Originally posted by Castro: Saaxib you've confirmed my suspicions of you and that is you're trumpeting the official US State department line for the first Gulf War. If that the case then let me say it wasn't deliberate. But purely accidental confluence of viewpoints. It would still be my view for the causes of 1st Gulf War had the US publically stated otherwise. I arrived at my conclusion after considering all the evidence and other speculated reasons. Not only are all the other speculations regarding reasons for 1st Gulf war unsupportable evidence wise but unreasonable as well. Your disagreement with my position is noted. However, we're getting sidetracked on dwelling on this issue. The point of contention here, however, is: was it cheaper for the US to invade Iraq or to buy all of its proven oil reserves? I said YES, you said NO. I'm sure you think this current war in Iraq is to bring them democracy as well. The primary objective of the current war in Iraq was to take out the Saddam regime. Atheer it's their bloody business what they want to do with it. I agree and all oil producing countries have decided time and again to sell their oil. And again to who they sell to is iconsequential since oil is itinerant market commodity -- constantly changing hands between buyers and sellers. The American insatiable appetite for oil does not justify pillaging a sovereign nation to get it. BUT I showed it was cheaper for the US to buy all the oil Iraq is able to produce in a year than to invade. So you are demonstrably in error when you say Iraq was invaded for its oil. The greenback is not a currency of choice but one imposed by the barrel of a gun. That is not true. At the end of WW2 the US economy was not only the largest but mainly undamaged by the war while the rest of the major economies were in shambles if not completely ruined. That is how the US dollar gained its reputation. And now that another currency shows any sort of competition to the dollar and Saddam hints at using it for his oil sales, suddenly American bombers are in the air. Can you connect the dots atheer? Why did the US bomb Saddam in the 1st Gulf War? The Euro, for which your entire thesis hinges on, wasn't even established before 1992, a full year before 1st Gulf war. So what was the 1st Gulf war all about? Saaxib last time you compared oil to stones and now it's cow manure? Walee the only thing that reeks of cow manure are your arguments, I'm sad to say. But Castro oil IS comparable to stones in Stones Ages. Both served the SAME purpose: the driving force/energy for our technological development. I'm fully cognizant of the fact of your palpable dislike for this line of reasoning I've contructed but you haven't demonstrated to be in error. Not yet at least! The other arguement which you left unscathed is what reasons or evidence do you have for beleiving that the world will run out of oil? Why shouldn't a new energy source be discovered tomorrow which the world adapts in very short time?

Protocols are forgeries, exposed long time ago by a British reporter (I think in the 1920s). The only people who still cling to them as legit material are anti-semites or jew haters.

Originally posted by ibtisam: what right do muslim have demanding Tolerance? Every right! Two wrongs don't make a right and the morality of the enlightened and civilised world shouldn't rest on the shoulders of people who still ride to battles on top of horses (I'm not joking here. I watched an afghan documentary a while a go and there was segment where bevy of afghans riding horses were shown madly rushing enemy lines. It was a scene out of this world). I noted from the article that the current afghan penal code is derived from Sharia or based on it entirely. No surprise there must say. The Sharia Law can only be practiced if accompanied by threats of violence and fear. And this man who is to be excuted hasn't done anything but openly defy stultifying and oppressive system. It's Sharia Law that is trying and excuting this man, not Islam. Why should what ANYONE believes matter to authorities in palaces and government buildings anyways? It doesn't! They're protecting their legitimacy by sacrificing an innocent man's life. Incidents like this highlight why most muslims and nonmuslims reject Sharia Law completely.

Originally posted by ThePoint: OMG - this is ridiculous. And sad and funny. They are such paragons of liberalism - that they are forcing Muslim immigrants to watch something that is so blatantly contradictory to their values. WOW - where can I sign up for such benevolent liberalism! :rolleyes: Are you oblivious to the fact that the Dutch WERE once along with the Swedes the most tolerant society on earth. To such extent that entire major cities are today half filled with immigrants. When the same people are forced to administer puerile test/s such as the mentioned to immigrants you KNOW the problem isn't with them! Lest we forget, a film director was knifed to death in broad daylight by his fellow countrymen of immigrant extraction for making a FILM!. An elected dutch politician is in hiding after death threats on her life. Testing the tolerance levels of who enters their country in the light what has happened prior to now, is sensible and frankly tame reaction that we should be relieved over not lament. I know for sure if roles were reversed and Somalis were in place of the Dutch we wouldn't be having this discussion.

