Quote from: Honeypot on September 12, 2014, 07:17:05 AM

Quote from: Rassah on September 11, 2014, 11:58:10 PM

Quote from: Honeypot on September 11, 2014, 11:31:54 PM

Quote from: Rassah on September 11, 2014, 08:13:22 PM

I was actually referring to (and leading into the direction) the economic stagnation that followed, in large part due to uncertainty and dread surrounding the ongoing war, which had to be "fixed" by trying to stimulate the economy on with very low interest rates, which led to the housing bubble, which, combined with a massively increased government debt, fights over the debt ceiling, and general political and economic instability of the US, at least in small part contributed to the recession we had in 2008, and the current decline that we can't seem to get ourselves out of (is that good for connecting the dots?) Yes, I'm saying if US didn't spend $3 trillion to invade Iraq, it would have been much better off.

How simple

Connecting the dots where economics are concerned must not be your forte. Going by that logic, I could also easily argue that not doing anything or not invading iraq would have caused the largest drain of oil resources the world has ever seen

Where does that come from? Were we heavily dependent on Iraq oil? I don't remember Iraq threatening to stop selling it.

Global oil supply. That includes oil transportation routes.

Are you blind to geography?

I don't think you have the slightest idea about how things actually work.

I wasn't aware that Iraq was interfeering with global oil supply routes, or with oil production at all. When that whole thing happened, he wasn't really doing much of anything at all. And now Iraq's oil is being pumped by Lukoil, a Russian company. So the only switch was China, then US, and now Russia. I still don't understand how this would affect global oil supplies and prices. Iraq doesn't have a monopoly on the stuff.