U.S. sends Marines to support Raqqa assault

[ilostmypassword]

19 minutes ago, sanemax said:

Although maybe not the military, but private oil companies could have gone into Iraq and taken the oil .

   With the oil wells already in place , it wouldnt have been too difficult to go and confiscate the oil

5 minutes ago, sanemax said:

When the U.S Army over ran Southern Iraq , it would have been quite easy to defend those oil wells and transport the oil through Kuwait .

   Private oil companies working with the U.S Army for protection

First it was just oil companies. Now it's oil companies with military protection. A military well equipped to conduct a never ending war on foreign soil among a very very hostile population. All, in furtherance of stealing someone else's resources. Clearly, you are Trump's equal, at least, in strategic thinking. 

 

 

[sanemax]

3 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

First it was just oil companies. Now it's oil companies with military protection. A military well equipped to conduct a never ending war on foreign soil among a very very hostile population. All, in furtherance of stealing someone else's resources. Clearly, you are Trump's equal, at least, in strategic thinking. 

 

 

I did mean that the military wouldnt be able to get the oil on their own, they would need professional help from oil companies to extract the oil .

   The U.S Army had invaded Iraq and they were able to deal with local hostilities

ISIS took over the oil wells, so could the USA .

   I am not agreeing with Trump BTW (about taking the oil) I just think it would have been quite possible and easy to achieve . 

[Morch]

11 minutes ago, sanemax said:

I did mean that the military wouldnt be able to get the oil on their own, they would need professional help from oil companies to extract the oil .

   The U.S Army had invaded Iraq and they were able to deal with local hostilities

ISIS took over the oil wells, so could the USA .

   I am not agreeing with Trump BTW (about taking the oil) I just think it would have been quite possible and easy to achieve . 

 

The "easy to achieve" assessment is based on knowledge? Experience? A Fox News story? Or just opinion? All seem pretty much acceptable these days. Most of those involved in actual planning and carrying out of such endeavors wouldn't use "easy to achieve", I think.

[sanemax]

Just now, Morch said:

 

The "easy to achieve" assessment is based on knowledge? Experience? A Fox News story? Or just opinion? All seem pretty much acceptable these days. Most of those involved in actual planning and carrying out of such endeavors wouldn't use "easy to achieve", I think.

I have given my reasons as to why I think it would be easy to achieve .

Oil wells already in place , Iraqui army defeated , U.S Army in full control of the area, a safe route to get the oil out (through Kuwait) .

   Where is the problem ?

[Morch]

1 minute ago, sanemax said:

I have given my reasons as to why I think it would be easy to achieve .

Oil wells already in place , Iraqui army defeated , U.S Army in full control of the area, a safe route to get the oil out (through Kuwait) .

   Where is the problem ?

 

Go Trump. Pretty much the same level of reasoning and familiarity with relevant issues.

[Morch]

Just now, sanemax said:

Why dont you give me a reason why it wouldnt be feasible ?

 

Reasons were given across multiple topics. This isn't a new issue. As far as I recall, there wasn't a whole lot of enthusiasm among experts (diplomatic, economic or military) with regard to Trump's comments. Rather, most were critical or outright dismissive. Since the level of what passes for "debate" here seems to assume such nonsense as s a newly elected politician mastering a field of professional expertise in a matter of weeks....doubt there's much point in explaining how far fetched his comments were.

[ilostmypassword]

12 minutes ago, sanemax said:

I have given my reasons as to why I think it would be easy to achieve .

Oil wells already in place , Iraqui army defeated , U.S Army in full control of the area, a safe route to get the oil out (through Kuwait) .

   Where is the problem ?

This time the USA would have virtually all Iraqis united against it.  And I think it's nuts to believe that the Kuwaitis would acquiesce in this kind of theft.

[Morch]

2 hours ago, Grubster said:

Well I guess you were never in the military. There is a chain of command, the president is at the top, it is the duty of everyone below him to give him any and all information he wants, and to keep him informed of all major developments. All intelligence is under his/her command. The highest ranking general does not have privy to all this info unless the president says so. Intelligence does not have privy to all the generals know unless the president says so. How many generals knew of the A bomb and what it was capable of. If any it was because Truman allowed them to know. Yes the generals have no rights to the truth or facts that they are not aware of unless the president gives it to them or has it given to them. Same for all the intelligence agency's.  My source, I'm sorry I can't remember my seventh grade teachers name. Don't you remember GW Bush saying he has proof of ams of mass destruction but I'm not going to tell you what it is?

 

Well, I guess that guessing isn't your forte. What you describe is very nice in theory, but in practice, a whole lot depends on the man in charge. If he's not the sort who takes an interest in details, nuances and a barrage of information - then it all means diddly squat. As for generals, there are different levels of access and clearance. Generals often receive rather informed briefings when it comes to issues relevant to their command. These briefings are not limited to intelligence generated by the military. All the more so when it comes to planning such raids and interventions as discussed. This applies more specifically with regard to special forces operations.

 

I'm having trouble with your generalization of "no rights to truth or facts". Do you mean to imply military plans are based on lies and imagination? Do you see generals as automatons that know nothing regarding their areas of command?

 

 This doesn't mean that things always work smoothly, that all information is shared or that cooperation between agencies is seamless.

 

So no, Trump didn't know more than "the  generals" when he made the comment, and he doesn't now. IMO, you may be confusing his access to information, and actually possessing knowledge. Two different things.

[derator01]

Back to the topic please.  This isn't about how much generals know or don't know.