TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- It's Not a War for Oil
Pages (2): « 1 [2]

Where did you hear that malek? in le monde? that's where i heard it, but i have not seen proof.


I just read this interview, which seems to state that it never happened:

http://emperors-clothes.com/interviews/lane.htm

i'd be interested to see evidence to the contrary.

i will find the proof about Karzai, it was documented in the Le Monde Diplomatique. Also, about Zalmay Khalilzad, just type his name in google, and you'll lots of coverage from Indy media.

quote:

Originally posted by Dj_Irish It was of course not the main reason for the U.S. attacking Afghanistan but to say there is no ecnomic interest in that region from the U.S. is to be naive IMO.

As I said, there is LITTLE economic interest. Wow, its in a strategic locaiton for a pipeline - I can name you hundreds of other countries with pipelines, or some that could build them but refuse to.

Sure, if it is constructed it will benifit the Afghan economy a little, and the US economy a little to gain. But in the scopes of things its just that, little!

And of course, when new markets open, new interest happens. But you and I agree... this little pipeline for Afghan which still has not been built, and is years away from every being built - if it ever will be, was not the cause for war. I don't even know why you brought the point up.. it proves nothing.

quote:

Originally posted by LiquidX Nice post DJ IRISH. And to Yoepus, you admit to say that the USA wont make a war without anything in change or back. You also mention that IRAQ is not force to sell to the US and either the US buy from IRAQ. No conditions. But the most common sense , LOGICAL sense is that the US will benefit either way if it gets SADDAM out, thats my point, its not that I dont understand what the WASHINTONG POST says. My point is that the US does have an interest, while you recall it minor or huge, it does have an interest for OIL.

Yes, I call them minor and a backthought for the war on Iraq, you consider them huge (I'm speculating on your part, forgive me), and the primary cause.

All I can say, if they were the primary cause, then we should see some of the things that the Washington Post article guy said do not happen, happen. Wouldn't it just be easier then to buy oil from Iraq right now - immediatly, before it is war torn, and millions have to go in just to rebuilt the oil infrastructure?

quote:

I do understand that for the Jewish community, with all due respect, would be more then happy with Saddam out of the middle east, If I was , I know I would, but when it comes to the interests of what the US wants, its a different story

What does religion, or lack there of have to do with rationally disproving my views?

3 trillions USD in 2000 money isn't pocket change.

thats

3 000 000 000 000 $

look at how many zeros wow!



man you are being the naive one...

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus What does religion, or lack there of have to do with rationally disproving my views?

Mmmm I never said something directly to you man, take it easy. That was a generalized comment buddy, thats it. Think is I also talk to friends and have this discussions on my gov't class, and like I said, I live in a Jewish community, and thats what I get to see, and thats what THEY ADMIT , so dont take it personally, I wasent even telling that to you man. Its opinions, and discussion.. isnt it ? .. dont fire up .

quote:

Originally posted by LiquidX Mmmm I never said something directly to you man, take it easy. That was a generalized comment buddy, thats it. Think is I also talk to friends and have this discussions on my gov't class, and like I said, I live in a Jewish community, and thats what I get to see, and thats what THEY ADMIT , so dont take it personally, I wasent even telling that to you man. Its opinions, and discussion.. isnt it ? .. dont fire up .

I concede, I misunderstood the context in which you attributed this part of your post. But regardless, I don't get fired up about, nor still think it is very relevant in this discussion. And yes, I think it is true, that the majority of Jews support action against Iraq, but the majority of Jews live in America and Israel - and the majority in those countries are in support of war on Iraq, so it is still hard to pretense the correlation specifically to religion.

Yes the US national agenda is to STEAL Iraqi oil. It was just too easy to do it in 1992 when their military was destroyed, our tanks were already sitting on their oil fields, and we had world support behind us. Why not wait 10 years for the Iraqis to build up their military, develop WMDs, and garner public opinion from a world that's forgotten their track record of invading Iran and Kuwait. That's like me cheating to win a marathon by jogging 5 miles away from the finish line and then shooting myself in the foot.

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus I concede, I misunderstood the context in which you attributed this part of your post. But regardless, I don't get fired up about, nor still think it is very relevant in this discussion. And yes, I think it is true, that the majority of Jews support action against Iraq, but the majority of Jews live in America and Israel - and the majority in those countries are in support of war on Iraq, so it is still hard to pretense the correlation specifically to religion.

I never included Religion, never mentioned it either, I just said Jewish .. and as I understand, thats what the Citizens of Israel are called at, regardless their religion . :-)

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Yes the US national agenda is to STEAL Iraqi oil. It was just too easy to do it in 1992 when their military was destroyed, our tanks were already sitting on their oil fields, and we had world support behind us. Why not wait 10 years for the Iraqis to build up their military, develop WMDs, and garner public opinion from a world that's forgotten their track record of invading Iran and Kuwait. That's like me cheating to win a marathon by jogging 5 miles away from the finish line and then shooting myself in the foot.

The 1992's war purpose was primarily to liberate Kuwait. There are two reasons Iraq didn't get invaded. First is that Saddam had lots of chemical/biological weapons, and he threatened to unleash those on american forces if they invaded further, and the second is that Bush thought Saddam might be more inclined to talk after he got defeated, and that he'd be willing to give up his oil reserves to americans. But the most important thing is that then republicans lost the elections and Clinton got in power He stayed there for 8 years, and he didn't put so much focus on Iraq. If the republicans had won those elections, they'd probably attack Iraq again, as we now see is the case.

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 The 1992's war purpose was primarily to liberate Kuwait. There are two reasons Iraq didn't get invaded. First is that Saddam had lots of chemical/biological weapons, and he threatened to unleash those on american forces if they invaded further, and the second is that Bush thought Saddam might be more inclined to talk after he got defeated, and that he'd be willing to give up his oil reserves to americans. But the most important thing is that then republicans lost the elections and Clinton got in power He stayed there for 8 years, and he didn't put so much focus on Iraq. If the republicans had won those elections, they'd probably attack Iraq again, as we now see is the case.

I think it's Ironic how Iraq wasn't so much of a problem or "threat" when we left them alone. Why exactly are we up their ass now? Outdated and hypothetical reasons aren't good enough for war, i don't care what anyone says.

^^

bush tryin to please daddy

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.