[ Reply to what was written: | Ok, talkback to me. ]
Posted by racer96 on March 24, 2003, 4:43 pm, in reply to "Oil" I don't believe it's a false conclusion at all. Nor, do I believe that it's all about the oil. I do believe that it plays a large part in it, however. If the oil really wasn't a concern at all, then why is the US so intent on going in there and just getting things done? There are several other places in the world that pose more of a threat to America, yet they are treated with kid gloves, and left alone. Why is is, that nearly every speech has to contain some message about the oil? I'd like to believe that this valuable resource will be used for the betterment of the Iraqi people, but, honestly, with the american track record, I don't see it as going to aid the people that need it most. There are far too many unknowns in the whole equation, and to me, that is why I oppose the actions that took place. But, after stating that, I do support the troops over there. They are doing what they have been told to do, whether they agree with the actions or not. Mike --Previous Message--
Link: points of thought
24.69.255.202
Sorry I hadn't replied earlier, I tend to forget that this thing exists.
: You draw a false colnclusion, Mike. Normally I
: wouldn't even bother to respond but for
: some reason I expect better from you. The
: fact of coalition forces securng oil
: fields does not mean that they are
: planning to keep them... or planning
: anything for them... just preventing the
: disatrous oil fires that we saw 12 years
: ago (remember that?) and preservng the
: resource for the people of Iraq and the
: government that willl follow Saddam's
: regime. Shall we just leave them alone?
: Let them burn? Allow another ecological
: disaster? Would that increase your trust
: of the coaltion?
:
:
Message Thread:
« Back to thread