It Looks like a major murderer get's caught in the net! Thanks Pakistan! A great success for America and a contribution for peace in the middle east. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A23084-2003Mar1.html
Trash for your fire Tadpol, not mine. Persuing terrorists is the reason we went to the middle east. waging a war for oil is not.
That is excellent, and it's what needs to be happening much more often. Funny how Invasions never get the same results... I wonder what would happen if we parked the "War on Terrorism" (War on Apprehension of Criminals) and the "War on Scapegoats" and tried some more cooperative police work. Hmmm?
Uhm...this is the terrorist that planned the attack on the WTC and killed thousands of innocent people.. his apprehension is not good news to you? And where do you get the idea that we are waging a war for oil? I should rephrase that.. there's plenty of nitwits who would give you that idea, where do you substantiate that idea?
Of course this is good news for me.. My point was, that is why we went to the middle east in the first place.. when did persuing terrorist become waging war on Iraq???? When it became politically convenient. Iraq has the second larget oil reserves in the world. much of it is a low sulphur oil which US refineries love. There are many links similiar to this one. http://abcnews.go.com/sections/world/DailyNews/iraq010720_cooley.html
hahaahahah, good thinking, keep repeating it 10 times a day and u will belive that this war is anti terror war. haha lol.
A link to an old article, 2001? I'm sure a lot of it is still pertinent though.. You might try to read through journalistic spin and just look at the verifiable points of the article. Like the fact that Iraq at that time accounted for <FONT COLOR=BLACK><FONT SIZE=1><FONT FACE="ARIAL"><B>only 9% of total oil imports</B></FONT></FONT></FONT>! That's not total U.S. consumption mind you.. do you realize how small that total actually is 'cano? Iraq is a very minor source of oil for the United States! If your trying to find a "money trail" to back reasons for a countries war stance you should be looking at France, Germany and Russia. This may be a helpful graph to put it in perspective... it represents fully 80% of the total of imported oil consumed by the United States. The countries in <FONT COLOR=RED><FONT SIZE=1><FONT FACE="VERDANA">red</FONT></FONT></FONT> represent OPEC nations. You could probably sell me on the idea that military action in Venezuala was about oil, but it just doesn't fly when we speak of Iraq. <FONT COLOR=BLACK><FONT SIZE=5><FONT FACE="TIMES NEW ROMAN"><B>2002 Top 10 Countries from which the U.S. Imports Oil </B></FONT></FONT></FONT> <IMG SRC="http://bellsouthpwp.net/r/a/rainctrl/oil.gif"> Tell me Saddam's really a nice guy, say we have no right to change the leadership of a soveriegn nation. Say the inspections are working and that Iraq harbors no terrorists.. Hell, even tell me Bush just likes to play with guns.. but don't insult my intelligence with a ridiculous "it's all about oil" argument.
Then we have differing opinions. If you'll notice, on the top three nations that we import oil from, Canada is the only really stable one. I'm assuming that their economy is at least okay, that people there don't live in poverty, etc. But I cannot say the same for the remainer of our larger oil sources. So, could you at least acknowledge that the US might want another stable nation to import oil from, in the off chance that at the same time Saudia Arabia and Mexico undergoe communist revolutions and refuse to give us anything? If we have a strong presence in Iraq it is unlikely that they will attempt to overthrow us. It's great that they caught this guy. But if we continue to bomb innocent people, not only the obvious innocents, like the Iraqis and the Afghanis, but also the ones that we never hear about (I can't remember exactly where, it was someplace near or around Indonesia or Australia, I think it starts with a t), these masterminds will merely be replaced. Terrorism is a hydra. More heads replace the ones that you destroy until you stop them at their source, and cease giving them reasons, at least legitimate ones, to retaliate against you.
if we are attacking iraq just for the oil, why dont we just take over mexico and take their oil. it would be much cheaper because they are so close.
Tadpole terror "a link to an article that goes back to 2001 not pertinent enough" Your graph goes back to 2000 , are you sure that the correct statistics were gathered then? Ok its not just about oil. It is about making a mistake that can never be undone, a need to get some kind of revenge for 911, and oil. We can easily defeat Iraq, but we will never subdue the Islamic extremists. As I said in another post: waging a war on Iraq will be like hitting a hornets nest with a baseball bat. We can destroy the nest but we will still have one billion angry hornets to deal with. 911 occured because suicidal Islamic radicals were outraged at our presence in their lands during the first gulf war. Are we to assume that they will be happy about our presence this time? We wiil experience an immediate victory and a long term disaster.
ibadreamer We already have mexican oil pretty much under control. All the Mexian president asks of us is that we allow more immigration from that country.
