Towards the top of todays WSJ there were some numbers on how SUV sales are booming, towards the bottom there was a blurb on how ultrasound portraits of fetuses are the new rage among pregnant couples. Yep, we need oil.
The French are known for surrendering. They are the biggest chumps on the planet, so what did you expect?
MadRat
A lot of the former Soviet Union countries "above" Afghanistan have good oil. The USA has interest in it no doubt and they're building allies starting with Afghanistan. Do you think Iran would allow US oil pipes go through its country with the current relations? That's a big "NO NO". With Afghanistan and Pakistan being allies, they can easily run oil pipes through there to Arabian Sea where the oil tankers are. Do you think they could do that while Taliban was in command, who totally opposes USA?
Think on a larger scale and stop with the name calling if you didn't like my previous response.
A lot of the former Soviet Union countries "above" Afghanistan have good oil. The USA has interest in it no doubt and they're building allies starting with Afghanistan. Do you think Iran would allow US oil pipes go through its country with the current relations? That's a big "NO NO". With Afghanistan and Pakistan being allies, they can easily run oil pipes through there to Arabian Sea where the oil tankers are. Do you think they could do that while Taliban was in command, who totally opposes USA?
Think on a larger scale and stop with the name calling if you didn't like my previous response.
MadRat
Lifer
- Oct 14, 1999
- 12,009
- 320
- 126
Extracting oil in any meaningful quantity requires alot of infrastructure and opportunity, including factors such as a hospitable landscape. Afghanistan is not a hospitable environment across 85% of the country during the temperature extremes. The other 15% is vital for food production in Afghanistan, but is also a harsh area for transportation. The reason Afghanistan is so fragmented is because of its isolated localities.
btw - The Soviets invaded Afghanistan as part of their Domino policy, not for its oil. The Soviet leadership (naively) looked at the fall of Afghanistan as the first meaningful step to a warm water port in the Indian Ocean.
btw - The Soviets invaded Afghanistan as part of their Domino policy, not for its oil. The Soviet leadership (naively) looked at the fall of Afghanistan as the first meaningful step to a warm water port in the Indian Ocean.
When the need will be there, they will drill for oil in Afghanistan. It's not gonna happen overnight, but it will eventually. You have to think on a larger scale of what you may need in the future, not what you have today. I seriously doubt that the situation in the Middle East will ever be resolved. Take a look at Iran 40 years ago. It was a great free western world type country. Now look at it today. The people highly dislike "our" way of life. Middle East lives like 2,000 years ago without any changes, except for Soviet armour and ammunition.
Well Iran was going somewhere nevertheless. Until the old "loyal religion" people kicked in.
I say we should leave Middle East alone and let them have whatever governments they want. If their people like it, than what are you to change it. Someday, maybe, they'll speak agains it.
Right now we should concentrate on diplomacy with these countries.
I say we should leave Middle East alone and let them have whatever governments they want. If their people like it, than what are you to change it. Someday, maybe, they'll speak agains it.
Right now we should concentrate on diplomacy with these countries.
lol I don't understand what the fuss is about Americans vs. France. As I see it now, USA is all alone if they attack Iraq.
Someone fill me up on why "you" hate the French so bad, and please do not do with with sacrastic remarks.
Someone fill me up on why "you" hate the French so bad, and please do not do with with sacrastic remarks.
Hayabusa Rider
Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
- Jan 26, 2000
- 50,879
- 4,268
- 126
Pretty much because the French do not do things the Americans like and vice versa. If you have heard the saying "If you are not for us, you are against us" Nothing new, been like this with all countries throughout time. I expect it will be the same when all current countries are histories footnotes
Not exactly alone.
Looks like the Britain, Austrailia, Denmark and Kuwait are supporting our desire to make a regime change in iraq. I anticpate there will be a few more joining in as well.
shiner
Lifer
- Jul 18, 2000
- 17,112
- 1
- 0
What I fail to understand is why people think we need approval from all these other nations before we attack Iraq. Last time I checked the U.S. was still a sovereign nation, much to the U.N.'s chagrin, and we can do whatever we want in order to defend ourselves. If it were up to the pansy Euros the world with either be under Nazi or Communist rule right now. No thanks. We will do what we need to in order to protect ourselves and when it's done the rest of the world can go "whew, we're glad America did that so we didn't have to. I mean being free is one thing, but fighting for it? No way we would ever do that. Now pass the wine and cheese Pierre."
The French are pacificts, that's why.
shinerburke, while we don't need anyone's approval it's encouraging to see the support of your neighbors when you want to do some reconstruction to that shady house at the end of the street. I just hope that house is indeed shady.
shinerburke, while we don't need anyone's approval it's encouraging to see the support of your neighbors when you want to do some reconstruction to that shady house at the end of the street. I just hope that house is indeed shady.
