| Jun 10, 2006 @ 8:47 PM |
In Iraq for oil or counterterrorism?
|
|
Jankia
Posts: 9,149
|
Before his death, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi had recruited hundreds of people who received terrorist training in
Iraq and then returned to their home countries to await orders, The New York Times reported in Sunday editions.
Citing high-ranking security officials in Jordan, the Times said that in addition to recruiting volunteers and suicide bombers to fight in Iraq, Zarqawi had recruited some 300 people who received terrorist training in Iraq before returning home to await orders to carry out strikes.
Since we havent taken any Iraqi oil but have taken Zarqawi,do any of you think this will make any difference in world opinion of our countries reason for our being in Iraq?
|
|
  |
|
| Jun 10, 2006 @ 9:06 PM |
In Iraq for oil or counterterrorism? |
|
FeliciVagano
Posts: 2,152
|
wait a minute..I thought we were only there to bring democracy to Iraq?
[Edited on 6
|
| |
|
| Jun 10, 2006 @ 9:09 PM |
In Iraq for oil or counterterrorism?
|
|
spongebob777
Posts: 7,904
|
I suspect that securing oil for the world is one consideration some will refuse to accept but counterterrorism is the main thing. There are probably a multitude of reasons for the USA, the world and the Iraqis.
|
|
| |
|
| Jun 10, 2006 @ 9:44 PM |
In Iraq for oil or counterterrorism? |
|
Patrik707
Posts: 251
|
Ask the soldiers. Maybe they know...
But wars only create more terrorists so it would not be that smart.
[Edited on 6
|
| |
|
| Jun 11, 2006 @ 3:03 AM |
In Iraq for oil or counterterrorism?
|
|
midnightthunder
Posts: 235
|
I really don't see world opinion changing, by much, Al-Q has cells all over the world, you have to ask yourself do they need a leader, as much as they need a cause.
Jihad is how it is viewed by many, and there are many Muslims on this planet, which creates a wide range of influence.
Our values and beliefs as important as we feel they are, are not shared by every country..
Truth and what is right, can be seen differently thru different eyes.
And this could take a very interesting spin, since Iraq has released 500 prisoners from U.S and Iraq prisons, and are planning to release another 2,000.
.
As far as oil, doubt if that could make a dent, seing as how Iraq produces about as much oil as United Kingdom.
We should look into research and development of the vast oil reserves in Canada, which many feel one day will surpass Saudi Arabia.
And free ourselfves of as the president said our "Addication" to oil, or ar least free us from the dependence of the Middle East.
|
|
| |
|
| Jun 11, 2006 @ 8:17 AM |
In Iraq for oil or counterterrorism? |
|
spongebob777
Posts: 7,904
|
And free ourselfves of as the president said our "Addication" to oil, or ar least free us from the dependence of the Middle East.
When the world stops using mideast oil they'll starve themselves back to near pre industrial age population levels. Have no fear, I'm sure we'll be the scapegoat for that too.
|
| |
|
| Jun 11, 2006 @ 8:46 AM |
In Iraq for oil or counterterrorism?
|
|
omkeerpunt
Posts: 511
|
Ohhh... and here was I naively thinking that you were only there to test and develop weapons and information systems. How could I have been so foolish. I can now see that the american envolvement had much higher ideals like making the world a safer place.
|
|
| |
|
| Jun 11, 2006 @ 10:24 AM |
In Iraq for oil or counterterrorism? |
|
davelrrp
Posts: 180
|
Nah, If we needed to test weapons, we would pick somewhere worthless,and without intrinsic or redeeming value. Like south africa.
|
| |
|
| Jun 11, 2006 @ 12:01 PM |
In Iraq for oil or counterterrorism?
|
|
omkeerpunt
Posts: 511
|
Nah, If we needed to test weapons, we would pick somewhere worthless,and without intrinsic or redeeming value. Like south africa.
You did and we still bear the scars. You were just a bit more subtle in your approach but then it was started in the time of the Reagan administration. He was bright enough to get us to do the testing and dying. When it was all over your friendly government pulled the plug on us and canned a multi-billion rand development that now lies buried under countless tons of concrete so that our new government cant get their grubby little hands on it and sell it to someone like Ghadaffi. I'll bet the blueprints arent buried in that tomb as well.
|
|
| |
|
| Jun 11, 2006 @ 12:40 PM |
In Iraq for oil or counterterrorism? |
|
davelrrp
Posts: 180
|
If memory serves, it was YOUR government that originally wanted the Rand program. You came seeking us, we didn't seek you. Now you want to blame us for your own actions? You need to take a long hard look to your own motives used in the past. I realize of course that no african nation will ever take any responsibility for anything that their own people did or are now doing within their own borders. It is much to easy to blame it on the U.S. Face it. You happen to live on the continent with the world's greatest wealth of natural resources, which is generally credited with being the cradle of civilization. Yet no native peoples there have made one single advance in that civilization in two thousand years. Most of the non european sourced population developed nothing, invented nothing, produced nothing, that in any way advanced human civilization. That continent is still the source of tribal and religious warfare that prevents a better life for all who live there. Stop trying to blame your part of the world's problems on a nation that was able to do what you couldn't do even though you had all the advantages since the beginning of time. It is obvious that blaming someone else for the complete shortcommings of a population that was and is totally incapable of learning the ways to have a better life is completely ludicrous.
[Edited on 6
|
| |
|
| Jun 11, 2006 @ 1:03 PM |
In Iraq for oil or counterterrorism?
|
|
dixiepixie
Posts: 865
|
Now you want to blame us for your own actions?
I for one am fed up with people blaming America for every darn thing that happens on this planet. If Africa doesn't like America they can show their sincerity in that dislike by refusing all - and I do mean all - American aid offered anytime, anywhere to that continent by the American Government - as a matter of principle and a means of protest.
|
|
| |
|
| Jun 11, 2006 @ 2:08 PM |
In Iraq for oil or counterterrorism? |
|
omkeerpunt
Posts: 511
|
Wow I touched a nerve there.
Davel the rand is our currency and we did not approach the US for anything at the time because we were officially ostrasized at the time. In reaction to this we developed a weapons industry that produced some technology that the US wanted. Problem was we did not trade with the US but we did with Israel. So you guys again did what you said you werent doing and that was to make several unofficial deals with SA through Israel in order to lay your grubby little hands on some stuff we developed (in communications, radar and artillery technology). In exchange you supplied some technology to us. Out of this longdistance ballistic missiles and tactical nuclear weapons were developed by SA and Israel.
We were at war and several of the developments wanted by the US were tested in real life at Quito Cuanaval in Angola. I wasnt there but later served with people who were. They testified to the efficience of the new weapons systems. But for the second time in the history of that conflict the US turned around withdrew support and made some threat against us (the nature of which I do not know) that resulted in the tomb that I refered to earlier. US personnel supervised the burial.
The first time this happened we were within artillery range of Luanda while giving a rather large bunch of cubans hell, with the good wishes of your government. It seems they suddenly realised that their oil concerns in northern Angola would come under our control if we managed to finish this. Predictably a sudden withdrawal of political support ensued and we were forced to withdraw. This was in 1976 before the US cut economic ties with SA.
I am not blaming your government for our political woes. That can be placed squarely on our own shoulders. I am simply saying that they are a bunch of weasels who do not go by the common system of loyalty to friends and can not be trusted by anybody (it seems not even their own people have the tendency to trust them). They also have no problem with breaking their own rules and are quite willing to try and buy anything they think they need irrespective of the morality of the situation.
Dixie I would rather like to see the US withdraw financial support to africa myself. It is about time that africa stopped leaning on the west and stood on its own legs. They have the ability to do so but lack the political will because the west keeps on supporting puppets to get from africa what they want. You dont seem to understand how international financial aid works in africa. Aid is never simply an amount of money. It is a project which is done by companies from the donor country so that in the end of the day a large proportion of the money returns to the donor countries. Africa might have a new bridge or set of maps etc but they gained no knowledge which is really what they need.
Again I am not attacking your country but merely setting the record straight.
[Edited on 6
|
| |
|
| Jun 11, 2006 @ 2:32 PM |
In Iraq for oil or counterterrorism?
|
|
MotownManiax
Posts: 7,881
|
Dave, Pixie, omkeerpunt....good points, all. Bravo 
Omkeerpunt, I'm impressed with your evenhandedness. I wish others in the world could be so impartial.
For the most part I see instead global double standards, selective blame, blatant prejudice, and convenient amnesia, which can be summed up as:
The world’s ills caused by….
1) US actions – selfish, sinister, evil. imperial, dictatorial, greedy
2) Everybody else’s – excusable, no-fault, apologetic, perfectly understandable, mitigating circumstances, must be caused by US (refer to 1)
 
|
|
| |
|
| Jun 11, 2006 @ 2:57 PM |
In Iraq for oil or counterterrorism? |
|
FeliciVagano
Posts: 2,152
|
But for the second time in the history of that conflict the US turned around withdrew support and made some threat against us ???
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1132/is_n11_v40/ai_7523699/pg_12
.......Between October 1987 and June 1988, in the fiercest conventional battles on African soil since Erwin Rommel was defeated at El Amien, the South African Defence Forces (SADF) fought pitched tank and artillery battles with the Angolan army (FAPLA) and its Cuban supporters at Cuito Cuanavale. ..... When they faced stiff resistance from the Angolans, the operational command of the SADF broke down. It was at this point that President Botha had to boost the morale of his troops in person. This visit prompted the fortification of the Angolan position by the Cubans, who had been out of direct fighting since 1981. The Cuban command calculated that if the FAPLA defensive line broke the Cuban forces themselves would be threatened. The siege of Cuito Cuanavale now involved all the combatants of the Angolan theater of the war: the Angolans, the Cubans, SWAPO, and the ANC on one side; and the SADF, the Americans, and UNITA on the other.
.
Supported by radar on the ground, Angolan and Cuban MIG 23s proved superior to the South African Air Force. With its air force grounded and its tanks stopped by mines and difficult terrain, the besieging force was reduced to shelling Cuito Cuanavale at long range for three months. In major ground battles in January, February, and March, the South Africans failed to take it.
By the end of March the South African siege was over and the South Africans themselves were trapped and under siege.
.
The war became more and more unpopular in South Africa when young whites began coming home in body bags. This intensified the End Conscription campaign in South Africa and forced the South Africans to take steps leading to the talks among the principal combatants: the Angolans, the Cubans, the South Africans, and the United States. ...So confident were the Cubans and Angolans after repulsing the South Africans that in the space of two months they built two airfields to consolidate their control of the southern provinces. At this point the United States attempted to open a new front in the north with UNITA. The calculation was that as long as UNITA was integrated into the SADF there would be little popular support for it in the United States. The U.S. military carried out exercises called Operation Flintlock in May to drop supplies for UNITA, hoping to relieve the trapped South African forces.
.
The reversal of the South Africans' military fortunes was sealed at Tchipa on June 27, 1988. Here the SADF tried to open a new front to relieve the troops trapped at Cuito Cuanavale. In this decisive battle, the FAPLA forces confirmed their air superiority. When the news of their defeat at Calueque dam reached South Africa, more young whites protested against the draft. One South African newspaper called the battle of Tchipa "a crushing humiliation." It said"The SADF resembled the trenches of the Somme, rather than the troops of a mobile counterinsurgency force." The Conference Table
But in reality the South Africans had only two genuine choices: to negotiate a capitulation or to surrender openly. The siege of Cuito Cuanavale ended after the SADF agreed to withdraw from Namibia. ...
|
| |
|
| Jun 11, 2006 @ 3:21 PM |
In Iraq for oil or counterterrorism?
|
|
dixiepixie
Posts: 865
|
Dixie I would rather like to see the US withdraw financial support to africa myself
First of all I'm not talking about financial support alone...
When I said and I do mean all - American aid ....I was talking about all aid ..... period not just financial.
And my statement was that Africa should refuse the aid as a matter of principle if they don't like America.
Now, according to you, America should withdraw the aid. Again, you are setting America up to take the blame for the problems in Africa - now because America offered Aid.
No, I stand by my statement if Africa thinks America is such a horrible country then Africa should take the active step of refusing to accept all aid from America as a matter of principle and protest.
Edited to add this.
It is about time that africa stopped leaning on the west and stood on its own legs.
And it's America's fault that Africa can't stand on it's own legs? Because we offer Aid....? .........
NO, IT'S AFRICA'S ACTIVE DECISION TO ACCEPT THE AID AND BASH AMERICA AT THE SAME TIME.
AND IT'S AFRICA'S RESPONSIBLITY TO GET THEIR OWN ACT TOGETHER AND AFRICA'S FAULT IF THEY CAN'T.
[Edited on 6
|
|
| |
|
| Jun 11, 2006 @ 3:54 PM |
In Iraq for oil or counterterrorism? |
|
FeliciVagano
Posts: 2,152
|
Dave...thinking that you are forgetting that South Africa was a nuclear power, (and it was also hinted that they even had the neutron bomb??)
|
| |
|
| Jun 11, 2006 @ 4:03 PM |
In Iraq for oil or counterterrorism?
|
|
davelrrp
Posts: 180
|
No, I really didn't forget Felici. If S.A. thought about using a nuclear attack, they had to realize that the Russians would never let their Cuban client proxies suffer that type of defeat. S.A. would have completely disappeared under a Russian mushroom. The Russians could not afford that humiliation or accept it at that time. It would only have been bluster on the part of S.A.
|
|
| |
|
| Jun 11, 2006 @ 4:19 PM |
In Iraq for oil or counterterrorism? |
|
omkeerpunt
Posts: 511
|
Davel You are getting two different events mixed up.
1)1976 South africans moving on Luanda. Americans withdraw support.
2)1987 Cuito Cuanaval. In this fight we were outnumbered and our airforce outgunned. What is not said in the article that Felici quoted is that the turning point happened because the bridge at Cuito Cuanaval was destroyed making this fight quite senseless. Yet we still managed to destroy all but 5 cuban tanks through the mechanised artillery system where the communications systems being tested allowed the 5 vehicles to move apart but function as a single battery. Not a single one of the vehicles were detected or attacked at any time. Some 46 enemy tanks and armoured vehicles were stopped by integrated systems that your government was interested in. Even though we didnt have a snowballs hope in hell the systems effectivity was suitably demonstrated at the expense of our own. You might remember this is where we started.
3)The canning of the missile system and related industry was forced onto SA. You might not like our government of the time and nor did we, but you are well aware of american military envolvement when your government was saying that there was a total embargo and all american business should leave SA.
Keep in mind that although we are talking about politics and history these guys were real people. It was people who got killed and hurt and highly skilled people who lost their jobs. My brother was one of these guys.
Nah, If we needed to test weapons, we would pick somewhere worthless,and without intrinsic or redeeming value. Like south africa
As I said in reaction to your earlier posts, you already did and we bear the scars.
|
| |
|
| Jun 11, 2006 @ 4:53 PM |
In Iraq for oil or counterterrorism?
|
|
davelrrp
Posts: 180
|
Sorry Om, but the battle you forces were in with artillery wasn't at the request of the U.S. Your forces were trying to save their own asses, not make a sale to us. The only people who put you in that situation was yourselves, not us. Back channel contacts go on between disagreeing or warring govenments constantly, and that will never change or there will be many more and much larger wars. Further on the war. Between October 87 and June 88 at Quito Cuanavale the battle was between SADF, supposely the best on the continent, and FAPLA and their Cuban supporters. Your forces were trapped more than three hundred miles from their bases in Namibia after failing to take Quito Cuanavale with 9000 mechanized troops, AFTER your government claimed it had taken the town. You had mutinies among the black troops, high casualties in the whites, and had lost air superiority. The operational command of the SADF broke down and Botha had to fly there to take command. Angolans and Cubans repulsed major attacks in Jan, Feb, and March. Your army was trapped by the rainy season, encircled, and suffering huge losses. They tried a breakout on June 27 and were again soundly defeated. Even your own newspapers called it a "humiliating defeat". With these actual facts, I seriously doubt that you were testing weapons for the U.S. So much for your line of crap.
[Edited on 6
|
|
| |
|
| Jun 11, 2006 @ 5:10 PM |
In Iraq for oil or counterterrorism? |
|
davelrrp
Posts: 180
|
Felici, we don't agree on a lot of things, but this is one where we stand united. Revisionism doesn't cut it. To try and lay the shortcommings of South African history on the U.S. is pure bulls***.
|
| |
|
|
|
|