I think the sooner you realize that the Iraq thing is not about oil, at
least for the USA, the better you will understand what's going on.  If the
USA was all about oil, we would have stayed after Desert Storm, or we would
just waltz into Iraq without so much as a by your leave.  Who could stop us?
Actually, it is the French and the Germans that are all about oil in Iraq,
you should know that the US imports only a fraction of its oil from the
Middle East.  More and more of our imported oil comes from Venezuela,
Mexico, Canada, Russia and West Africa, less and less from the Middle East
and little or none from Iraq.

Yemen poses no threat to the US, they are only a threat to themselves.  :)
However, if they do indeed train terrorists, I am confident they will be
dealt with at some point.

As for Afghanistan before 9-11, why should we have gone in there?  We are
not the world's policeman.  If a country does not attack us or plot against
us, why should we go in?  Well, one reason would be a UN resolution for a
country to cease and desist from doing something.  Please note that there
are varying degrees of urgency or importance in UN resolutions.  Not all UN
resolutions are the same.

At any rate, when OBL struck the US on 9-11 he was in Afghanistan, along
with many in his organization.  He had training facilities and the Taliban
was protecting him.  It is well known in international law that when you
harbor terrorists and these people train and launch attacks from your soil,
you are responsible for that.  There have been examples in the past.  I
believe there was even a case where a group struck Canada from the US and
the US authorities hunted them down and repaid Canada.  This was in the
early 1800s.  I will look it up.

In the case of Afghanistan, the US gave the Taliban plenty of opportunities
to surrender bin Ladin so that he could be brought to justice.  They
refused, for whatever reason.  The decision was then taken to go in, and
eliminate the threat to the US from within that country.  We have spent far
more rebuilding Afghanistan and feeding its people than liberating it from
the Taliban and OBL's thugs

Many times, it is about money, I agree.  But most times, it is not.

World War I:  Germany was kicking a** with France, England and the other
countries.  The USA did not have to get involved.  When they did, it was not
"about the money".  Pershing went in with 2 million men and came right back
out after the armistice. I may be wrong but I don't think the US ever got
repaid for their troubles.

WWII:  Europe.  America instituted lend-lease for England and the
Commonwealth and the USSR after September 1939.  The US only got militarily
involved in Europe when Hitler declared war on the USA, three days after
Pearl Harbor.  After it was all said and done, the US forgave billions in
lend-lease and rebuilt Europe.  It was certainly not "about the money" from
the US perspective.  It cost the US plenty.

WWII: Japan.  China was first attacked by Japan.  Japan also wanted to annex
all manners of countries, which had oil and other raw materials.  The US
fleet was in the way.  When Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, that was when the
US committed itself to total war with Japan.  In the aftermath, the US also
rebuilt Japan, and many other places around the Pacific.  It cost plenty.

Korea is also not an event where the US made money and neither is Vietnam.
Indeed these two events cost a lot of money and lives.

Most recently, Desert Storm.  Here for the first time ever, the US got some
of its expenses back.  Kuwait actually paid a good portion of the cost of
Desert Storm, however I do not believe that is what motivated the US to
liberate Kuwait.  We would have done so regardless of payment.  And again,
if it had been all about oil, we could have stayed there and simply taken
what we want.

The US has no problem buying the oil it needs at market prices.  Remember we
all pay the same price for gasoline.  Some people pay varying degrees of
extra taxes on the commodity.

As for Iraq, again it is not about oil from the US point of view, but it if
weren't for oil, Saddam would not be able to buy or build his weapons of
mass destruction.  He is able to do so only because he can sell his oil, to
Europe mainly.

Denys

-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Baier [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2003 6:13 AM
To: HP3000 List; Denys Beauchemin
Subject: Re: OT: Terry Jones (from Monty Python) on War

If you look for OBL and Al-Kaida, maybe you look in the wrong country.
How about Jemen? Seems like they hide and train many more terrorist than
Iraq.
Therefore, why not attack Jemen?

Oh, I forget, do they have oil? Guess not.

How long did the US-government stand aside and watch what happend in
Afghanistan?. They killed civilians and nobody incl. Europe did nothing.
Why? Nothing to gain therefore everybody just watched until sept. 11th.

It is always just about money. For the US as well as for Europe and any
other country.
Nothing to gain and nobody will interfer or care.


On Wed, 12 Feb 2003 20:52:49 -0600, Denys Beauchemin <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:

>I like this thread, it is very educational.
>
>So, please explain to me which country had declared war on the USA when the
>USS Cole was attacked.  I was not aware that a state of war existed between
>the USA and another country, and it would seem that neither did the crew of
>the Cole.  Yes, there are dangerous areas in the world and the Cole should
>have been on high alert, especially where they were, but political
>correctness in those days was more important than security.
>
>Now you are going to tell me that no country had declared war on the USA at
>that time nor did any country declare war on the USA immediately after the
>USS Cole was attacked, or since.  If you say that some fanatical group or
>some religious group or some extremist group somewhere was behind the
>attack, then I will point out to you that it was indeed a terrorist act.
It
>was also a terrorist act to attack the Pentagon, even if you think it's a
>legitimate military target.  Since we were not at war when the Pentagon was
>attacked and that no country declared war on us after 9-11, the Pentagon
>attack was an act of terrorism.
>
>Even when Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, the Japanese tried to get the war
>declaration to Washington before the attack itself.  The Japanese
diplomatic
>corps in Washington screwed up and presented the declaration several hours
>after the fact, but they presented the declaration.
>
>As of yet, the only person who declared war on the USA (and actually on the
>entire civilized world,) is Osama bin Ladin, who did not speak for any
>country.  Even the Taliban who ruled Afghanistan tried to tell us they
>didn't have anything to do with bin Ladin.  They certainly did not want to
>declare war on us.
>
>Earlier in this thread, I posted a URL to bin Ladin's full message to
>America.  I repeat it here, so that if you missed it the first time, you
can
>see it now.
http://www.observer.co.uk/worldview/story/0,11581,845725,00.html
>
>This is where OBL explains why he did what he did and what he wants from us
>in order to stop.
>
>As the proud father of three lovely girls, I cannot think of a worse fate
>than having the Western World become Islamic states.
>
>You can debate all you want whether some of OBL's targets where legitimate
>or not or whether what he did was terrorism or not, it's irrelevant.  OBL
>represents a gang of thugs, a gang of terrorists.  He committed terrorist
>acts and none of the targets where legitimate.
>
>Denys
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: HP-3000 Systems Discussion [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf
Of
>Wayne R. Boyer
>Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2003 7:25 PM
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: OT: Terry Jones (from Monty Python) on War
>
>In a message dated 2/12/03 2:41:29 PM Pacific Standard Time,
>[log in to unmask] writes:
>
>
>> The attack on the Pentagon was done with a civilian aircraft...full of
>> civilians...that's terrorism.
>>
>
>Ray, I agree that the use of a plane full of civilians as a weapon adds a
>large element of terrorism to the act even if the target was highly
>military.
> That's why I said "One could also argue..."  I am NOT saying that the
>Pentagon attack was NOT a terrorist attack.  I am just pointing out that it
>is a military target just like Saddam's military headquarters will be and
it
>was logical to consider the Pentagon a target for Osama's men.
>
>The terrorism logic doesn't apply to the attack on the Cole though.  No
>civilians and a 100% military target.  I've heard that attack being
referred
>to as a 'terrorist" attack many times now.  My basic point is that the word
>'terrorism' is being greatly overused.
>
>Wayne
>
>* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
>* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *
>
>* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
>* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *