World War III: Over Oil? ***Debate***

[Jae Onasi]

Perhaps I should have expounded upon my comment by including all the points you made, but I really didn't think it was necessary. Your points are absolutely valid, however (right or wrong) I assumed that everyone would be aware of them and take my comment in context.

 

Lordy, I didn't mean to imply that you were ignorant on this. Meaning absolutely no offense here--I just don't know what your knowledge base on the Iran/Iraq war is except what you write in your posts.

 

This is likely a reflection of different approaches to education methods. Your comment above indicates that you work on the assumption that people know stuff, and if they don't they'll ask. I take the approach that people don't know (or don't know all of it), and if they do, they'll just skim through the post quickly--that's an approach developed both from having been a history TA and from working in the med field for 15 some odd years. In my job, I have to do a lot of patient education on a daily basis. If my patients don't understand instructions completely, they can't properly follow the treatment regimen properly, and if they don't, they can end up actually doing something harmful to themselves. In addition, some of my older male patients are uncomfortable telling a lady that they don't know something. So I have to work on the assumption that they know nothing and work my way up, whether they're kids or PhDs, though I can usually assess their knowledge base pretty quickly and adjust the delivery from there. The consequences are too high if I assume they know something when they don't, and they don't tell me they don't know. For the folks who know the stuff, it's review, which never hurts. For the rest of the folks, it's new material. As a side note, this is why people should ask their doc a lot of questions when they go see him/her. Anyway, after doing that nearly daily for about 15 years and spending just way too many years in school, it's too hard for me to give up being an education junkie.

 

All that's to say I don't assume anyone's an idiot (unless they prove themselves otherwise), but I'll provide the information just in case there's something new for someone, or if someone else besides the original poster is reading it but doesn't know.

That and a good number of the forumites who might read this thread were born after the Iran/Iraq war ended.

 

I do have to think that the US was perfectly aware of the methods that Saddam used to consolidate power. While having the choose the lesser of evils, I can't say that I begrudge the administration of their decision. However, if we knew what he was doing, and all of his neighbors knew what he was doing, and we chose to back him anyway, then we undoubtely looked like opportunistic a**holes trying to play chess with their homelands.

 

I don't know what the US knew or didn't know, though that might make a very intriguing history paper if it's not been done already. If our intelligence was poor several years ago, I can't imagine it was much better in the early '80's, though I would find it extremely hard to believe we were completely ignorant of some of the atrocities that were being committed.

If the US was opportunistic, then so were a bunch of other countries. Even the Soviets backed Iraq. Not too many things we agreed with the Soviets on, but that apparently was one of them.

[dede_frost]

Well, I really don't think that a next WW would happen over oil or, as a matter of fact, over any natural resource. I did some poking around and some research in Iran... and I didn't find anything good. The truth is that Iran is WANTS a war with Israel; aperantly a prophecy sais that after they LOSE a very bloody war with Israel, a new prophete will come and lead their people into a new great age. The problem is that the president (sorry if Iran dosen't really have a presidet, but I mean "people in power") in Iran believes in this prophecy. (BTW, this is not some garbage from the internet, it's true, believe me)

 

With this going on, and seeing the way that people in the middle east seem to go to extremes for their religion, the situation dosen't look good, IMO. I'm pretty sure Iran would risk a nuclear war if it meat "awakening" a new prophete, and so would the US if it meant "stping terror".

 

Going back to the whole oil issue... that's not really enough to cause a war. Here in Brasil, we have technology to make cars work on almost pure alcohol, and a good chunck of the population owns these cars (its not like its a prototipe or anything). Of course, it polutes more, so it's not I aprove it or anything... but before a war broke out I'm sure that countries would resort to something similar to this. Just my 2cents on this...

[Cygnus Q'ol]

If you've ever nosed around Revelations you can probably recognize the many coincidental signs that point to an eventual world wide cataclysmic event.

 

However, I don't believe it will be over oil.

(IMO) It will be over plutonium and the radical religious fanatic who tries to use it against his neighboor.

 

What would a WWIII look like anyway?

How could it begin and who would use what weapons for their means?

[Char Ell]

I thought I would see a thread like this in the Senate Chambers. I always thought Ahto's thread topics tended to be less heavy. Times change I guess.

Does any one believe that World War III is inevidible if the US stays this course?

World War III? IMHO it's not a question of if but when, regardless what course the US government takes. I'm pessimistic like that. Of course if I knew when WW3 would occur and what countries would be involved I would probably be living my life much differently than I currently am.

 

The WWII generation has passed on for the most part. Our leaders today don't really know what the horrors of world war are because they haven't experienced them firsthand. History will continue to repeat itself. The only aspect I see that is different from the past is nuclear weapons. Never before has man had the ability to wield destructive power on such a massive scale. I see two resulting factors from this. First, if nuclear weapons are obtained by idealistic extremists and/or idealistic extremist governments there is no telling what may happen. E.g. if Iran is able to build/obtain nuclear missiles that can reach Israel I think it distinctly possible that the Iranian goverment may very well decide to launch a nuclear attack on Israel at some point. This of course would result in serious worldwide repercussions. Or Iran may even threaten use of its nuclear capabilities if they decided to attack Israel using conventional means and other countries came to Israel's aid. Second, I think wars between countries with nuclear weapons won't be decisively won like WWI or WWII, where the victor marches its armies into the conquered country. Warring countries will battle using non-nuclear warfare up until the losing side has their back against the proverbial wall, the point when the losing side has nothing to lose, then they'll say, "Back off or we'll launch our nukes." And the winning side will likely leave it at that.

If you've ever nosed around Revelations you can probably recognize the many coincidental signs that point to an eventual world wide cataclysmic event.

Are you referring to The Revelation of St. John the Divine found in the New Testament of the Christian Bible?

[Cygnus Q'ol]

Of course I am?

[stingerhs]

actually, a number of biblical references can be interpretted in such a manner. of course, i am of the opinion that they'll come true, but those are my religious beliefs so i keep them to myself unless i'm debating another Christian. well, on the forums anyways.

 

if you want other Biblical references that a lot of Christians are referring to as "signs of the times", check out the book of Daniel 7-12, Ezekiel 38-39, and Matthew 24. just some references if you want them. you don't have to read them if you don't want to.

[Cygnus Q'ol]

Yes, thank you stingerhs. I am familiar with those also.

 

Sorry, I wasn't trying to start a religious debate and my interpretations of biblical references probably isn't relevant in this discussion.

My appologies to everyone concerned or offended.

(peeking around corners, hiding from Prime...)

 

I touched on that because I believe if there is a WWIII, it likely won't be like Medal of Honor or any real war previous. If nuclear strikes are exchanged on any level, the impact would be worldwide and quite immediate.

 

It wouldn't matter if it were in Iran, North Korea, or even somewhere in Africa, the global political climate would (IMO) deteriorate to the point of serious US isolation.

There would be global anarchy like we've never imagined. The US military has seriously strained itself with this Iraq situation .

Is the US available for war on a planetary scale? Can the US take Iran and N. korea and Yemen, etc. while still spinning it's wheels in Iraq?

[Char Ell]

I wasn't offended. I just thought it important to clarify what the "Revelations" you mentioned was for any non-Bible reading thread participants that wouldn't have necessarily known.

[Cygnus Q'ol]

Good lookin' out for me on that one cutmeister. Sometimes I'm vague and uncomprehensible.

 

I believe MacLeodCorp's original question was, would the US's current trends in education, spending, war, and the control of oil lead to a third world war?

 

I would have to say perhaps indirectly. Those issues will maintain a global pressure on the political state of the world, but would they necessarily cause a war? I'm not sure. I'm not sure anyone can really say.

 

Like I said before, I think the escalating nuclear tensions of contries like Iran, N.Korea, etc. would cause WWIII first. Somehow, I feel it's all related. Why are these countries in such a hurry to develop nuclear weapons anyway? What's the rush?

