What for is this war and what for thousands died

this will boost the world's economy right? is that what you meant?

You mean that this war is all about oil? How could we have been so blind all this time!?!

Or maybe this war is about poor grammar? Which?

Well, your title's half right; "thousands" have yet to die. Even the Iraqi government, who stands to gain the most from inflating the casualty counts, hasn't claimed "thousands", or even one thousand. Or even five hundred, for that matter.

As for this war being about oil: if so, then not just the war, but also the European opposition to it. Europe does, after all, get much more oil from Iraq than the US does, and stands to gain more from the status quo. Which may be why the inspections were designed to never return conclusive proof either way.

finboy, your both points are very valid - thanks for advise, I ll take it into consideration for future posts.

Now the reason, I think the link deserves attention, is that until now we had a lot of speculations about oil motives of the war, some of them had been confirmed. But this link has one feature - it shows what pro-US iraqi future government is being assembled for quite clearly. Nothing is being said about development of democracy, social development and other normal policymaking things. NOPE. These guys are being brouht for the sole reason of privatizing Iraqi oil industry. Thats as simple as that. There is not WMD talk; there is no democracy talk; no one especially cares for Iraqi population. It has been stated quite cynically and clear that the only reason of this war and removal of Saddam is privatization of Iraqi oil industry.

Millenium, the reason of thousands is this news .

Of course, if you mean that US ministry of truth is not so precise as Iraqi ministry of information...

This whole "War in Iraq for oil" argument is such bunk. Check this link. It doesn't look much like we were having trouble getting oil from Iraq before the war.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/neic/rankings/crudebycountry.htm

Of course it is. Reasonable people never thought that in the first place, but it makes a really good thing to put on the protest sign since there's no real substance on that side of the political spectrum otherwise.

You guys are complete idiots if you don't think that control of oil is part of the equation
and you are even bigger idiots if you think it is about bringing democracy to the Iraq people

And you sure make good reasons as to why we should believe it.

We wont be controlling the Oil, and the Iraqi people WILL be in a democracy.

Well they very well couldn't put

"Stop the war for liberating Iraq"

"Don't save the Iraqi people"

"The US is a big bully for helping the people of Iraq"

So they make up stuff. Even though there is ZERO proof or even a hint of it that they can show.

There are more than enought hints.

Yes, I read that, lots of speculation like this thread. And nowhere did I see proof that the US wasn't planning on liberating Iraq, or how the US would be controlling their oil from now on.

Just like in Afghanistan eh?

villa

definately better than before

but, according to some reports, things seem to go back to the old ways.

http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet...y/International

http://rawa.false.net/cable-tv.htm

http://rawa.false.net/hrw-women2.htm

The last 2 links were found and the website of the RAWA, about which I do not know much, but were initially from the BBC and Reuters respectively.

There are quite a few other links about the situation in Afghanistan right now. Does not look much better now to tell you the truth.

villa

I will believe it when I see it and I am not trying to convert your point of view, I have read enough of your posts to see where you stand.

don't you mean that you will knock it until you see it?

Looking at the past behavior of the US government I have every right to doubt their intentions.

Is it a crime to be skeptical? Sorry I don't tow the line.

its not wrong to be skeptical, but to automatically doubt from the beginning isn't good either.

there have never been so many informed eyes watching every move like that in iraq right now. i think everything is going to work out just fine

Pray tell, what is your bizarre definition of "skeptical", then?

skeptical doesn't mean automatically doubt to me

skep�ti�cal also scep�ti�cal adj.
Marked by or given to doubt

1. Of or pertaining to a sceptic or skepticism; characterized by skepticism; hesitating to admit the certainly of doctrines or principles; doubting of everything.

2. (Theol.) Doubting or denying the truth of revelation, or the sacred Scriptures.

ok, than it doesn't mean automatically assume the worst

Nobody was claiming it did.

you wrote:


Feel free to move the target again when caught with your pants down next time. We're not telling.

-s*

i was just saying thats wasn't my current view of being skeptical. why say skeptical when you should have say doubt

Because that's what it means?

Are "big words" a problem, generally?

-s*

yes and you have enlightened me. not really though

lol