and
so we better secure its functioning before we leave.
and
so we better secure its functioning before we leave.
Very good grasshopper. Unfortunately there is this little unstablized country thing we have to solve first. Then rebuild Iraqi oil infrastructure, prevent sabotage, etc. etc. etc.
But hey, they love us...
Never really bought the argument that we're in Iraq for oil - or at least for Iraqi oil. We've been reluctantly buying their oil anyway through the bogus oil for food program.
It's not like we need it. Iran has similarly huge reserves, yet the United States has not purchased oil from that country for over a decade.
The reality is that the United States has progressively reduced its reliance on Persian Gulf oil to about 25% of this country's needs, down from one third. Other areas of the world like west Africa are now picking up the slack.
Interestingly, Europe is more reliant on Persian Gulf oil than is the United States.
I really do believe the invasion of Iraq is about the war against terror, but perhaps not in the simplistic way that its been presented to the American public.
With the United States occupying both Iraq and Afghanistan, Iran is now sandwiched in and is primed to topple. No wonder there is speculation that Iran has been a major supplier/supporter of the recent insurgency.
Syria is another supporter of terrorism, and having a pro-western Iraq next door is sure to give that country's leaders pause.
<font color="#000002" size="1">[ May 08, 2004 11:03 AM: Message edited by: reason ]</font>
Those photos are from The Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan. They document how the Taliban treated the opposition. We are not fighting this war because of the human rights abuses of the Taliban, we went into Afghanistan because the Taliban were supporting Al Queda.
Those photos have little to do with Iraq. We would be farther along in the war on terror if we had kept our main forces in Afghanistan and avoided Iraq. Remember the plans a few months back to increase forces in Afghanistan and make a big push to get bin Laden? What if we had remained in Afghanistan and done that 2 years ago instead of shifting resources to Iraq?
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">For the record, I cannot see the pictures in the first post. I only see the oil pump in the second post.Originally posted by LanDroid:
Those photos are from The Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan. They document how the Taliban treated the opposition. We are not fighting this war because of the human rights abuses of the Taliban, we went into Afghanistan because the Taliban were supporting Al Queda.
Those photos have little to do with Iraq. We would be farther along in the war on terror if we had kept our main forces in Afghanistan and avoided Iraq. Remember the plans a few months back to increase forces in Afghanistan and make a big push to get bin Laden? What if we had remained in Afghanistan and done that 2 years ago instead of shifting resources to Iraq?
I do, however agree with your comments on Afghanistan. And I think Rumsfeld has his head up his butt, not knowing what resources were needed for Iraq, much less how to allocate them.
Not opposed to Iraq per se, but opposed to the idiotic way in which it was "planned."
<font color="#000002" size="1">[ May 08, 2004 11:05 AM: Message edited by: reason ]</font>
You are correct Lan. Those are from A-stan. But of course these actions never happened in Iraq. [img]graemlins/whatever.gif[/img]
I agree with Reason, I don't think it's about oil specifically. I think oil may be part of the reason (no pun intended). [img]smile.gif[/img]
We get most of our oil from venezuala.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks