Maybe I should let Beth speak for yourself, but I think you're doing her a great disservice here. She's not saying there are not ulterior motives -- she's asking whether those alleged or real ulterior motives totally invalidate the US attempt to fight terrorism?
In other words, just because it is in our self interest to protect oil supplies, we can't bomb a terrorist nation? H. -----Original Message----- From: Will Swain [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, February 18, 2002 2:52 AM To: CF-Community Subject: RE: jihad for kids .. wheeee the US, just like any state, always has ulterior motives. Thats what politics is all about. you are naive if you think thats not the case. will -----Original Message----- From: Beth Fleischer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 18 February 2002 01:25 To: CF-Community Subject: Re: jihad for kids .. wheeee so its not legitimate for the us to attempt to protect its citizens? The US must have ulterior motives? ----- Original Message ----- From: "Angel Stewart" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "CF-Community" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2002 3:49 PM Subject: RE: jihad for kids .. wheeee > *sigh* > > Well that's not what I meant. > > ["How would the United States have gotten worldwide sympathy and support > for a move like that otherwise? > > How would they get worldwide support to oust Saddam Hussein so long > after Desert Storm unless under the asupices of the "War On Terror"? > > How could Ashcroft, Lieberman and their cronies say that "Americans must > finally realise that their freedoms need to be restricted after the > events of September 11th..." with impunity and finally pass laws that > were struck down repeatedly when they came up for review in the past if > not under the umbrella of new "Homeland Security"?] > > There is a side to this whole thing that is simply politicians taking > advantage of the oppurtunities presented by September 11th. > > Oh..and to educate you a little further on how Afghanistan relates to > oil, check this link: > > http://www.eia.doe.gov/cabs/afghan.html > > "Afghanistan's significance from an energy standpoint stems from its > geographical position as a potential transit route for oil and natural > gas exports from Central Asia to the Arabian Sea. This potential > includes the possible construction of oil and natural gas export > pipelines through Afghanistan, which was under serious consideration in > the mid-1990s. The idea has since been undermined by Afghanistan's > instability. Since 1996, most of Afghanistan has been controlled by the > Taliban movement, which the United States does not recognize as the > government of Afghanistan. " > > But forget about all that..*gestures*...keep believing in the altruism > of the United States and its government. > Sooner or later the truth, which may be good or bad depending on which > side of the fence you're sitting on, will hit you in the face. Maybe > when you get jailed for vaguely resembling John Walker whilst trying to > get onboard a plane. > *smirk* > > *yawn* > G'night. > > -Gel > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Since Afghanistan has no oil reserves, how could this even have played a > factor? > > Unless you care to retract your defense of Will's original statement, > which Beth criticized, and you criticized Beth's criticism, I don't > believe that you can logically accuse me of misunderstanding or > misconstruing what you said. It's pretty darn clear what you said. > > H. > ______________________________________________________________________ Your ad could be here. Monies from ads go to support these lists and provide more resources for the community. http://www.fusionauthority.com/ads.cfm Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
