Largest Non-Nuclear Bomb Ever Dropped on Afghanistan

[MJHolland 12,725]

39 minutes ago, lego said:

 

 

Baghdad, Iraq - While the US military has formally ended its occupation of Iraq, some of the largest western oil companies, ExxonMobil, BP and Shell, remain.

On November 27, 38 months after Royal Dutch Shell announced its pursuit of a massive gas deal in southern Iraq, the oil giant had its contract signed for a $17bn flared gas deal.

Three days later, the US-based energy firm Emerson submitted a bid for a contract to operate at Iraq's giant Zubair oil field, which reportedly holds some eight million barrels of oil.

Earlier this year, Emerson was awarded a contract to provide crude oil metering systems and other technology for a new oil terminal in Basra, currently under construction in the Persian Gulf, and the company is installing control systems in the power stations in Hilla and Kerbala.

Iraq's supergiant Rumaila oil field is already being developed by BP, and the other supergiant reserve, Majnoon oil field, is being developed by Royal Dutch Shell. Both fields are in southern Iraq.

According to the US Energy Information Administration (EIA), Iraq's oil reserves of 112 billion barrels ranks second in the world, only behind Saudi Arabia. The EIA also estimates that up to 90 per cent of the country remains unexplored, due to decades of US-led wars and economic sanctions.

"Prior to the 2003 invasion and occupation of Iraq, US and other western oil companies were all but completely shut out of Iraq's oil market," oil industry analyst Antonia Juhasz told Al Jazeera. "But thanks to the invasion and occupation, the companies are now back inside Iraq and producing oil there for the first time since being forced out of the country in 1973."

 

Iraq is one of the largest oil exporters to the US, and has plans to raise its overall crude oil exports to 3.3m barrels per day (bpd) next year, compared with their target of 3m bpd this year, according to Assim Jihad, spokesman for Iraq's ministry of oil.

Jihad told Al Jazeera that Iraq has a goal of raising its oil production capacity to 12m bpd by 2017, which would place it in the top echelon of global producers.

According to Jihad, Iraq's 2013 production goal is 4.5m bpd, and in 2014 it is 5m bpd. The 2017 goal is ambitious, given that Iraq did not meet its 2011 goal, and many officials say 8m bpd capacity is more realistic for 2017.

Unexplored regions of Iraq could yield an additional 100bn barrels, and Iraq's production costs are among the lowest in the world.

To date, only about 2,000 wells have been drilled in Iraq, compared with roughly one million wells in Texas alone.

 

---

US and Britain wrangled over Iraq's oil in aftermath of war, Chilcot shows

The US and British governments fought bitterly over control of Iraq’s oil following the toppling of Saddam Hussein, the Chilcot papers show. Tony Blair seemed more concerned than the Americans about any invasion being seen by critics as a war for oil, telling them it would be very damaging if the two countries were seen to “grab Iraq’s oil”.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jul/07/us-and-britain-wrangled-over-iraqs-oil-in-aftermath-of-war-chilcot-shows

US companies. 

This has nothing to do with the military. The military is still losing money buddy....

Any fabrication that the US military kicked out Iraqi oil comanpies to install US ones is conspiracy. They haven't been working together. US companies and UK companies may have taken advantage of an opening, but we still have muuuch more oil than Iraq that is also WAY cheaper in North America. 

The fact that you think we'd waste billions of dollars to get MORE expensive oil is hilarious hahaha that doesn't make any sense! The US economy is only hurt my these wars, there is no economic incentive hahahaha. 

16 minutes ago, lego said:

 

You sure make excuses like typical Trump supporter. You think dropping of "biggest non-nuclear bomb" was not done for political reasons?  Trump has a complex, he was just praised by the media for bombing Syria, he's a narcissist in need of more praise and adoration and he needs to distract everyone from talk about impeachment and RussiaGate.

Thanks for calling me insane btw, that surely straightened your argument.

If the bomb was designed to vaporize everything within mile, how is it possible to identify anything or anyone, let alone know exact number of the dead? Where is the independent investigation?

The number of terrorists was even lower than I thought, how on earth you think 800 people can take over a country like Afghanistan? Congrats tho, this bombing gave them more recruits, so you achieved nothing. Your big bomb allowed them to grow, maybe one day you'll understand that. 

 

If bombing ISIS tunnels and getting 100% target accuracy (no civilians killed), then I'm fine with Trumo being "political" 

Like damn I think you need to get over it and admit that this was a good move by trump... Obama still killed waayyyyy more civilians and dropped waaayy more bombs of hospitals and mosques. 