No, not really. Only in particulates. And considering technology showcased by VW that puts turbo diesels at 70+mpg, that becomes even less of a factor.
sandorski
No Lifer
- Oct 10, 1999
- 70,874
- 6,409
- 126
Iraq is a sovereign nation as well, therein lies the rub. Hell, the only reason that Desert Storm happened was because Kuwait was a sovereign nation and most would agree that it is historically Iraqi territory. That was also Saddams reason for invading it in the first place. My point is that the prevailing thought on sovereignty and national borders, both in the US and abroad, is pretty much written in stone. Saddam's agression towards Kuwait and subsequent violation of Kuwait's sovereignty motivated the US and Coalition forces to war on Iraq. The RoW needs a reason to violate Iraqi sovereignty and is quite disturbed at the US's(Bush) willingness to violate that sovereignty so casually. Afghanistan and violating their sovereignty was acceptable to the RoW, because mainly of the events of 9/11 and the pursuit of justice on Al Queda/OBL.
With 9/11 coming up I can't help but reflect. Bush started quite nobily after 9/11 to put into action the bringing to justice of OBL/Al Queda. That whole operation started off quite well and seemed organized and has had reasonably good results so far, however, the issue of Iraq has come along and now US foreign policy is a mess. Bush's obsession with Iraq is killing any hope for a successful WoT, simply because it's gone from the noble attack on Taliban/Afghanistan/Al Queda, where proof and atrocity were easily provided, to this pulling of sweet nothings out of the air Iraq must be next shat.
[rant]By the time Bush gets kicked out of office, Republican's themselves will be singing the praises of the Clinton presidency.
Most likely they'll reminisce and fixate on the Regean years, but they'll certainly be glad when Bush is replaced by someone, anyone, of any party/political leaning. Too bad there's 2 more years of this idiot, hopefully he'll realize he's in over his head before then and keep quiet until someone qualified can be found to replace him.[/rant] :|[rant disclaimer] I hope for his and the US's sake that the anticipated "evidence" shows my rant to be premature, but I got this bad feeling...[/rant disclaimer]
Red Dawn
Elite Member
- Jun 4, 2001
- 57,529
- 3
- 0
You are convienently forgetting Iraq's surrender and the terms that came with it. Terms he has repeatedly violated. I dont know how you europeans do it, but here in the US if a person is on probation and breaks the terms of probation the police have the right to come and re-arrest you and put you back in jail. Think of it that way.
Originally posted by: sandorski
Iraq is a sovereign nation as well, therein lies the rub. Hell, the only reason that Desert Storm happened was because Kuwait was a sovereign nation and most would agree that it is historically Iraqi territory. That was also Saddams reason for invading it in the first place. My point is that the prevailing thought on sovereignty and national borders, both in the US and abroad, is pretty much written in stone. Saddam's agression towards Kuwait and subsequent violation of Kuwait's sovereignty motivated the US and Coalition forces to war on Iraq. The RoW needs a reason to violate Iraqi sovereignty and is quite disturbed at the US's(Bush) willingness to violate that sovereignty so casually. Afghanistan and violating their sovereignty was acceptable to the RoW, because mainly of the events of 9/11 and the pursuit of justice on Al Queda/OBL.
With 9/11 coming up I can't help but reflect. Bush started quite nobily after 9/11 to put into action the bringing to justice of OBL/Al Queda. That whole operation started off quite well and seemed organized and has had reasonably good results so far, however, the issue of Iraq has come along and now US foreign policy is a mess. Bush's obsession with Iraq is killing any hope for a successful WoT, simply because it's gone from the noble attack on Taliban/Afghanistan/Al Queda, where proof and atrocity were easily provided, to this pulling of sweet nothings out of the air Iraq must be next shat.
[rant]By the time Bush gets kicked out of office, Republican's themselves will be singing the praises of the Clinton presidency.
[rant disclaimer] I hope for his and the US's sake that the anticipated "evidence" shows my rant to be premature, but I got this bad feeling...[/rant disclaimer]
People bitched and moaned about the lack of evidence for us to go to Afganistan and remove the taliban.
Iraq has been in violation of gulf wars agreements.
Iraq has been funding terrorists.
Fox reported today that Iraq is within 6 months of a nuke.
The last 2 reasons are good enough to warrent a change in goverment by force if needed.
As far as I know the taliban were not internationally recognized as the government of afghanistan. Acceptable violation? Nah.
sandorski
No Lifer
- Oct 10, 1999
- 70,874
- 6,409
- 126
Red Dawn: Hahaha, yea I know. That's why I threw the Regean comment in.
Lucky: Yes, Iraq has violated the terms, no doubt about it. Bush has erroneously jumped to the conclusion that invasion is the *only* solution however. The RoW(rest of the world) or even just US Allies need some kind of proof or at least some attempt at diplomacy before going along though. So far only Saddam seems interested in diplomacy, while Bush seems intent on invasion come hell or high water.
As for Afghanistan, that was kind of my point. The RoW was all for an accepting the violation of Afghani sovereignty on the grounds of bringing OBL/Al Queda to justice.
BTW, I'm not European. I am Canadian.
Charrison: The Taliban were not involved in the 9/11 attack, so were not the original intended target in Afghanistan. It's refusal to hand over OBL/Al Queda and subsequent threats to oppose actions by the US and Allies were deemed to make them an acceptable target as well. Besides, people(including myself) bitch and moan about all kinds of things, that in itself doesn't justify an action one way or the other.
1 Yes, Iraq/Saddam has violated those agreements, but that doesn't necessarily justify invasion
2 where? How? who?
3 I'd like to see evidence of that. Seems like Iraq has a hell of a nuke program, last week it was within 3ish years, now 6 months. Sounds like FUD.
The last 2 reasons do not necessarily mean anything. Evidence for either would certainly be useful for decision purposes though.
Lucky: Yes, Iraq has violated the terms, no doubt about it. Bush has erroneously jumped to the conclusion that invasion is the *only* solution however. The RoW(rest of the world) or even just US Allies need some kind of proof or at least some attempt at diplomacy before going along though. So far only Saddam seems interested in diplomacy, while Bush seems intent on invasion come hell or high water.
As for Afghanistan, that was kind of my point. The RoW was all for an accepting the violation of Afghani sovereignty on the grounds of bringing OBL/Al Queda to justice.
BTW, I'm not European. I am Canadian.
Charrison: The Taliban were not involved in the 9/11 attack, so were not the original intended target in Afghanistan. It's refusal to hand over OBL/Al Queda and subsequent threats to oppose actions by the US and Allies were deemed to make them an acceptable target as well. Besides, people(including myself) bitch and moan about all kinds of things, that in itself doesn't justify an action one way or the other.
1 Yes, Iraq/Saddam has violated those agreements, but that doesn't necessarily justify invasion
2 where? How? who?
3 I'd like to see evidence of that. Seems like Iraq has a hell of a nuke program, last week it was within 3ish years, now 6 months. Sounds like FUD.
The last 2 reasons do not necessarily mean anything. Evidence for either would certainly be useful for decision purposes though.
People, do you want another war?
Because if you do than your currently safe ass behind your "o'clocked puter" @ ATOT will be taken away and drafted. Guys think on a larger scale. If we invade Iraq, I don't think we'll find ourselves fighting only them and it won't last 3 days like with Afghanistan. Who the hell knows what Iraq has up its sleeves. Iran will not standby while Iraq is being burried by USA again. You can expect huge riots in Pakistan and other muslim countries demanding their leaders to take action agains USA and its allies. Evry philosopher they had on TV after 09/11 last year said; "the next thing USA must do is go after Saddam Hussein and Iraq". Europeans rely more on negotiations rather than taking action first. There's nothing wrong with that. It's how they do business. Or you prefer to "shoot first and ask questions later"?
Because if you do than your currently safe ass behind your "o'clocked puter" @ ATOT will be taken away and drafted. Guys think on a larger scale. If we invade Iraq, I don't think we'll find ourselves fighting only them and it won't last 3 days like with Afghanistan. Who the hell knows what Iraq has up its sleeves. Iran will not standby while Iraq is being burried by USA again. You can expect huge riots in Pakistan and other muslim countries demanding their leaders to take action agains USA and its allies. Evry philosopher they had on TV after 09/11 last year said; "the next thing USA must do is go after Saddam Hussein and Iraq". Europeans rely more on negotiations rather than taking action first. There's nothing wrong with that. It's how they do business. Or you prefer to "shoot first and ask questions later"?
The Taliban sheltered Al Queda. The Taliban were at least indirectly involved.
Our opinions will differ.
Iraq is sending money to the families of the suicide/homicide bombers in Isreal.
Members of Al Queda did go to iraq. Was it a vacation trip? probably not.
I will speculate that members of Al Queda are hiding in iraq.
It may be fud, but i would not be surprised if it is true
In my mind,#2 is all that is needed. #3 just says hurry things up.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter