Place open for new posts — threads with fresh content will be moved to either Real-life Discussion or ESOC Talk sub-forums, where you can create new topics.
No Flag samtheham
Crossbow
Posts: 25

16 Nov 2015, 13:52

@Metis, comparing maps of the two is disingenuous at best and you're smart enough to know that. We live in a globalized age where transportation is virtually instant and free -- you can't honestly expect that the crusades would look the same on a map.

@Dolan I attempt to make no argument about the mongols simply because it isn't relevant to the discussion at hand -- it's very silly (or maybe just naive) to bring up something so irrelevant. It's like we're having an argument about which is worse: Coke or Pepsi, and someone comes in and says "why does no one ever talk about RC Cola... it's the worst of all!" Sure, but it has nothing to do with Pepsi being worse than Coke or vice versa.

A comparison of the Crusades and modern day terrorism is apt because the two are analagous in a lot of ways, and it helps us frame the historical context of how Christians and Muslims have acted in certain ages.

Regardless, both of you are still completely missing my argument, and focusing on minutiae. Even if you take away my statement on the crusaders, everything I have said stands -- it's not my the crux of my argument anyway, just an offhand example.
User avatar
Romania Dolan
Jaeger
Posts: 4548
Location: aka Neuron

16 Nov 2015, 14:46

But they are relevant, because the Crusades surely were not purely religious expeditions. There were many factors which lead to crusades, and religious ones were just some among many. The nobles and military leaders who participated had their own interests, as did the young troops who wanted to participate in some epic expedition. The main thrust behind the Crusades was to stop the Ottoman expansion in the East. There were also commercial interests involved in the area (trade routes). So Crusades were not really similar with terrorist attacks at all, since terrorism does not fight using visible armies, they fight using invisible forces. Their main purpose is to create terror, not to conquer territories or pillage cities. Crusaders were not religious extremists, many of them were just a bunch of soldiers for hire who wanted a free pass to go and plunder Jerusalem.

And anyway the idea was different. The idea was Mongols brought more destruction in the Middle East than Crusaders did, but people remember the latter more today, simply because Europe is more developed now so everyone is trying to capitalise on how much guilt they can plant in European minds. There's nothing to gain from putting Mongolia on the hot spot today, by comparison.

Also, both Crusades and the Mongol expansions were part of the spirit of the time, when wars of conquest were very common (Ottomans were threatening to conquer parts of Europe too in the name of Allah, remember?). Why would you compare something which happens today, in the 21st century (terrorism) with wars of conquest from the 13th century? Europe moved away from that past.
ok.
No Flag samtheham
Crossbow
Posts: 25

16 Nov 2015, 14:56

I'm not trying to "implant guilt in European minds" - stop trying to play the victim here. I'm simply comparing two analogous events.

Your explanation of the causes of the Crusades just reinforces my comparison of the two. Just like the Crusades were fought for a multitude of non-religious regions, yet steeped in religious rhetoric, so has the current wave of terrorism been a geopolitical issue hidden beneath religious rhetoric. Also, since when was pillaging cities not a form of terrorism? Because the perpetrators weren't brown? A lot more innocents were killed in the sacking of Jerusalem than in Paris this weekend.

And events of the 21st century are absolutely relevant to those of the 13th century. Humans haven't changed since then, and looking at history can help us contextualize the present. It's very helpful and to just dismiss it because it makes you feel bad that we're talking about a black mark in European history is not right.

Anyway, this is exactly the point I'm trying to make. Instead of having an honest discussion of the true, complex geopolitical causes of terrorism, we're getting caught up in a debate about the Crusades. Let's talk about what is behind this issue of terrorism. I'm not interested in a historical debate.
United States of America Metis
Howdah
Posts: 1661

16 Nov 2015, 15:31

samtheham wrote:@Metis, comparing maps of the two is disingenuous at best and you're smart enough to know that. We live in a globalized age where transportation is virtually instant and free -- you can't honestly expect that the crusades would look the same on a map.


Those maps show the Muslim wars of conquest in the Middle Ages versus the Christian Crusades of the same time period. They have absolutely nothing to do with today's globalization and transportation. I was countering the argument that Muslims are justified in their attacks because they harbor long-term resentment of the Christian Crusades. If this is so, then the Christians should harbor a hundred times more resentment. Your statement makes no sense.

And your statement that transportation is virtually instant and free today simply makes no sense whatsoever. For instance, it costs between $45,000 and $70,000 dollars a day to transport oil using a supertanker. The route can take anywhere between 35 and 50 days, depending on weather and whether the shop is able to fit through canals. If you are referring to your Internet service then think again too. Even if you live in a country with "free" Internet it's not free. Your parents pay taxes to support it. Engineers, technicians and lineworkers spend tens of thousands of hours and are paid millions of dollars to maintain it.
User avatar
Romania Dolan
Jaeger
Posts: 4548
Location: aka Neuron

16 Nov 2015, 15:56

samtheham wrote:Humans haven't changed since then (13th century)

Really? You don't see any change in Europe since the 13th century? Not even in mentality? Who in the 13th century would think they are entitled to human rights? Was education public and free up to a certain level? Did people have political rights to vote? Do you see lots of people in Europe today on their knees praying to invisible all-knowing entities in the sky?

Sure humans haven't changed significantly from a biological point of view, but many things changed in their mentalities. At least in the developed world.

This was very relevant to the discussion, because most of the Arab Islamic world is stuck in mentalities from pre-modern era. Law in most countries with a Muslim majority stems from sharia. Sharia was declared incompatible with modern human rights. Because of that, many Muslim states rejected the UN declaration of human rights, calling it Judeo-Christian. And what do they reject from the human rights declaration?

Let's see what Sharia includes:

Blasphemy is any form of cursing or questioning Allah or Muhammed. Punishment can range from imprisonment to beheading.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/man-to-be-beheaded-in-saudi-arabia-after-ripping-up-a-koran-and-hitting-it-with-his-shoe-10067392.html

Freedom of thought or freedom of conscience (including holding other religious beliefs, or none) is not allowed. If you are born in a Muslim state and you quit your religion (apostasy) you can be sentenced to death.

If you were not born in a Muslim state, but you live there, you don't have equal rights with a Muslim. For example, in a penal case of injury by accident, a non-Muslim will be judged harsher than a Muslim offender. Similarly, women's testimony is considered of lesser value than a man's testimony.

Whipping is a common punishment under sharia for "minor" crimes, like adultery, gambling etc:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nYTyjMaBmD8

Sure, the Irak war was a mistake for which Bush and Blair should go to prison. USA actually paid a high price for getting involved in that area, they lost lots of money and troops, without managing to control what is going on there. Western involvement in Lybia and Syria were also mistakes, imo, the West should not have gotten and should not get involved in defending some people from their own leaders. It's just not the West's job to do that. But to take revenge on casual citizens in Europe for some political leaders' decisions to get involved in those countries is just retarded. Many Europeans did not agree with those military decisions, some even protested against them. Remember the demonstrations against the war in Iraq? Remember that Blair was held responsible for getting the UK involved in the war in Iraq? Why would you bomb innocent people who did not make those decisions? As a measure of retaliation for their own bombardment of innocent people in those countries?

Which European citizen agreed that innocent citizens from the Middle East should get bombed?

I think that's the only possible and defensible "geopolitical" motive that could be used by terrorists. But besides that, it's just the conflict between different mentalities and systems of values which motivated these attacks.
ok.
No Flag samtheham
Crossbow
Posts: 25

16 Nov 2015, 16:02

@Metis, Sorry the overlay text on the map obscured the legend and I assumed it was modern muslim attacks vs crusade attacks since that's what we were discussing. My bad for misreading the map.

Right, I'm not trying to make the point that the Muslims attacks are due to resentment about the Crusades. They're due to resentment about current Western policies in the middle east. Remember, if you're a poor farmer in an isolated Middle Eastern village, you are not aware of current events and have no clue that 9/11 happened. Instead, all you see is drone strikes that kill innocent people in your village. You get angry about that, and these men are easy pickings for ISIS recruitment.

And my statement about transportation being virtually instant and free was an exaggeration to drive a point home. Transportation today IS virtually instantaneous compared to travel in the middle ages -- a 3 hour plane ride has replaced a 3 week boat voyage. It's also basically free -- a 3 hour plane ride is just a couple hundred dollars/day compared to the large costs (pecuniary and time) of a long boat/foot voyage.
No Flag samtheham
Crossbow
Posts: 25

16 Nov 2015, 16:07

@Dolan

Ok great, this is a good discussion to be having.

Let's think about why fundamentalism has become so popular in the Middle East instead of dismissing arabs as barbaric -- why is sharia law prevalent? There must be a reason. I think it is because misguided Western foreign policy in the past century has ostracized the muslim world to the extent that extremists have gained extreme influence. Iran is a good example, in the 50s, Iran elected a president in its first democratic election in its history. However, the CIA quickly overthrew him because he was against Western oil interests and replaced him with a puppet. This puppet ostracized many Iranians to the point where the Iranian revolution gained steam in '79, and now we're left with Ayatollah Kohmenei.

Saddam Hussein, as terrible as he was, was a secular leader. The U.S. overthrew him, and what replaced the power vacuum? Islamic extremists who were able to exploit the masses using the outrage about the unprovoked U.S. invasion.

Seeing a theme here? The West doesn't have a great track record in the region, and people there are eager to differentiate themselves from values they associate with the West as a result. As a result, things like Sharia law and Islamic fundamentalism (i.e. separation from Western values of equality and compassion) have gained a lot of traction. It's a real pity.
United States of America Metis
Howdah
Posts: 1661

16 Nov 2015, 16:39

@samtheham

Your last post there brings up a good point, namely that perceptions sometimes can trump reality where politics are concerned. For instance, in WWII, the perception that anyone of Japanese descent was the enemy because they looked like the enemy surpassed the reality that many of those incarcerated in the internment camps were from families that had been in America longer than some of their German-American guards.

I also wonder how Muslim women perceive themselves? Many Western women would say that Muslim women should have more rights and be allowed to do anything they want. However, do the Muslim women themselves want this? Why is it that some wear traditional garb and follow traditional customs even when they grow up in the West? Is it perhaps because they are happier knowing their place in their society? We have no Muslims around here but we do have a traditionalist society with disparate gender roles, the Mennonites. I've never met a truly happy feminist. Conversely, I've met dozens of happy Mennonite women. They may have gender roles different from the men but they pride themselves in excelling in them and not just griping that they should be treated like men.
User avatar
Norway iwillspankyou
Gendarme
iwillspankyouDonator Best
Posts: 6164

16 Nov 2015, 17:59

[*]Instead of having an honest discussion of the true, complex geopolitical causes of terrorism, we're getting caught up in a debate about the Crusades. Let's talk about what is behind this issue of terrorism. I'm not interested in a historical debate.[/quote][*]

Been reading this post, and I must say you make alot of sence to me.

What can become a big problem though, is that some of the refugees/immegrants makes alot of complains of their accomodations (withc are pretty good). -They complain about cleaning, instead of doing some cleaning up after themselfes. If we look outside the windows from where they live, its littered all over the place.

Another thing: Why is Germany so "kind" to make room for 1m refugees?? Germany, Portugal, Spain, and Italy has an aging population - and they need fresh and young blood to pay their pentions. One hypothesis is that f.i. Germany and many other european contries wants cheep labour. This in turn can push out their own citizens from the workmarked ----and more hostility will arise
Hippocrits are the worst of animals. I love elifants.
User avatar
Norway iwillspankyou
Gendarme
iwillspankyouDonator Best
Posts: 6164

16 Nov 2015, 18:50

Metis : i have met/heard the "petroleum wifes club" - I can tell you I will never forget it. All with very mutch makeup and hair in all kinds of colours - it just blow me away. And they came to Norway to support their husbands. What freedom did they have. And are theyr stupid makeup and hairstile anyting else then a costume?? I can tell you that they realy stood op as clowns in Norway.
Hippocrits are the worst of animals. I love elifants.
User avatar
Bolivia tedere12
Jaeger
Posts: 3431
ESO: Tedere12
Location: Greece

16 Nov 2015, 18:53

Metis wrote:
samtheham wrote: terrible poverty caused by exploitation of your natural resources, etc.


Do you think that all that oil and oil money from Iraq just gets packed on a ship and sent to America? America buys relatively little Iraqi oil, and most of that is from the Kurds.

Then who gets most of the oil, it's the "West" right? Hardly.

80% goes to Asia, with China purchasing half the oil that Iraq produces, nearly a million barrels a day. Chinese state-owned companies invest $2 billion a year into developing Iraq oil. The US companies are not even in the largest producing areas but mainly in the Kurdish region, which is in much better shape than it was under Hussein (it wasn't the US that was nerve gassing them).

US oil imports

from Iraq -- 4 million barrels a month.
from Canada -- 120 million barrels a month.


http://econospeak.blogspot.com/2013/03/ ... r-war.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/03/world ... .html?_r=0
http://www.iraq-businessnews.com/tag/oil-exports/

I guess that's what someone will find out if he googles it on internet but not really the truth
Image
Image
United States of America Metis
Howdah
Posts: 1661

16 Nov 2015, 19:27

tedere12 wrote: I guess that's what someone will find out if he googles it on internet but not really the truth


You trolls are amazing. If someone doesn't cite sources you say they are just making things up. If someone does cite sources you either say that they are citing the wrong ones or have obtained them "Off the Internet," which apparently makes them worthless.

You do realize that you are corresponding over the Internet, don't you? By your logic this means that anything you are saying here is worthless.

However, more too the point, it never ceases to amaze me how many continue to decry anything cited from the Internet as being worthless. Don't you realize that (currently classified information excepted) you can access most of humanity's knowledge via the Internet? Major news sources, scientific publications, science databases, dictionaries, encyclopedias, works of literature, symphonies, religious texts, maps, business reports, textbooks, building blueprints, patents, engineering designs and much, much more are all available on the Internet. Google's search engine allows one to quickly access this information.

To say that information obtained from the Internet is worthless, simply because of its presence there, or to deride someone because they "Googled" for said information is simply imbecilic. I'd say feel free to provide counter citations but I sincerely doubt you will. It's much easier to "poo poo" others' research than to actually do any of your own.
No Flag arriah
Dragoon
Posts: 472

16 Nov 2015, 19:41

Metis wrote:@samtheham

Your last post there brings up a good point, namely that perceptions sometimes can trump reality where politics are concerned. For instance, in WWII, the perception that anyone of Japanese descent was the enemy because they looked like the enemy surpassed the reality that many of those incarcerated in the internment camps were from families that had been in America longer than some of their German-American guards.

I also wonder how Muslim women perceive themselves? Many Western women would say that Muslim women should have more rights and be allowed to do anything they want. However, do the Muslim women themselves want this? Why is it that some wear traditional garb and follow traditional customs even when they grow up in the West? Is it perhaps because they are happier knowing their place in their society? We have no Muslims around here but we do have a traditionalist society with disparate gender roles, the Mennonites. I've never met a truly happy feminist. Conversely, I've met dozens of happy Mennonite women. They may have gender roles different from the men but they pride themselves in excelling in them and not just griping that they should be treated like men.


American Muslim women I have talked to that still wear head scarfs do so because that is how they interpret their religion, not because they believe they don't deserve their rights. Also, preferring traditional gender rolls for yourself is all well and fine, but requiring people to fit into their assigned gender rolls because of your personal views or else face persecution is absolutely wrong.
User avatar
United States of America evilcheadar
Jaeger
Posts: 4301
Location: USA

16 Nov 2015, 19:47

Metis wrote:
tedere12 wrote: I guess that's what someone will find out if he googles it on internet but not really the truth


You trolls are amazing. If someone doesn't cite sources you say they are just making things up. If someone does cite sources you either say that they are citing the wrong ones or have obtained them "Off the Internet," which apparently makes them worthless.

You do realize that you are corresponding over the Internet, don't you? By your logic this means that anything you are saying here is worthless.

However, more too the point, it never ceases to amaze me how many continue to decry anything cited from the Internet as being worthless. Don't you realize that (currently classified information excepted) you can access most of humanity's knowledge via the Internet? Major news sources, scientific publications, science databases, dictionaries, encyclopedias, works of literature, symphonies, religious texts, maps, business reports, textbooks, building blueprints, patents, engineering designs and much, much more are all available on the Internet. Google's search engine allows one to quickly access this information.

To say that information obtained from the Internet is worthless, simply because of its presence there, or to deride someone because they "Googled" for said information is simply imbecilic. I'd say feel free to provide counter citations but I sincerely doubt you will. It's much easier to "poo poo" others' research than to actually do any of your own.


The thing is, once something is posted on the internet like a wiki article, it can be altered and then you don't know truth from harry potter. I know this because my high school librarian told me and even let us hop online and trash a few wiki articles to prove the point.
A post not made is a post given away

A slushie a day keeps the refill thread at bay

Jackson Pollock was the best poster to ever to post on these forums
User avatar
No Flag fightinfrenchman
Gendarme
Donator 04
Posts: 9542

16 Nov 2015, 19:53

Metis wrote:
tedere12 wrote: I guess that's what someone will find out if he googles it on internet but not really the truth


You trolls are amazing. If someone doesn't cite sources you say they are just making things up. If someone does cite sources you either say that they are citing the wrong ones or have obtained them "Off the Internet," which apparently makes them worthless.

You do realize that you are corresponding over the Internet, don't you? By your logic this means that anything you are saying here is worthless.

However, more too the point, it never ceases to amaze me how many continue to decry anything cited from the Internet as being worthless. Don't you realize that (currently classified information excepted) you can access most of humanity's knowledge via the Internet? Major news sources, scientific publications, science databases, dictionaries, encyclopedias, works of literature, symphonies, religious texts, maps, business reports, textbooks, building blueprints, patents, engineering designs and much, much more are all available on the Internet. Google's search engine allows one to quickly access this information.

To say that information obtained from the Internet is worthless, simply because of its presence there, or to deride someone because they "Googled" for said information is simply imbecilic. I'd say feel free to provide counter citations but I sincerely doubt you will. It's much easier to "poo poo" others' research than to actually do any of your own.


anyone can edit a google search. if you're looking for serious, in-depth scholarly articles use bing, which is what most high IQ people do.
The doctor says it makes me stronger than your average Joe
User avatar
United States of America evilcheadar
Jaeger
Posts: 4301
Location: USA

16 Nov 2015, 19:59

fightinfrenchman wrote:
Metis wrote:
tedere12 wrote: I guess that's what someone will find out if he googles it on internet but not really the truth


You trolls are amazing. If someone doesn't cite sources you say they are just making things up. If someone does cite sources you either say that they are citing the wrong ones or have obtained them "Off the Internet," which apparently makes them worthless.

You do realize that you are corresponding over the Internet, don't you? By your logic this means that anything you are saying here is worthless.

However, more too the point, it never ceases to amaze me how many continue to decry anything cited from the Internet as being worthless. Don't you realize that (currently classified information excepted) you can access most of humanity's knowledge via the Internet? Major news sources, scientific publications, science databases, dictionaries, encyclopedias, works of literature, symphonies, religious texts, maps, business reports, textbooks, building blueprints, patents, engineering designs and much, much more are all available on the Internet. Google's search engine allows one to quickly access this information.

To say that information obtained from the Internet is worthless, simply because of its presence there, or to deride someone because they "Googled" for said information is simply imbecilic. I'd say feel free to provide counter citations but I sincerely doubt you will. It's much easier to "poo poo" others' research than to actually do any of your own.


anyone can edit a google search. if you're looking for serious, in-depth scholarly articles use bing, which is what most high IQ people do.


Exactly, typically you'll see rush players googling their info while treaty players are binging it up. This corroborates the echead test and analysis that showed higher IQ people tend to choose treaty over rush. (if we checked IQ's and compared side by side)
A post not made is a post given away

A slushie a day keeps the refill thread at bay

Jackson Pollock was the best poster to ever to post on these forums
User avatar
Bolivia tedere12
Jaeger
Posts: 3431
ESO: Tedere12
Location: Greece

16 Nov 2015, 20:10

Metis wrote:
tedere12 wrote: I guess that's what someone will find out if he googles it on internet but not really the truth


You trolls are amazing. If someone doesn't cite sources you say they are just making things up. If someone does cite sources you either say that they are citing the wrong ones or have obtained them "Off the Internet," which apparently makes them worthless.

You do realize that you are corresponding over the Internet, don't you? By your logic this means that anything you are saying here is worthless.

However, more too the point, it never ceases to amaze me how many continue to decry anything cited from the Internet as being worthless. Don't you realize that (currently classified information excepted) you can access most of humanity's knowledge via the Internet? Major news sources, scientific publications, science databases, dictionaries, encyclopedias, works of literature, symphonies, religious texts, maps, business reports, textbooks, building blueprints, patents, engineering designs and much, much more are all available on the Internet. Google's search engine allows one to quickly access this information.

