Posted on 09/23/2001 9:51:26 AM PDT by Sawdring
Are you saying that Bush is using the terrorist attacks as an excuse to take over Uzbekistan? Please clarify what you are saying.
Are you saying that Bush is using the terrorist attacks as an excuse to take over Uzbekistan? Please clarify what you are saying.
I am saying that when all this blows over about the terrorists, there will remain a need to continue occupying Uzbekistan. Certain US corporate interests have been tyring to get some government muscle into their plans to secure the enormous profit in the oil and gas reserves in the area and to thwart the Russians, who understandably see it in their area of immediate interest. Is it that terribly difficult to see that two things are happening simultaneously here, one we are being told about and one we are not? Don't forget the plan to build a pipeline through Afghanistan. Would be a hell of a lot easier if American puppets, rather than the Taliban, were in power there. Remember the war to pry loose Kosovo from Yugoslavia? It's called oil pipelines, and there obviously is a lot of money in it. But is it worth our soldiers' lives?
Bush plans to have the US Army occupy Uzbekistan? When this does not happen, will you apologize and and admit that you were wrong?
Which side are you on? The Taliban's? Russia's?
Bush plans to have the US Army occupy Uzbekistan? When this does not happen, will you apologize and and admit that you were wrong?
We're already there, dude.
Go no further than Bush's own ambassador for backing on what I have written:
It may indeed be about terrorism, but baby it sure as hell is about oil.
I believe DAWN is a Pakistani news site.
Looked like?
We owe them nothing. Ever hear them apologize for helping the North Vietnamese? Sheesh
If you're sure about this then buy some stock in the oil companies and get rich. Those evil oil companies are owned by evil small investors everywhere. Good luck!
Yes there is oil in the mid-east but you know what they say. "To the victor go the spoils!"
Funny, knuckle-draggers like you used to howl when Clinton sent our armies into harm's way for the benefit of campaign contributors. I don't suppose the term "moral relativism" means anything to you.
I've been semi-following some threads that you've been engaged in lately (in between my own jousting at windmills on other threads). Damn boy. You've got stamina. These idiots that have been flushed out of the bushes (please pardon the un-intentional pun. I sweat to God that is was un-intentional, but you gotta admit that it's not bad, eh?) since 9/11 are extremely disheartening. Do you think we're doing any good?
Everything in that part of the world is at least partially about oil. However, I object to the implication that Bush is sending US troops to Uzbekistan as a trick to occupy that country.
Afganistan is a landlocked country and it is necessary to attack it from surrounding countries like Uzbekistan. The Uzbecks have been kind enough to allow us to operate from their country because they don't like the Taliban either.
In any case, from what I understand, Uzbekistan is not entirely independent. It is still in the Russian sphere of influence and it does pretty much what the Russians tell it to do in military matters.
I would be VERY suprised if an American fighting force were to remain stationed in Uzbekistan after this is over.
we're also going to drill in 'anwar'.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.