[ScieX]

If you've ever nosed around Revelations you can probably recognize the many coincidental signs that point to an eventual world wide cataclysmic event.

 

However, I don't believe it will be over oil.

(IMO) It will be over plutonium and the radical religious fanatic who tries to use it against his neighboor.

 

What would a WWIII look like anyway?

How could it begin and who would use what weapons for their means?

 

 

if you've ever nosed around lots of other parts of the bible, you will find that some of the things that it says has been disproven, the world is not thousands of years old and we arent the center of the universe those are a few examples, if you wish for me to name more, I will. plus if you have noticed, the prophecies about such an event are extremely obscure, and could be taken in many different ways. Everytime a war starts everyone starts preaching apocalypse, its getting old. Plus when there are so many other religous texts in existense, who can say which, or if any of them are correct?

 

but for my views on this whole WWIII I think its gonna happen eventually. It doesnt mean it will be an all out nuclear war, even the most tyrannical dictators know what the missiles can do, and ultamitely i think no bombs will be dropped. instead it will be just another Cold War, where we keep saying that we are going to, but we never go through with it. I highly doubt WWIII will come out of Iraq.

[stingerhs]

if you've ever nosed around lots of other parts of the bible, you will find that some of the things that it says has been disproven, the world is not thousands of years old and we arent the center of the universe those are a few examples, if you wish for me to name more, I will. plus if you have noticed, the prophecies about such an event are extremely obscure, and could be taken in many different ways. Everytime a war starts everyone starts preaching apocalypse, its getting old. Plus when there are so many other religous texts in existense, who can say which, or if any of them are correct?

well, considering that both myself and Cygnus have stated that we aren't here to debate religion, you're statement is both unnecessary and provocative. this is not the place for religious debates, and your comments would very likely stir one up. do not do so again.

 

as for everyone else in this forum, do not attempt to start a religious debate due to either Cygnus, ScieX, or my comments.

[Achilles]

@Jae Onasi - no offense taken. My post was meant to point out that in hindsight, I probably shouldn't have assumed that others would know that too. As for your observations, you're absolutely correct. In my work, I usually take responsibility for communication/learning, however outside of work I tend to expect others to take (at least partial) responsiblity for their own learning. Character flaw

 

@dede_frost - The US is the world's largest net importer of oil, but is ranked 11th for oil reserves. As Bush himself pointed out in his most recent State of the Union, the US "is addicted to oil". Ironically, Bush comes from a long line of Texas oil men so this statement made me thing of Columbian drug cartel kingpin telling the world that drugs are bad. $3+ dollars (US) for gasoline a good thing or a bad thing for Bush? Maybe all this disarray in the Middle East is good for him? *Feigning shock* Noooo! [/sarcasm].

 

I appreciate your argument, however most US citizens would sooner give up breathing than they would gasoline. Sad but true.

 

@Cygnus Q'ol & stingerhs - While I respect and appreciate your desire to keep religion out of this, I do think it's important to point out that there is a significant Christian fundamentalist (neo-evangelical) influence in all three branches of the government. All this interference in the Middle East seems a lot less like foriegn policy and more like a Holy Crusade. I'm not as well-versed in neo-evangelicalism as I probably should be, but isn't there something about End of Days?

 

I'm not trying to target either of you, so please don't take my post as an attempt to flame. I'm simply trying to point out that there is some religious implication here and it probably ought to be considered.

 

EDIT: *reads the post Stingerhs posted as I was drafting this* Whoops. Feel free to remove if I stepped out of bounds. Sorry

 

So WWIII over oil? I personally think that Bush is hoping, nay trying, for it.

[Jae Onasi]

@stingerhs--I've got some references to religion below, but in context with the discussion or as 'religion as a part of the political process' theme. Hope that's OK. I don't think religion is a dirty word, but I know that's not the crux of the discussion and I'm not trying to move it that way.

@Achilles--Cartel kingpin saying drugs are bad But I do agree with you on Bush's statement and his ties with the oil industry.

The education thing--I'd love for people to take more responsibility for their own education. It'd make my job a lot easier. I've just been doing that so long now that even if I wanted to give up the teaching-from-the-ground-up thing, I don't know if I could. My character flaw.

 

@Cygnus--Jimbo could probably address this better than me since he's the one in the Army--I'm just along for the ride as an Army wife. The military is not in great distress. We're actually going to draw down our forces in Iraq in the next year or so. Since the US took Baghdad in something like under 3 weeks or so, we didn't get overly burdened. It's the guerrilla action that keeps dragging things out.

As to whether we'd get involved in other places--unless one of those countries attacks us directly or directly sponsors a group of terrorists that attacks us, I don't think we'd get involved without serious coordination with other countries.

Iran--it's bigger, has more challenging geography, and likely better organization. We could probably do it on our own, but I doubt we would tackle that unilaterally.

N. Korea--since China and S. Korea share a border, and China was very involved when N. Korea decided to play brinksmanship with their nuclear program, I suspect those 2 would be far more involved in any N. Korean conflict than we would, tho S. Korea would likely call us in as an ally.

Yeman--at the risk of sounding really US-chauvinistic, they'd be squashed like bugs by the US military. They don't have the military machinery and other resources in place to put up a serious fight.

The nuclear thing--yes, using a nuclear warhead will definitely command attention, though I think it's more likely to be a 'dirty bomb' used by terrorists than multiple nuclear strikes by a nuclear country. I think most of the nuclear powers have decided that since they can't govern a country filled with radioactive dust, mutually assured destruction is a bad thing.

 

I think oil could well be a catalyst for a WWIII in that skyrocketing oil costs could contribute to a financial crisis in the US and other countries that could cause us to be more pre-disposed to war. I think more likely the thing that actually draws us into the war would be some specific attack on the US by a state-sponsored group of terrorists.

 

(semi-religious discussion ensues)

I agree the prophetic coincidences are intriguing, but I don't know if this is the 'end times' or not. Also, it may be incorrect to equate WWIII with Armageddon, which is something those of us who take Revelation seriously do more often than probably we should. In the fine words of Mr. Incredible, 'we'll get there when we get there.'

 

@Achilles--as a 'recovered' fundamentalist, I can tell you that fundamentalism and evangelicalism are different, though to someone not in the movement it can be mighty subtle. Fundamentalism is a small, very conservative, very strict group within the evangelical movement (and I'm sure there's better definitions out there, this is just my perspective). While the 2 groups have very similar doctrinal stances, the implementation of that doctrine can vary widely between the 2. Fundamentalists just happen to be very vocal but don't represent all of the evangelical community--much like the far-left tends to be very vocal but doesn't truly represent more mainstream liberals. Fundamentalists are very conservative socially, hence their involvement in the Republican party. Evangelicals tend to be more socially conservative and tend to drift to the right, but there are plenty of evangelical Democrats out there.

Since the majority of the US is Christian (I'm including Catholics and Protestants together), it doesn't surprise me that the branches of government also happen to be comprised of Christians. Bush just happens to be more up front about it than some others.

(/semi-religious discussion)

 

If we can cut our dependence on oil, I think that would do a lot towards lowering the risk of war. The risk of conflict over religion would continue as long as there's a significant enough numbers of people who think that strapping on a bomb in the name of God is a good thing.

[Cygnus Q'ol]

Thank you for your insight master Jae, once again your wisdom is un-paralleled.

 

I'll sleep a little better tonight.

[MTV2]

the problem is america. america is wanting water from Canada and america is wanting oil from the middle-east since they have like, i tihnk, over a trillion dollars worth of oil (so i've heard) while alberta has there huge oil fields.

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

the problem is america. america is wanting water from Canada and america is wanting oil from the middle-east since they have like, i tihnk, over a trillion dollars worth of oil (so i've heard) while alberta has there huge oil fields.

Actually, the US gets most of it's oil from Canada.

[Commander Obi-Wan]

Actually, the US gets most of it's oil from Canada.

 

True. Specifically from Alberta. But, I don't think this war in the Middle East is for Oil. I think it's because of the terrorist attacks.

 

Also, I hardly think it would be called world war three since it's nearly U.S, Canada and Britian vs the Middle east. But, is a war nonetheless.

[Jae Onasi]

I'll sleep a little better tonight.

 

I'm delighted to provide a cure for insomnia

 

I just wish it'd work for me. Sheep just don't do it for me.

 

 

I wouldn't call the current Gulf War WWIII either, since it was mainly the US vs. Iraq, and we're doing pretty much just mop-up work now.

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

True. Specifically from Alberta. But, I don't think this war in the Middle East is for Oil. I think it's because of the terrorist attacks.

 

Also, I hardly think it would be called world war three since it's nearly U.S, Canada and Britian vs the Middle east. But, is a war nonetheless.

Most of the companies associated with the Bush administration do business with the Saudis though. Maybe be I'm just a little too cynical, but I can't see anyone in the Bush administration going into Iraq to help the people there. That combined with Sadaam's views on Islamic fundamentalism (he hated it, and that was one of the reasons we gave him weapons in the first place) and the lack of WMDs in Iraq rule out the other reasons we'd have to go there.

[SITHSLAYER133]

i also think the world is in a decline

 

WWW3 will only happen if all these terroist groups band together and form a "normal army" but to be perfectly honost there is no force in the world that could possibly even thinking of fighting the us with or without there allies with out using sometype of WMD but i doubt this will happen because everybodys got there finger on the butten is to affraid to use it due to the massive ramifications of using such a device

[Mace MacLeod]

As long as the US's leaders think that it's ethical to invade a sovereign country in case it MIGHT pose a threat then pretty much any country can invade any other country for any reason it chooses to make up. WMD! 911! Regime change! Pick one! Think about this--how many countries in the world today can PROVE the US isn't a threat to them? All Dubya has to do is push a button and any place in the world he wants vaporizes. How does the rest of the planet prove that he's not just insane enough to do it? It can't, can it? So by the same logic the US used to invade and conquer Iraq, any other country in the world is perfectly justified in ignoring all international law and blowing anybody else to smithereens. And if the US really cared about "democracy", it would be blowing up half the planet right now, and it wouldn't have supported Saddam during the 70's and 80's in the first place.

 

Funny thing--everyone seems to have stopped wondering where Osama bin Laden is right now. The most wanted man on the planet, hunted by the full resources of a country with a sattelite network that can read a license plate from space, and he's evaded capture for almost five solid years. In all the fervor to bomb Iraq to the stone age, everyone seems to forget a few things:

1) Osama is Saudi

2) His hundreds of millions of dollars are in Saudi banks.

3) His huge family is like the Fords or the Rockefellers of Saudi Arabia.

4) Most (IIRC 16 of 19) 911 bombers were Saudi.

5) Saudi Arabia practices democracy like skinheads practice racial tolerance.

6) Saudi Arabia just happens to be a close second to Israel as America's strongest middle east ally.

7) The Saudi royal family and the Bush family are close, personal friends who have made billions together in oil, weapons, industry, and from the current war. Stealth fighters don't run on canola oil.

The US hasn't found Osama because he's in the one place they won't look.

 

And this is not a dig at the men and women who fight in the US military branches at all, but sure, building schools, sewers, hospitals and everything is nice and all that, but the gesture kind of falls a bit flat when it was American bombs and guns that destroyed the original schools, sewers and hospitals when they still had people in them. Imagine if Osama bin Laden had turned up in Times Square on September 12 2001 and said, "Whoops, sorry about that. Our bad. We hate your LEADERS, not you normal people. Here's a cheque for the damage. Incidentally, my brother-in-law runs a great construction firm, and I know he'll put in a competitive bid for the rebuiling gig."

[Ztalker]

In my opinion, oil is just a product of wealth. We could work without it. If you'd only look at how much an American car needs...they drive like...1:3? It's just stupid a country claims to be adicted to oil, whilst they drive the biggest, nastiest cars out there. If you'd just switch to a more fuel-friendly car, many problems would be solved.

Of course, on the long term, we need to fully switch to another way of fueling our cars.

 

I think the third world war will be about water, not about oil...

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

On a less serious note, I thought I should point out the "perks" of a large-scale war:

 

• If chaos breaks out, you'll have a chance to get a new TV, maybe even a flat-screen if you get up early enough
  
• Posters/advertisements made by the government that will be funny in ~50 years
  
• Economic prosperity for the winner of said war in the aftermath
  
• For some odd reason, war tends to make people appreciate what they have-that means less activists, which also means less traffic, which means less consumption of oil
  

 

Now that that's out of the way, I'll actually contribute something to this thread that's on topic. I'll start out with a quick history of religion (*you will make believe I'm unbiased*). During the early times of Christianity (in which everyone was what we think of as Catholic today), and Jesus, the primary diety of this religion was alive, my opinion of the Catholic Church was favorable. When one listens to what Jesus actually said, you'll see that "mainstream" Christianity from the time of his death until now doesn't really pay attention to what he said. By my count, religion has been the number one cause of death for human beings. During the Middle Ages, the Catholic Church actively promoted what I can only describe as ignorance. Scientists were at risk of being put to death if they didn't use evidence/proof of their theories that was sanctioned by the church. Needless to say, this sort of thing doesn't exactly promote peace, ignorance leads to fear of the unknown, and at that point, everything was unknown. This was what lead to war, famine, plague, and overall s***iness.

 

Today, the same "family" of religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam) are split into many, many different sects, and when one combines that fact with the fact that fanatisism and fundamentalism are rampant nowadays (twisting an otherwise legitimate religion into something to profit with and push the shallow agendas of a******s), each sect will eventually hate each other, and each of them are willing to fight for their beliefs and will try and force their beliefs upon others.

 

Needless to say, people generally don't take well to having another's ideals, morals, and beliefs forced upon them, which is why I believe that no matter what people say, religion (I'll make an exception for most Eastern religions) will be the root of most evils that the future will hold.

 

Ehhh, I apologize in advance if I offended anyone.

[Sabretooth]

ahh, here we go again with the assumptions that all Americans are a bunch of greedy bastards looking to conquer the world.

 

Look at Vietnam, Korea, Afghanistan, Iraq and god knows how many countries the US has entered and broken. You think a person not from America is going to think this is a sweet, impeccable country of light and goodness? The Government of America is what is screwed up. The worst thing is, all of the world's governments are screwed up. They know what America is doing and why it is doing, but nobody wants to interfere, either because they want the loot, or they want to stay out and be safe.

 

the point is that perhaps you've just answered your own question. the idea of going abroad to weed out terrorism in the name of security isn't wrong, as you just stated. however, if a line is crossed between defending the country from terrorism and looking to secure the spoils of war then not even i can personally justify what happens.

 

It was just presentation, man. You need to know da presentation.

 

Well, actually my point was that US does go out and bust everyone up, but who gave them the right? Sure, it's good to take care of the bad guys now and then, but who appointed US as superhero of the world? Why do they have to impose restrictions and bully everyone else?

 

i think the debate as to who is responsible for the horrendous mishandling of the Iraqi invasion is really yet to be decided. besides, the situation your proposing relies far too heavily on your own personal convictions. to be safe, we'll just say that this one is a bit too morally and ethically a subject to bother debating.

 

I agree, but Bush has to pay the price. Why did he, of all people have to invade Iraq, out of nowhere, establish complete anarchism (before some hodgepodge democracy) and take Hussein away? I understand Hussein was no uberbenevolent God, but Bush isn't, either. If there's a crisis, can't he leave UN to handle it? It is because of such acts that the US has a bad name in many third-world countries.

 

again, i don't think there is much of a coincidence between the two. besides, what exactly is your view about the terrorist strikes in Indonesia, India, or even several African nations?? the point is that terrorism is not something that is centrally apart of the Middle East.

 

I live in India and I see blasts everyday in the news. But we handle it, to an extent. But we are sensible. We understand people, but we don't go on a rampage and start looting countries in the name of terrorism.

 

African nations, on the other hand are worth sympathizing with. The Chad/Sudan crisis is something that is worth checking out, and that is where US should have gone, rather than poking noses in Iraq. Why couldn't the America go there and settle things, or help the anarchist countries of Africa? Perhaps because there is no oil there.

 

Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq and other middle-eastern countries have gained a reputation for terrorism, and those areas are very crucial and the most infamous for terrorism. But there is plenty of loot to be collected. If America hits the place, they virtually jump into an oil well. Therefore, Middle-East comes up on top of the list.

[stingerhs]

Look at Vietnam, Korea, Afghanistan, Iraq and god knows how many countries the US has entered and broken. You think a person not from America is going to think this is a sweet, impeccable country of light and goodness? The Government of America is what is screwed up. The worst thing is, all of the world's governments are screwed up. They know what America is doing and why it is doing, but nobody wants to interfere, either because they want the loot, or they want to stay out and be safe.

i'll be the first to admit that i'm not a fan of the current American administration. heck, i've always been of the opinion that American politics have become far too complicated in recent years with all of this emphasis on empty issues, bickering, and deadlock among both the Congressmen and the voters themselves.

Well, actually my point was that US does go out and bust everyone up, but who gave them the right? Sure, it's good to take care of the bad guys now and then, but who appointed US as superhero of the world? Why do they have to impose restrictions and bully everyone else?

i don't think you completely understand the situation. given that your country experiences terrorism on a fairly regular basis, your perspective on it is rightfully different from someone living in a country that doesn't exprience terrorism often at all. perhaps the fact that over 2,000 people lost their lives on a single day doesn't seem to register much anymore, but the idea that preventing such an event from happening in the future is not lost on those of us that remember it.

 

i am most definately not one to see countries invaded, but if it prevents such an attack from happening again, i'm all for it. Iraq, of course, is a different case, and i've already stated my opinion on the Iraqi war several times in the past.

I agree, but Bush has to pay the price. Why did he, of all people have to invade Iraq, out of nowhere, establish complete anarchism (before some hodgepodge democracy) and take Hussein away? I understand Hussein was no uberbenevolent God, but Bush isn't, either. If there's a crisis, can't he leave UN to handle it? It is because of such acts that the US has a bad name in many third-world countries.

the difference is that Bush didn't drop nerve gas in downtown Chicago to kill off the African-American population. can't say the same thing about Hussein who dropped nerve gas on the Kurds in Northern Iraq back before the '91 Gulf War. i could go on and on about further atrocities that Hussein performed, but i think the difference between the two men is quite clear.

 

as for the invasion of Iraq, again, i didn't support the invasion especially for the reasons that were given.

I live in India and I see blasts everyday in the news. But we handle it, to an extent. But we are sensible. We understand people, but we don't go on a rampage and start looting countries in the name of terrorism.

yes, and as far as i understand it, if India did try to route out terrorism, that would involve an invasion of Pakistan which would more than likely cause a nuclear war between the two nations. believe me, i can understand why the peoples of the two bordered nations can tolerate it given the possible consequences of trying to handle things militarily.

African nations, on the other hand are worth sympathizing with. The Chad/Sudan crisis is something that is worth checking out, and that is where US should have gone, rather than poking noses in Iraq. Why couldn't the America go there and settle things, or help the anarchist countries of Africa? Perhaps because there is no oil there.

 

Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq and other middle-eastern countries have gained a reputation for terrorism, and those areas are very crucial and the most infamous for terrorism. But there is plenty of loot to be collected. If America hits the place, they virtually jump into an oil well. Therefore, Middle-East comes up on top of the list.

i'm still not under the impression that the war is over oil to begin with. heck, there is no evidence that the conflict in the Middle East is over oil. until there is evidence, it is mere speculation on your part. the problems with the other countries are very much rather dire, but they don't pose the same threat to American security that the other nations do. Sudan isn't developing nuclear reactors which could easily be used irresponsibly. Iran and North Korea are.