So justice, what's the point your making? We should all just except our fate, convert to islam and turn towards mecca? Your remark about the graph was pointless...
As was your remark about the date (2001) of the link I posted previously. The point I would like to make is that we first need to secure our borders before doing anything. The Dept. of homeland security is, so far, a joke. It took them six months to come up with a color code for terrorist alerts. Airport security has improved but is still a maze of jumbled confusion. Our Air traffic control system is very vulnerable. The computer centers for air traffic control are left without sufficient security. I walked directly up to one of the buildings on Wed, just to confirm that fact for myself. Protecting Our borders and our security in this country can only be accomplished by the national guard, but so many of them are deployed to the middle east that this is no longer feasible. First build a strong homefront then deal with Saddam. I am a disabled veteran and I have the scars to prove it. Your comment about Mecca was in extreme bad taste. Grow up young man.
I was using them as examples. Who knows--other things could happen, civil war, internal strife, you name it. The United States generally tends to do things for short term goals, regardless of how right or wrong they are. This includes the war on Iraq. We would have a strong presence there for a few years at minimum, and then afterwards we would have a puppet regime (a viceroy, if you will) put in place to keep things in order. If the fellow has a problem with the people, we help him out. Meanwhile, he ensures that we get all the oil that we can drink. It's not as if we have only two choices. You think we have to either go to war for legitimate purposes or we have to appease Saddam Hussein, not unlike what most of Europe did for Hitler. There are a great many differences between Hitler and Hussein. For one, Hitler was reasonably succesful for awhile, and had a large army. When we turned on Saddam, I'm not sure his forces ever had a victory against ours. If you believe that we are going to war with him because of his weapons, you might also take into consideration that we gave every single high-end military weapon (the nerve gas, the missiles, etc) he has to him while he was fighting Iran in the eighties. We also gave weapons to Iran, which means that if Bush is re-elected that'll probably be our next stop in the Middle East. Trouble is, all of this bombing is going to kill off the mothers of future terrorists who will stop at nothing for vengeance. They wouldn't be terrorists if they didn't have a reason, like the mutilation or death of multiple family members. So, the solution is peace. We let the UN deal with Saddam and start fixing up the US before we criticize the freedom hating peoples of the world. Once we are no longer hypocrits, then we can fight whoever the hell we can get our claws on.
"If you believe that we are going to war with him because of his weapons, you might also take into consideration that we gave every single high-end military weapon (the nerve gas, the missiles, etc) he has to him while he was fighting Iran in the eighties" Er. No. France gave him a boatload worth of his weapons. Including two tries at giving him a nuke. "Trouble is, all of this bombing is going to kill off the mothers of future terrorists who will stop at nothing for vengeance. They wouldn't be terrorists if they didn't have a reason, like the mutilation or death of multiple family members." Wrong. Look at Israel/Palestine. Even before Israel became a nation the Moslem countries announced they would launch war on a Jewish state. The Jews had done nothing to them yet and they were ready to fight.
Well, yeah, basically a Jewish state was going to be created in a land that had for a great deal of time been inhabited primarily by Muslims... If word got around that wherever you live was going to be declared a Muslim state, wouldn't you object?
I dont think its just a question of Iraq but of US foreign policy as well. Havent u noticed the pattern over the last decade or so... every few years US gets restless and has to play out the big Mother of the World by waving and using a big stick on smaller countries. Why? my reasons: To use up the stock pile of high tech weapons so the military industry can keep rolling. To allow politicans to have a good reason to keep spending huge amounts of budget on the military. To show off the military might of US as to remind everyone whos the big dog in the world. Ofcourse there are more but lets not get too much into it. Its actually funny how the media feeds the general populace tidbits of biased opinion to prepare us for the upcoming hostilities. The attack on Yugoslavia was nothing more than a reason for the above mentioned points to be made. The whole talk of genocide and mass exodus of "siptars" (Albanians living in Kosovo) didnt really happen. I'm half Albanian from Kosovo so i would know what i'm talking about. As for the attack ih afganistan.......same thing...the so called "hunting down" of the terrorists was nothing but talk
