Topic: Mosul - page 2. (Read 1478 times)
What's so surprising? Everyone has their own interests. First destroy the terrorists and secondly the increase in oil production will lead to lower her prices. Everyone will benefit from it. In addition, it will weaken Russia.
They don't destroy them, they (the Americans) let them escape in Syria to attack Assad's positions and Russian troops.
What's so surprising? Everyone has their own interests. First destroy the terrorists and secondly the increase in oil production will lead to lower her prices. Everyone will benefit from it. In addition, it will weaken Russia.
It is irritating to have so many alt-accounts (Seccerius,d-trixx, 00hash01.etc) by the same person posting in succession. In this same thread we have another set of slightly older alt-accounts (More than a dozen by the same person: dimonchik13, birareru1988, daiyuba1971.etc). Please don't post consecutive posts. It is quite irritating.
Long ago I had to do it. As soon as the aircraft starts to fall, the war on the civilian population cease. Russia can fight only with unarmed people.
NATO fighter jets are bombing civilians in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, and Libya. Their allies are killing thousands of civilians in countries such as Yemen by using cluster bombs. And still you are accusing the Russians?
I find it a little bit strange that the invasion has been carefully laid out and updated in the media for several weeks. I thought it customary to have a tiny element in surprise.
This "fight against the ISIS" by the NATO and the other western armies is more of a media PR operation than a real military invasion. The Americans probably want to divert the media attention from their arms deliveries to the Jaysh al Islam and other Islamist groups, and their bombing of the secular forces in Deir Azzor.
I find it a little bit strange that the invasion has been carefully laid out and updated in the media for several weeks. I thought it customary to have a tiny element in surprise.
Agreed. There's been talk of the west ushering jihadis out of Mosul and back into parts of Syria to fight against Assad. Then, the US coalition can claim victory in Iraq (against ISIS) in the lead to the upcoming election and diminish Trump's assertions about Obama's/Hillary's foreign policy issues that have fostered jihadi strength. The whole deal in Syria is because Assad wouldn't go for Qatar building an oil pipeline up through Syria and into Turkey to directly supply oil/nat gas into Europe and cutting off the Russian's current supply in full. Qatar and other gulf states are heavily invested in the Clinton Foundation don't cha know.
Personally I want to see the drop in gasoline prices at the pump. Then I'll be able to draw conclusions. Now for me this war is not clear.
Even if the ISIS loses Mosul, it won't have any effect on the crude oil prices. Most of the oil fields in Iraq are under the control of the government or the Kurds. The ISIS-controlled oil fields are all located in the Eastern part of Syria. Still, it is difficult to predict the impact, if they lose these fields. The supply may increase, resulting in lower prices.
So many oil resources there. It not a surprise people fighting each other to death because of this. They say they are fighting against ISIS to save Mosul and... who put ISIS there in the first place?
I don't think that things are so simple here.
Mosul is not part of Kurdistan and there are not Russian, Syrian or any other armies there, only regular Iraqi army with t he help from USA.
In Syria is much more complicated situation, with a lot groups which fight among themselves and together against Assad and ISIS.
It's question really iif Syria will survive as united country.
In Iraq situation is more simple and when regular army take over Mosul again, Iraq will be liberated from the ISIS.
Oil resources?
American oil companies took it already long time ago.
Who put ISIS there in the first place?
Nobody directly but American policy in this area is indirectly responsible for such outcome.
Jump to: