritarian.....in your opinion?

I will repeat a question I feel important if its not answered........for fun, sure, that is the point of the forum in my opinion....

[PrimeNumber]

Literally? By all means, provide a quoted passage where I did.

"I never suggested that Iraq or Afghanistan were part of a Canadian Empire, but as suggested by Smith, both are/were clearly countries without "regular Government" until established by Western force."

You said they are/were clearly without regular government. And you defined "regular government" as a stable democracy.

I then said..

"So a government has to be a stable democracy in order to be considered a government?"

In which you replied

"I never made that distinction."

When in fact you clearly did.

Dinosaur bones that fuel the World economy......

That's your only reason? Oil? Warmonger much?

They didn't pose a threat......in your opinion.

It's easily verifiable that they did not. Not my fault you refuse to acknowledge it.

In your opinion......my opinion is that a violent force that has destabilized an economically important region is a threat to not only Canada, but the World.

You're talking about America and their initial 2003 invasion of Iraq right?

I've went back and reread your posts......which pieces of legislation do you find authoritarian.....in your opinion?

I will repeat a question I feel important if its not answered........for fun, sure, that is the point of the forum in my opinion....

Well then I refuse to answer your question for "fun".

Find it yourself.

Edited January 30, 2015 by PrimeNumber

[Derek 2.0]

You said they are/were clearly without regular government. And you defined "regular government" as a stable democracy.

I then said..

"So a government has to be a stable democracy in order to be considered a government?"

In which you replied

"I never made that distinction."

When in fact you clearly did.

Perhaps you should have a go at those mind games.....You inferred I claimed said nations didn't have Governments...Now quote the distinction in which you feel I made.

That's your only reason? Oil? Warmonger much?

Sure, the World doesn't run on the laughter of children and recycled hemp......if the oil stops, everything stops

It's easily verifiable that they did not. Not my fault you refuse to acknowledge it.

Its my fault that I don't acknowledge your opinion is fact? ISIS clearly posed a threat to topple the elected Government of Iraq....since the West has joined in, said threat has diminished.

You're talking about America and their initial 2003 invasion of Iraq right?

No, I was speaking to the present day Iraq and the threat posed by ISIS.

Well then I refuse to answer your question for "fun".

Find it yourself.

I'm not a mystic, so since you won't substantiate your opinion, I'll drop it until you're prepared to revisit it.

Edited January 30, 2015 by Derek 2.0

[PrimeNumber]

Perhaps you should have a go at those mind games.....You inferred I claimed said nations didn't have Governments...Now quote the distinction in which you feel I made.

It was you who bolded the words "stable democracy in order to be considered a government?"

You did and I'm sure everyone here can verify that. I refuse to comment any further on the matter. You're like a child. If you're just going to continue sticking your fingers in your ears and saying lala then I'll move on to someone who can provide me with a more intelligent conversation.

Sure, the World doesn't run on the laughter of children and recycled hemp......if the oil stops, everything stops

You do know that the world is currently overproducing Oil, hence the reason it's so cheap right now? If that was really your aim you'd be saying we should leave Iraq alone, and let the price jump up a bit. Maybe Harper and Oliver can finally table the budget then.

No, I was speaking to the present day Iraq and the threat posed by ISIS.

Oh were you? Your statement could easily be applied to the 2003 invasion as well, common mistake I suppose.

[Derek 2.0]

It was you who bolded the words "stable democracy in order to be considered a government?"

You did and I'm sure everyone here can verify that. I refuse to comment any further on the matter. You're like a child. If you're just going to continue sticking your fingers in your ears and saying lala then I'll move on to someone who can provide me with a more intelligent conversation.

Where did I state that? By all means, provide a quote in which I said that.........

You speak to maturity and quality of the conversation, yet I've provided cites and quotes versus your name calling and personal attacks.......

You do know that the world is currently overproducing Oil, hence the reason it's so cheap right now? If that was really your aim you'd be saying we should leave Iraq alone, and let the price jump up a bit. Maybe Harper and Oliver can finally table the budget then.

Sure and a large portion of total World production is in the Middle East......if said Middle Eastern oil is taken out of the equation, the balance sheet of production is thrown on end.........A sharp reduction in World supply would translate into very nasty results for everyone.

Oh were you? Your statement could easily be applied to the 2003 invasion as well, common mistake I suppose.

Without a doubt, Saddam certainly posed threats, numerous times, to the production and export of Persian Gulf oil....

[PrimeNumber]

Where did I state that? By all means, provide a quote in which I said that.........

You speak to maturity and quality of the conversation, yet I've provided cites and quotes versus your name calling and personal attacks.......

I've provided cites and quotes. You've failed to acknowledge them, even though it is you who wrote them. And I never once called you any names. Again your memory is playing tricks on you.

Sure and a large portion of total World production is in the Middle East......if said Middle Eastern oil is taken out of the equation, the balance sheet of production is thrown on end.........A sharp reduction in World supply would translate into very nasty results for everyone.

So if say the Saudi's decided to stop their overproduction, that would translate into nasty results for everyone?

Without a doubt, Saddam certainly posed threats, numerous times, to the production and export of Persian Gulf oil..

He did a better job at keeping the area secure than America and their coalition ever have. He's still a bastard but at least he had control. Ever since the 2003 invasion their oil supply has been much worse. Don't forget that's not the reason the states went in there either. It was because they thought he had nuclear weapons. but of course they found none.

You and your ilk are the ones who have gotten us into this mess. I hope someone comes along with half a mind to get us out. Unfortunately you have no idea what we have gotten ourselves into. But you will see when the Kurds defeat ISIS, and when I say defeat I mean probably just weaken they will be back, the Kurds will be the next problem. Plus, we've armed them now. So that's on us.

Edited January 30, 2015 by PrimeNumber

[bush_cheney2004]

Ever since the 2003 invasion their oil supply has been much worse.

Actually, Iraq oil production has rebounded nicely since the 2003 invasion.

[Derek 2.0]

I've provided cites and quotes. You've failed to acknowledge them, even though it is you who wrote them. And I never once called you any names. Again your memory is playing tricks on you.

I acknowledged your quotes of the “silenced scientists” not being silent……..and names? You called names in your prior post........then question my memory

So if say the Saudi's decided to stop their overproduction, that would translate into nasty results for everyone?

That's subjective......none the less, if the Saudis decided to halt the flow of oil from all member states of the Persian Gulf, likewise invade or destroy their neighbors resources or a non-state actor took control of Saudi fields there would be a catastrophic effect on Worldwide supply and in turn, the World's economy........hence Western intervention in the 1980s, 90s, 2003 and now yet again.

He did a better job at keeping the area secure than America and their coalition ever have. He's still a bastard but at least he had control.

Oh, like when he invaded Iran? Or the Kuwait follow-up?

Ever since the 2003 invasion their oil supply has been much worse.

You're talking out of your arse:

Don't forget that's not the reason the states went in there either. It was because they thought he had nuclear weapons. but of course they found none.

That was but one, granted politically inflated, reason.......the reason for Western intervention now, was the same as it was in 2003, 1991 and the Tanker Wars in the 80s........

You and your ilk are the ones who have gotten us into this mess. I hope someone comes along with half a mind to get us out. Unfortunately you have no idea what we have gotten ourselves into. But you will see when the Kurds defeat ISIS, and when I say defeat I mean probably just weaken they will be back, the Kurds will be the next problem. Plus, we've armed them now. So that's on us.

Maybe, but Realpolitik is an ever evolving reality………doing nothing and wishing away problems is not the solution....

[Derek 2.0]

Actually, Iraq oil production has rebounded nicely since the 2003 invasion.

Exactly

[PrimeNumber]

I acknowledged your quotes of the “silenced scientists” not being silent……..and names? You called names in your prior post........then question my memory

Oh I didn't know referring to someone as a Child was now considered a profanity. I believe the questioning of you memory was without a doubt called for as you seem to forget things.

Oh, like when he invaded Iran? Or the Kuwait follow-up?

Well even the Kurds say ISIS is worse than Saddam and it is pretty clear that without the Invasion ISIS would not have had the opportunity to take over.

http://www.westernjournalism.com/isis-worse-sadaam-iraqi-kurd-commander-declares/#hExZ2PPU8wQd0Hfw.97

Of course they could just be saying that so we back them into power.

That's subjective......none the less, if the Saudis decided to halt the flow of oil from all member states of the Persian Gulf, likewise invade or destroy their neighbors resources or a non-state actor took control of Saudi fields there would be a catastrophic effect on Worldwide supply and in turn, the World's economy........hence Western intervention in the 1980s, 90s, 2003 and now yet again.

So in other words we are just going to continually invade this part of the world. Because it's evident that change is not going to happen. Again who cares? Let oil soar, this is when people invest the most into alternative means. Whenever the price of oil is low, this stops investment into alternative sources. I could really care less. Make oil 1 million dollars a barrel if we have to. Just halt all production. It's the only way to advance as a civilization. We need to get out of the oil age anyways, it's about time we evolve as a species.

[PrimeNumber]

Exactly

I never said any such thing....

Edited January 30, 2015 by PrimeNumber

[Argus]

Matthew Fisher is always worth reading.

There is a broad national consensus on defence Down Under instead of our deep chasm between handwringers and realists. Our elites want Canada to be heroic in some touchy-feely way but at the same time to remain boy scouts, unbloodstained, to let others carry the fight for us. They want to play armchair quarterback in a game they not only despise but do not understand.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2015/01/28/matthew-fisher-openness-over-combat-with-isis-bites-harper-government/

[Derek 2.0]

Oh I didn't know referring to someone as a Child was now considered a profanity. I believe the questioning of you memory was without a doubt called for as you seem to forget things.

It is per the forum rules.

Well even the Kurds say ISIS is worse than Saddam and it is pretty clear that without the Invasion ISIS would not have had the opportunity to take over.

http://www.westernjo...2PPU8wQd0Hfw.97

Of course they could just be saying that so we back them into power.

Good, I’m glad you’ve acknowledged that ISIS is a threat, worse than Saddam…..but what makes you so sure ISIS never would have attempted to take over? Didn’t you already regurgitate Wikipedia and suggest the formation of ISIS predates the 2003 invasion? Likewise, ISIS wasn’t deterred by the equally brutal Assad regime in Syria, so ISIS has rose in Syria but it wouldn’t have in a Saddam controlled Iraq?

So in other words we are just going to continually invade this part of the world. Because it's evident that change is not going to happen. Again who cares? Let oil soar, this is when people invest the most into alternative means. Whenever the price of oil is low, this stops investment into alternative sources. I could really care less. Make oil 1 million dollars a barrel if we have to. Just halt all production. It's the only way to advance as a civilization. We need to get out of the oil age anyways, it's about time we evolve as a species.

I see, so if a regional war were to occur in the Middle East, a war that could stop or curtail ~60% of the World’s oil reserves from entering the World’s markets, we just simply fuel our economy with something else………..Well if its that easy, you have me convinced!!!! Brilliant!!!!