To say that information obtained from the Internet is worthless, simply because of its presence there, or to deride someone because they "Googled" for said information is simply imbecilic. I'd say feel free to provide counter citations but I sincerely doubt you will. It's much easier to "poo poo" others' research than to actually do any of your own.


wtf is wrong with you I thought you were a serious guy anyway http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-09-1 ... g-oil-isis

EDIT: the photo/video-documents: http://www.defencenet.gr/defence/201511 ... E%AF%CE%B1
Image
Image
United States of America Metis
Howdah
Posts: 1661

16 Nov 2015, 20:26

@tedere12

How does a few million barrels of oil smuggled to Turkey by IS counter the fact that most of Iraq's oil is sold to Asian countries? Remember that I was providing a counter argument to someone who said that the West is getting the lion's share of Iraq's oil.

So far, the ISIS oil trading has been active with buyers in Jordan, Turkey, Syria and Iran, said Luay al-Khatteeb, a visiting fellow at the Brookings Doha Center and serves as the director of the Iraq Energy Institute.


http://english.alarabiya.net/en/perspec ... sales.html
United States of America Metis
Howdah
Posts: 1661

16 Nov 2015, 20:52

evilcheadar wrote:
The thing is, once something is posted on the internet like a wiki article, it can be altered and then you don't know truth from harry potter. I know this because my high school librarian told me and even let us hop online and trash a few wiki articles to prove the point.


Just because you can edit Wiki articles that specifically allow editing doesn't mean that you can alter just anything on the internet.

Try to edit this scientific paper:

http://jmammal.oxfordjournals.org/conte ... mal.gyv173

Try to edit this textbook:

http://ridge.icu.ac.jp/biobk/biobooktoc.html

Try to edit this species account:

http://animaldiversity.org/accounts/Blarina_hylophaga/

Most Wiki articles contain citations to peer-reviewed literature. Even if some teachers lets their kids "trash a few wiki articles" to prove a point, the editors will strive to change the information back or flag it if it's not correctly cited. However, you never take the Wiki, or any encyclopedia at face value, you check to see if what it says is congruent with the its sources.
User avatar
Norway iwillspankyou
Gendarme
iwillspankyouDonator Best
Posts: 6164

16 Nov 2015, 21:08

and so far metis : do anybody know where that fuck oil goes to? you wont find that on the web anywhere
Hippocrits are the worst of animals. I love elifants.
User avatar
Bolivia tedere12
Jaeger
Posts: 3431
ESO: Tedere12
Location: Greece

16 Nov 2015, 21:10

Metis wrote:@tedere12

How does a few million barrels of oil smuggled to Turkey by IS counter the fact that 80% of Iraq's oil is sold to Asian countries? Remember that I was providing a counter argument to someone who said that the West is getting the lion's share of Iraq's oil.

So far, the ISIS oil trading has been active with buyers in Jordan, Turkey, Syria and Iran, said Luay al-Khatteeb, a visiting fellow at the Brookings Doha Center and serves as the director of the Iraq Energy Institute.


http://english.alarabiya.net/en/perspec ... sales.html


How can you know since those who make the trades don't want you to know? And it is not just a few million barrells (july 10 isis controls 10% of iraq's oil fields http://money.cnn.com/2015/07/10/investi ... time-high/)
Image
Image
User avatar
Bolivia tedere12
Jaeger
Posts: 3431
ESO: Tedere12
Location: Greece

16 Nov 2015, 21:14

http://www.globalresearch.ca/isis-oil-e ... ey/5485920 400k bpd thats 10% of iraqs oil export and the article is an old one
@metis where did you read that 80% of iraqs oil goes to asia? link? seems hard to believe
Image
Image
User avatar
Norway iwillspankyou
Gendarme
iwillspankyouDonator Best
Posts: 6164

16 Nov 2015, 21:14

mafia - and some other cheems - guess ut turns up in america and countries
Hippocrits are the worst of animals. I love elifants.
User avatar
Norway iwillspankyou
Gendarme
iwillspankyouDonator Best
Posts: 6164

16 Nov 2015, 21:15

im glad they finely blow up some 160 containers
Hippocrits are the worst of animals. I love elifants.
United States of America Metis
Howdah
Posts: 1661

16 Nov 2015, 22:35

I might have misinterpreted that 80% figure. According to predictions by the IEA, Asian imports of Iraq's oil will continue to grow and American imports drop. Within the next five years, Asia will import 80% of Iraq's oil production.

https://www.iea.org/search/?q=iraq#gsc. ... gsc.page=1

This is 2014 data. However, it still supports my point that Iraq's oil is not just going to the "West."

Image

Forum Info

Return to “Archive”



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests