[Sir Taliesin]

Originally posted by Shaide: Why Sudafrica not?, They attacked angolia, and the united states didnt do anything. I assume you are talking about South Africa. The US led the boycott of South Africa during the 70's and 80's. We were instrumental in having aparthied fall. Since then, South Africa has lived at peace with it's neighbors. It's Government is now a majority run government. Why on earth would we still impose sanctions against South Africa? they did everything they were supposed to! They say that Irak has destruccion massive weapons (The inspectors havent found any), but USA have this weapons too. Well Inspectors have found weapons, well it's true if other country say that they will attack, you must defend. While it's true that we have those weapons too, they were created to stop Germany and Japan during WW2. Afterward they were the mainstay in the defense of Europe from a precieved threat from the former Soviet Union. Irak its the country who get the money for themself, for education, and others. And they dont like USA, and they sell the oil more expensive, the oil is them, they can sell more expensive to USA if they want to. USA sell weapons to other countries more expensive to get more money, and any country attack them. What's wrong then? Usa is in crisis before 11 of september, and if they'll get the irak's oil, then they will be better. Moreover in summer 2001 the United States of America said that they will attack to Afganistan and irak, but they havent any reasons to attack them, and two month more late was the 11 of September... what does mean? I dont know... I don't know what that means either. If you are going to spout accusations against the US, then back them up with some sort of proof! Where has it ever been said that the US was looking for a reason to attack Afghanistan or Iraq in the summer of 2001? As far as oil goes, the reason Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990 was oil. They accused Kuwait of drilling at an angle from Kuwait over into Iraq and stealing Iraq's oil. Besides, wouldn't it be cheaper for us to cut a deal with Saddam and let him sell his oil, than to get a bunch of people killed and spend billions of dollars to invade Iraq. Sorry, your arguement doesn't wash. I suggest that you look up Timber loftus' posted statement about US interest in oil. I'll try and find the link for you. I must say one more thing... Do you remember 1969? Usa wanted to attack Cuba. USA did a plan, they would attack some places in Miami, they would destroy any US airplanes when this planes would fly on Cuba, and they would say that Cuban attacked in first time, the world would say: Cuba is guilty, and they would attack this country with world help. Moreover in the 19th century, USA blowed up an USA's ship near Cuban's beach, for steal this island to us (Spain) and they said that we attacked United States of America, but Cuban wanted to be free, without Spain and USA. What is your opinion? I'll let Ronn_Bonn's statement stand on this one. Except to say that you and I weren't around then to know what really happened. What is the purpose in talking about something that happened over a hundred years ago and has nothing to do with the issue at hand. That's kind of the same logic we all saw in Bosnia and Kosovo. You ancestors slaughtered my ancestors four hundred years ago, so I hate you. Makes a lot of sense doesn't it. Sir Taliesin SHAIDE