Originally Posted by centurion_ue
if u ask me,i think the invasion of iraq was based solely on oil.if not, why didn't the US go to liberate other countries under despotic regimes like north korea(were Kim is not just seen as a supreme leader,but a god)and sudan were the govt supports islamic militias that kill innocent pple in the darfur region(maybe it's b'cos they don't have oil).they were even reluctant @ first to send troops to liberia,even when the pple there were begging them to interven.
Kim Jong Il doesn't have oil true. What he does have is an ironclad promise from China that they will jump in fully if US forces every set foot inside of North Korea. That's one huge ugly mess that will blow up in our faces if we jump into it. We don't want WW3 afterall.
The general policy that the USA seems to have towards Africa appears to be to leave it alone. Solomnia was possibly a noble venture, but it also didn't go well at all. Fixing Africa is an ominous task to say the least and far too big of a job. It doesn't mean I fully agree, but I can see some amount of sense in keeping out of that entire continent. Sudan is a legitimate target for the War on Terror of course, but the thing that really puzzles me: Why on earth aren't the rest of the Muslim and Arabic nations doing something about Sudan and the genocide ongoing there? It's their Muslim brethren that are doing it, and its a horrible shame upon all Islam that its happening. Why haven't Egypt and Turkey intervened on their own, for instance?
One of the funniest things is that, for an entire decade, the USA was criticized across the globe for failing to remove Saddam in 1991. Now the entire planet is screaming at us for having finally done it. LOL.