30 minutes ago, LG said:

I'm a liberal lol. It's all fair enough if you object to the US bombing a country for political means and intervening in other countries for political reasons but it's entirely unjustifiable to condemn the bombing of terrorists that have the means to destabilise the entire world, especially when the country that owns the bombed land confirmed no civilian deaths. It's completely insane how you think allowing IS to grow and take over countries and have bombing capability is the better option. 

Nah if you disagree with Lego you're an ignorant Trumo supporter, sorry  

[MJHolland 12,725]

*Trump kills ISIS memebers without civilian casualties* 

*Liberals still find a way to complain about Trump* 

Hahahahahaha Jesus Christ what has the world come to when killing F*CKING ISIS MEMEBERS gets criticism? Stop being so partisan. 

[lego 44,165]

3 minutes ago, LG said:

However as I said in my previous posts in this thread IS interweave themselves into civilian areas to stop people from bombing them because they know that causes scandal and turns people like you against their own government. 

Nobody disagrees that the death of civilians is extremely upsetting and should be avoided at all costs but sometimes it is not avoidable, however this time it was avoided and you're still upset based on no valuable info.

 

lol and you will do anything for your government and just swallow whatever they say. Maybe you should travel to one of the war torn areas to develop some empathy. IS are not interwoven with civilians, they took over parts of Iraq and Syria and civilians who lived there had to stay, what else can they do, they are literally trapped. You are not extremely upset about civilians dying, don't even pretend after you said "they'd be tortured by IS anyway so...", are you aware how long this war is going on and how many are actually dead as a result of invasion and bombings? I don't see you upset, I only see justifications. 

 

[venusfly 17,885]

4 minutes ago, lego said:

 

 

About this new edit.... Why is it not relevant who and what created this group? Because it doesn't suit your agenda? Because 15 years of "war on terror" created more WW terror and you don't want to admit the ugly truth? Being against airstrikes in the Middle East doesn't make a person defender of the terrorists, that is incredibly unfair and inaccurate. I care about the civilians in ME who are trapped under regime's, Russian and American bombs, while also being unwanted as refugees everywhere. 

You are the one justifying civilians deaths, as long as they are not Western and because "IS would torture them anyway" so the Western bombings are merciful? You are the one who said there won't be retaliation when it's clear to anyone who studied about radicalization why terror attacks happen in first place. 

 

 

I am not even a slight supporter of the initial stages of the war on terror in Bush's presidency, it was probably the worst political move made maybe in the history of American politics. I am talking current events. The talk of how the war started and how the terrorosm is here now is the subject of historical debate and has no place in discussion of how we now stop the terrorism.

Pulling out of the Middle East will NOT solve the terrorist problem, it will allow them to fester to greater numbers and threaten the existence of the human population. 

[venusfly 17,885]

1 minute ago, lego said:

 

lol and you will do anything for your government and just swallow whatever they say. Maybe you should travel to one of the war torn areas to develop some empathy. IS are not interwoven with civilians, they took over parts of Iraq and Syria and civilians who lived there had to stay, what else can they do, they are literally trapped. You are not extremely upset about civilians dying, don't even pretend after you said "they'd be tortured by IS anyway so...", are you aware how long this war is going on and how many are actually dead as a result of invasion and bombings? I don't see you upset, I only see justifications. 

 

The civilians being trapped is exactly what I meant by interwoven... IS keep the civilians close enough to them to prevent US bombs coming.

Youre using counter arguments that only apply to the Al Qaeda problem, they wanted the US to step out of the Middle East and campaigned for that through terrorism.

the problem is now ISIS, who want to establish global rule of their version of Islam and will kill any person who doesn't obey. Your arguments of 'back off and it will be fine' don't apply here. 

[lego 44,165]

4 minutes ago, MJHolland said:

If bombing ISIS tunnels and getting 100% target accuracy (no civilians killed), then I'm fine with Trumo being "political" 

 

You were fine with killing of civilians too, you said that clearly in your previous posts. 

[lego 44,165]

Just now, LG said:

The civilians being trapped is exactly what I meant by interwoven... IS keep the civilians close enough to them to prevent US bombs coming.

Youre using counter arguments that only apply to the Al Qaeda problem, they wanted the US to step out of the Middle East and campaigned for that through terrorism.

the problem is now ISIS, who want to establish global rule of their version of Islam and will kill any person who doesn't obey. Your arguments of 'back off and it will be fine' don't apply here. 

 

They are not able to take over the world and establish anything, that is your paranoia and ignorance of history of these groups, talking. 

Your bombs didn't achieve anything, they just brought more death and destruction and more people hating your country and seeing you as terrorists.

[MJHolland 12,725]

Just now, lego said:

 

You were fine with killing of civilians too, you said that clearly in your previous posts. 

Yeah dude civilians are gonna die either way, how do you not see that?

In this case tho, they weren't, so it's a win-win situation. Why are you complaining like I genuinely don't understand. 

This was a great target and a great tool to use to destroy underground tunnels were ISIS militants traffic weapons, women, and drugs. 

Literally the only reason you could be mad about this is if you hate Trump. And I get it, I hate him too. But you have to give credit where credit is due. 

Just now, lego said:

 

They are not able to take over the world and establish anything, that is your paranoia and ignorance of history of these groups, talking. 

Your bombs didn't achieve anything, they just brought more death and destruction and more people hating your country and seeing you as terrorists.

Are you kidding?

ISIS isn't like any other terrorist group that has existed. 

Dude they've taken over two whole countries, have extensive control over oil fields and thus income, and are supported by Iran. 

If we don't do anything they're gonna kill and rape a LOT more people. 

The fact that you just think it's our paranoia makes me believe you don't know anything about ISIS, no offense. ISIS is scary as **** and they are huge...

[lego 44,165]

I'm not gonna let few of you ruin my Friday, so don't bother quoting me, I'm done with selfishness, ignorance, carelessness and warmongering.  

[Cocaine Heart 4,768]

Omg. The war and fear mongering 

Daesh isn't taking over the world or the Middle East for that matter  Daesh don't even have 40% of ground in both Syria and Iraq combined, after all these years. Last year they lost about 14% of ground because of the Kurdish fighters and some factions of the rebel groups.

Also. We don't know about the civilians yet and will probably not know because of the type of bomb. Even if we knew, y'all will just say but it's a small number.

Y'all continue though 

[Guest]

20 hours ago, Florian said:

L O L ... I'd love to live in your world made of easy things

Never said it would be easy but saying it's impossible to destroy ISIS would be pessimistic

[Born To Slay 10,996]

2 hours ago, MJHolland said:What? We never invaded Iraq or Afghanistan because of the oil.... those wars cost our economy billions of dollars......

How could we do it for corporate interests if we lost most on the wars? That literally makes no sense you're just making that up lol. We have WAY more oil in the US/Canada than they do in poor Mid East countries 

The reason we don't invade Saudi Arabia is about they're rich as hell and have a massive standing army... Please stop making things up 

1. http://www.newsweek.com/why-oil-was-prime-motivator-iraq-war-478764

This article explains how oil was involved in the war on

2. The military Industrial Complex makes a lot of money from war

[MJHolland 12,725]

13 minutes ago, Born To Slay said:

1. http://www.newsweek.com/why-oil-was-prime-motivator-iraq-war-478764

This article explains how oil was involved in the war on

2. The military Industrial Complex makes a lot of money from war

Haha omg, what pure conspiracy theory have you just posted

Why would the US gov't lose BILLIONS of dollars to make Exxon a few million? That literally makes no sense dude, that's rubbish. 

You do not really understand something unless you can explain it simply. In your words, why would the gov't lose billions to allow a private companies to make a few million?

[PartySick 172,632]

1 hour ago, Cocaine Heart said:

Daesh isn't taking over the world or the Middle East for that matter 

For real.

Everyone here (meaning the States, not this thread) seems to think the U.S. and ISIS going head to head is like equal forces clashing but it's more like an overweight frat boy armed with an aluminum baseball bat and searching through his room trying to find that small, slightly venomous spider that he saw a few minutes ago. As he rampages about, he breaks stuff, sometimes his own stuff, sometimes others' stuff, and he kills other things but he can't quite seem to get a lock on that spider.

Spoiler

I took that metaphor way too far

 

[PartySick 172,632]

2 minutes ago, MJHolland said:

In your words, why would the gov't lose billions to allow a private companies to make a few million?

My guess would be that congress, the president, and his cabinet all have a vested interest in the oil companies. Either they're being paid by the CEO's or they are the CEO. At least, that's our present state.

I don't really know or care what the intentions were behind our meddling in the Middle East, I just know it was a mistake and we keep making it worse by doing sh*t like this