^^^She's not a muslim, why would the muslim world need her? Castro, My reply is forthcoming, my tardiness notwithstanding.

With the impressive advances in modern medicine, we nomads shouldn't fret too much over FGM. Certainly it isn't too far-fetched to envisage a day when chopped off pieces are effortlessly attached back in place or artificially grown and slapped on.

Originally posted by Amelia: I'm sorry. It was late late last nite. Some1 please delete this 'waste of time' topic. Still here? Why you not roasting in h...

Originally posted by Dhuusaye: SB I think you write much of your stuff with out little bit of a background studies. Maybe, certainly sometimes, auspiciously not this time. I mean if the Nazis had no basis of religion in their upbringing Hold on there! Who said the Nazis didn't have religious upbringing? Surely not me. All I said was Hitler was not a Christian and that is the truth. No one has provided any evidence to the contrary. The only pro-christianity Hitler comments are public speechs intended for christian audience. In private Hitler made it abundantly and categorically clear of his rejection of Christianity as false, pernicious and absurd. then why is it that their national emblem, the swastika resembles the Christian cross? The Svastika (the original sanskrit word) predates Nazism AND Christianity, its a 3000+ year old symbol used by many cultures. It is the national symbol of Hunduism and Budhism among others. Go to any Budhism temple and there is good chance you'll see a svastika.

Originally posted by sweet_gal: Socod badne.......... Do me a favour......Tomorrow morning start walking like the Socod badn dude u are, and don't stop until u're in the middle of no where and can't return to Somalia Online ever again... I'll go if you lead the way....

Originally posted by Castro: A country with huge reserves and a primitive oil industry that has been invaded twice in the last 15 years in order to bring it out of the dark ages and into rapid oil extraction, is what Iraq is. Didn't Saddam Hussien invade Kuwait in '91 unprovoked? Didn't the world led by the US (as it was the only one capable of) including many muslim and arab countries join forces to evict him from Kuwait. Prior to kuwait invasion, Saddam initiated yet another unprovoked invasion of neighbouring country - Iran. A conflict that lasted for 8 years crippling both countries and costing close to million casualties. Saddam incurred the wrath of the US and world by his reckless and miscalculating fumbles. Not oil, which is of no value without the US and other industralised nations. And do you really think the U.S. wants to stand in line with every Tom, Kumar and Wong waiting to buy oil on the markets. The US doesn't beg for access to anything, it demands it and if that fails the bombs start to drop. The US doesn't have to stand in line because oil is fluid market commodity and it goes to the highest bidder. The US can afford to pay for oil even at inflated prices at much cheaper cost than it was to bomb. Keep in mind also that the US is 3rd largest oil producer but because it has economy that consumes more than it produces it needs to look to others to cover its needs. So your argument that the US could just wait and see what Iraq does with its oil on the market is childish. What would Iraq or any of other Middle Eastern oil nations do with their oil? Do they even have a choice? They need to sell their oil to make money since they got no non-oil based economy. So we know what Iraq will do with its oil -- SELL IT. Otherwise they'll starve. 1) Access, competition and control . The US is unwilling (and incapable really) of competing with the rest of the world to get this oil. Specially when the sellers don't like the US , which is ofen the case. But the US can afford to buy all the oil Iraq is able to produce in a given year. It has the economy that needs it and is able to pay for it better than any other nation on earth. Iraq on the other hand has no choice BUT to sell to the US. And it was doing that willingly! 2) Buying the oil in the US dollar as a currency keeps the greenback, undeservedly, the "official" currency of international commerce. [qb] The US dollar is the prefered international currency for its stability. I believe the US dollar was accepted as the trading oil currency in 1971, different world back then. [qb]A change of such currency, the US knows, will bring the economic house of cards (a.k.a. the US economy) down within months. Something that the US will not allow to occur no matter what the cost to lives or to taxpayer. Maybe but given how interconnected world economies are now days, a collapse of US economy will induce similar collapse on other world economies. How does the collapse of US economy benefit China, Japan, India or Europe? Since you've chosen to look into your murky crystal ball, let me respond by looking in mine: not while there's no investment in finding alternative sources of energy. But there is investment in alternate sources. Hybrid cars is one, cow manure as energy source another. And the impetus for a move away from oil as energy source will be economics! As oil prices soar accompanied by all adverse environmental side effects, alternate energy sources become more affordable. The world will be using oil in this century if not the well through the next but certainly not in the current unsustainable rate. Why do you say that? For example the theoretical ground work for cold fusion -- limitless energy -- is done, the only thing holding us back are engineers who are still unable to apply it. And as I've said the more costly oil prices get the cheaper the alternatives will be regardless of how expensive they may seem today. Atheer for you to compare oil to stones and iron neither of which had the uses of oil shows your stone-age thinking. An absolute insult to me and to the gallery for you to even suggest such a comparison. Stones and oil? War ileen balaayo. How is the comparison impertinent besides your obvious dislike for its implication? You didn't say! Stones fueled our technological progress, so did Iron and bronze. More recently coal was until oil come along. But there is still plenty of stones, iron and coal remaining in the world long after humanity was finished with them. How is oil age any different from Coal or Stones as energy source? Not much since all serve/served the same purpose -- give humans the wherewithal to do WORK. The Oil Age will come to an end but when it does they'll still be oil. A conclusion inferred from the past. The oil in Iraq will stay because (IA) the US will be kicked out with its tail between its legs and not because the world has abondoned fossil fuels as the king of energy sources. What will Iraq do with its oil then? Use it as water source? Oil was discovered and became of value by industralised nations and its them who still make it valueable commodity. Without industry based economies, oil is useless liquid.

Captivating, absolutely captivating Mrs. Lee. Bravo!!!!

Originally posted by Khadir: The four witnesses are required for adultry, not eight! if four women are present then its four women, if a mix of men and women, then they are four. The only time the rule of two women for every one male witness is allowed is for debt contracts( business), because women were less skilled in those matters. Remember Allah is always clear, the ayats concerning adultry and debt contracts are seperate. And Allah makes distinction when he refers to the number of witnesses for each case. That is exactly what I thought, he of course disagrees. Thanks anyways.

Originally posted by Ducaqabe: Not only Muslims, people in general whatever nationality or belief they belong to, are prone to violence. Agree, never said otherwise. Your point is what? Somalis are not the only ones with a history of prolonged civil war. I couldn't care less. Somalis are fighting and shoudn't. And no, two wrongs don't make a right. Just because others perform self flagellation it doesn't mean you should as well. What sources did you use to conclude Somalis are 99% Muslims?? Circumstantial evidence/s... why?

Originally posted by Pi: SB, dude, Hitler had a catholic upbringing. And he referred to himself as a Christian in more than one setting. This is not a disputed historical fact. Even though, most biographers and historians say that he was not a "practising" Catholic. Hitler still thought he was a devout christian. Hitler wasn't a christian! And I'm right. Quotes Establishing Hitler's Non-Christianity Hitler may in public have claimed to be doing the will of God, but records of his private conversations show otherwise. Many of these were recorded by his secretary and published in a book called Hitler's Table Talk (Adolf Hitler, London, Weidenfeld & Nicholson, 1953). I have lifted the text of these from the soc.religion.christian newsgroup's Hitler FAQ. Night of 11th-12th July, 1941 "National Socialism and religion cannot exist together.... "The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity's illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew. The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity.... "Let it not be said that Christianity brought man the life of the soul, for that evolution was in the natural order of things." (p 6 & 7) 10th October, 1941, midday "Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure." (p 43) 14th October, 1941, midday "The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death.... When understanding of the universe has become widespread... Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity.... "Christianity has reached the peak of absurdity.... And that's why someday its structure will collapse.... "...the only way to get rid of Christianity is to allow it to die little by little.... "Christianity the liar.... "We'll see to it that the Churches cannot spread abroad teachings in conflict with the interests of the State." (p 49-52) 19th October, 1941, night "The reason why the ancient world was so pure, light and serene was that it knew nothing of the two great scourges: the pox and Christianity." 21st October, 1941, midday "Originally, Christianity was merely an incarnation of Bolshevism, the destroyer.... "The decisive falsification of Jesus' doctrine was the work of St.Paul. He gave himself to this work... for the purposes of personal exploitation.... "Didn't the world see, carried on right into the Middle Ages, the same old system of martyrs, tortures, faggots? Of old, it was in the name of Christianity. Today, it's in the name of Bolshevism. Yesterday the instigator was Saul: the instigator today, Mardochai. Saul was changed into St.Paul, and Mardochai into Karl Marx. By exterminating this pest, we shall do humanity a service of which our soldiers can have no idea." (p 63-65) 13th December, 1941, midnight "Christianity is an invention of sick brains: one could imagine nothing more senseless, nor any more indecent way of turning the idea of the Godhead into a mockery.... <here insults people who believe transubstantiation>.... "When all is said, we have no reason to wish that the Italians and Spaniards should free themselves from the drug of Christianity. Let's be the only people who are immunised against the disease." (p 118-119) 14th December, 1941, midday "Kerrl, with noblest of intentions, wanted to attempt a synthesis between National Socialism and Christianity. I don't believe the thing's possible, and I see the obstacle in Christianity itself.... "Pure Christianity-- the Christianity of the catacombs-- is concerned with translating Christian doctrine into facts. It leads quite simply to the annihilation of mankind. It is merely whole-hearted Bolshevism, under a tinsel of metaphysics." (p 119 & 120) 9th April, 1942, dinner "There is something very unhealthy about Christianity." (p 339) 27th February, 1942, midday "It would always be disagreeable for me to go down to posterity as a man who made concessions in this field. I realize that man, in his imperfection, can commit innumerable errors-- but to devote myself deliberately to errors, that is something I cannot do. I shall never come personally to terms with the Christian lie." "Our epoch in the next 200 years will certainly see the end of the disease of Christianity.... My regret will have been that I couldn't... behold ." (p 278) Quotes Establishing Hitler's Non-Atheism "We were convinced that the people need and require this faith. We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out". "For their interests [the Church's] cannot fail to coincide with ours [the National Socialists] alike in our fight against the symptoms of degeneracy in the world of to-day, in our fight against a Bolshevist culture, against atheistic movement, against criminality, and in our struggle for a consciousness of a community in our national life". Both of these quotes are from Norman H. Baynes, ed. The Speeches of Adolf Hitler, April 1922-August 1939, Vol. 1 of 2, Oxford University Press, 1942, cited in an Internet article by Doug Krueger. Another interesting quote is found in a book by Albert Speer, Hitler's Minister of Armaments: "I often feel that we will have to undergo all the trials the devil and hell can devise before we achieve Final Victory....I may be no pious churchgoer, but deep within me I am nevertheless a devout man. That is to say, I believe that he who fights valiantly obeying the laws which a god has established and who never capitulates but instead gathers his forces time after time and always pushes forward—such a man will not be abandoned by the Lawgiver. Rather he will ultimately receive the blessing of Providence. And that blessing has been imparted to all great spirits in history." (Albert Speer, Inside the Third Reich : Memoirs. Bonanza Books ; Distributed by Crown Publishers, 1982, cited in an Internet article by Kevin Davids). These sentiments are obviously neither atheist nor Christian. source

Originally posted by Castro: In fact, these reserves are to the tune of 115 billion barrels. I don't know if they teach math at Mickey Mouse University but let me break it down for you like this. The US is spending almost $1 billion a week in Iraq. The war has been going on three years this week and the total cost so far is close to $500 billion. If this occupation lasts a decade (including the previous three years) it is estimated it will cost close to $1.5 trillion. With me so far? Now, forget the incalculable value in having full control of the largest and second largest proven sources of oil in the entire world, but imagine having uninterrupted flow of such oil. Not to mention buying it for decades to come from friendly (read: installed) regimes at "negotiated" (read: dirt cheap) prices. Still with me? Here comes the astonishing part no one ever thinks about when the talk radio hosts ask the same question you asked. The US consumes about 20 millions barrels per day (4 times the second closest consumer, Japan). So yearly, that comes out to about 7.3 billion a year. At that rate, Iraqi proven oil reserves will have been exhausted by the US alone in less than two decades. So, if they were to buy it at market rate and have to compete with other nations such as China , as you and Oreily claim, they would have to spend $5.5 trillion to purchase it (at a modest and unrealistic $50 a barrel). Now tell me, which is cheaper, to invade for a $1.5 trillion, have full control, keep the US dollar the purchasing currency, and buy it for negotiated prices OR not invade and buy it at market prices while competing with every Chinese and Indian out there and in Euros no less. Ok, atheer Castro, here is my rebuttal (with facts and figures) as promised Let me start off by saying I accept your total Iraq oil reserves figure, the 115 billion one. Also let me aver my stand by my earlier rebuttal of your post where I pointed the omission on your behalf of the cost of refinery, transportation, storage etc. With that out of the way, I'll know show why it would've been cheaper for the US to buy ALL Iraq's proven oil reserves than it was to go to war. My claim is based on Iraq's maximum oil production capacity in SINGLE year. The reason being Iraq's current oil reserves will last close to 90 years at maximum production rate, not potential production rate that you've calculated. Realistically speaking, the world will not still be using oil as source of energy for the next 90 years. The oil age will come to an end much earlier than that and when it does they'll be plenty of oil still remaining in Iraq and other parts of the world. Historical precedence fatefully avows this since at the end of Stone Age there were still plenty of stones left. At the end of Iron age there were plenty Iron still remaining, same with bronze and so forth. When the Oil Age ends, there will still be alot of oil in the ground. From this we can be confident that not all of Iraq's proven oil reserves will ever leave the ground! Now lets take a closer look at the total value of realistic Iraqi oil output in a single year and contrast that with cost of the War in the same span of time. Prior to the 1st Gulf War Iraqi was producing 3.5 mbd (million barrels per day). That is highest output we know Iraq is capable of. At that rate, times the current oil price of $60/barrel, the value Iraqi oil output is $76.8 billion dollar/year. The US has spent close to $500 billion since the invasion as you pointed out. Costing about $150 billion a year. Difference of $73.2 billion that the US has to spent OVER the total value of Iraq's max. oil output in a single year! So my point proven at this point. But that is the most optimistic calculation as Iraq's oil production since the invasion hasn't exceeded 2.4 mbd and no more than 1.6 mbd in export end. Total value in a single year at current market price of $60/barrel is the meager value of $35 billion a year. A deficit of $115 billion for the US, that is how much MORE they spent in a year than the cost of Iraq's yearly output since the invasion. It doesn't stop there though! You and/or others suggested here and IN other places that possessing the Iraqi oil fields was beneficial without taking into consideration the cost of development, production and other associated costs which are all borne by the OWNERS. In this case the US. So it would cost the US even more to invade Iraq since the revenue from oil sales would be offset by the expenses such as production and development.

Amelia, Damn you! You just wasted precious 5 seconds of my time. Go to hell!

Flipmode, Help me with something. This Iraqi Shia dude tells me that in Islam woman's testimony is worth half that of a man. Something I already knew but he goes on to say that in instances of adultry where you need 4 witnesses, where only women witnesses are available you'll need 8. Is that true. Flipmode, the great Islamic luminary, help this brother dude.

Originally posted by makalajabti: It's few miles off Diri-Dawa. Have you ever been to Ethiopia by the way? If not why did you say I lied about that village? Some people are FREAK. I've sojourned in Ethiopia; *** Dawa is my ancesterial homeland. That is why I knew you were lying... besides makalajabti is somali word and we somali language speakers know what it means. Again it is highly suggestive and bespeaks to your intentions. Whether deliberate or not.

Originally posted by Yo-Yo Ma: Thats racist!!! How so? Muslims are not a race, they hail from ALL corners of the globe. Please elucidate on that bizarre accusation. All major conflicts of the last five hundred years was instigated by the Christain European Countries. You mean like Moaist China -- 30 million dead in Cultural Revolution upheaval ALONE. Or Stalinist Russia, 20-30 million dead in 'engineered' famines in Ukraine alone. Or Pol Pot, Kim Jon Ill of N. Korea; Saddam Hussien.... or is it that only whites and christians are culpable of excesses, the rest are saints? Some of these conflicts were specifically carried out in the name of Christianity starting with Spanish conquest of the new world to the holocoust. N you say we are prone to violence. Hitler was not Christian neither were the Nazis. And yes muslims in general are prone to violence, just take a look at somalis, 99% muslims... what exactly are we fighting over :confused:

Originally posted by Castro: My choice is the first one since that's what the topic is about. Fine by me. Take a crack at it. Did I not go out of my way to hold your hand through all the 12 digit math? Yes you did and you were wrong. I'm still right and will show how soon. Currently I'm extremely busy but soon mabye later tonight or tomorrow I'll show why I said what I said -- with FIGURES! Be be prepared! In the meantime, go ahead and refute the other points I raised. Once I get through this hectic patch, I'm gonna stream roll through your rebutals like German Panzer Divisions through French maginot line

Originally posted by Castro: So which is it, are they "prone" to violence because they're Muslim or because they're deprived, illiterate and grossly underdeveloped? Without a doubt a combination of the two. If it is just poverty, underdevelopment, illiteracy etc, then any nonmuslim faced with similar conditions could be just as prone to violence as his/her muslim counterparts. But as you correctly pointed out, this is not what we actually see. Africans are just as desolate as most muslims if not worse and yet we hardly see any blowing themselves up buses, commuter trains and calling for violence all the while religiously justifying it. There is a direct and irremediable link between poverty and proneness to violence. Take a look at Africa. Wars, simmering or full blown, internecine and diamond conflicts... you name it are raging across the continent. Make no mistake about it, poverty is pivotal cause albeit not the only one. Even in the developed world, the poorest regions/neighbourhoods bear the highest crime rates. Where ever there is poverty and underdevelopment it is accompanied by violence. Where we muslims standout is our FAITH... or the misreading of it! Islam is said to be perfect, muslims take this and do a number on it when they equate themselves to perfection. Many would deny but also scold you when you criticise muslims! The result being people who genuinely believe they're impervious to human frailties. Geniunely believe among them can not arise pernicious characters capable of unspeakable horrors (hence why most muslism to this day deny Bin Laden was behind 9/11 because no muslim/s can commit such crimes). So what happens when we muslims find ourselves in today's world, where nonmuslims seem to be doing as good if not most of the time much better in everything? There are only two options: 1. accept we're not perfect and have a lot to learn from nonmuslims or 2. close our eyes and hope it's all a bad dream. The first is hard pill to swallow, too painfull to accept. Regretably we've opted for the 2nd option resulting in not only skewed perception of the world but also unrealistic expectations. Like the expectation to be treated amiably when we extend nothing of the sort to ourselves let alone to others. Like the expectation to be treated fairly and respected in the West when we give the West NO reason/s to by either remaining silent/indifferent in the face of deplorable violence like 9/11 orchastrated by our brothers/sisters in faith or remain uncooperative with authorities in helping them fetch out our bad apples. The disconnect between what we believe of ourselves and the reality around us is what fuels our propensity to reach for the sword at the slightest provacation or moan insult and slander at the mildest criticism. It's a problem of external percept unmitigated by reality or reasonable causes but rather urged by our unability to accept the truth: we are in urgent need of reform/modernization. Now, forget the incalculable value in having full control of the largest and second largest proven sources of oil in the entire world, but imagine having uninterrupted flow of such oil. So what? The US would still have to buy the oil at market price -- the same price everyone else will pay for. How is that advantageous to them alone? You're also not factoring in the cost to extract the oil, refine, store and transport. Considerable amount given the dire state of Iraq's oil industry due to so many years of under-investment and neglect. Further, the initial heavy investment needed to bring up Iraq's oil output to capacity levels is to be paid by American tax payers (to the best of my knowledge). And even if the US had full and unrestricted access to Iraq's oil, it would be private oil companies like Halliburton and Exxon mobile who WOULD sell to the US government at market prices, where is the benefit in that? Unless you're saying the US is stealing Iraqi oil at night, are you? Either way, it was cheaper for the US to let Iraq continue to sell its oil and buying it that way than it was to invade it. So far the cost of the invasion dwarfs the total monetary value of all of Iraq's proven oil reserves -- the hole 112 billion barrel of it. Not to mention buying it for decades to come from friendly (read: installed) regimes at "negotiated" (read: dirt cheap) prices. Oil price is set by the markets not by free market governments like the US. Free market Governments can influence oil prices via policies enacted (going to war, imposing embargos etc) but can't determine the price of oil. Hell, free market governments can't even determine inflation or interest rates in their economies... the market does. Now tell me, which is cheaper, to invade for a $1.5 trillion, have full control, keep the US dollar the purchasing currency, and buy it for negotiated prices OR not invade and buy it at market prices while competing with every Chinese and Indian out there and in Euros no less. It would still have been cheaper to keep buying Iraqi oil at market price, as in pre-war conditions, than it was to invade just to secure those oil fields. And what is this $1.5 trillion figure being compared to the total price of Iraq's proven oil reserves AT current market price? It costs money to put the oil in the market in USEABLE form... the bulk of oil production costs is taken up by refinery process. As you may recall during the Hurrican Katrina episode, which hit the hub of the US's oil refinery industry(the US is the biggest oil refiner in the world AS WELL as being the world's 3rd largest oil producers after Russia and S. Arabia), oil prices sharply rose. There was slight interruption but just the mere fear of interruptions was enough to send oil prices up shooting. Indicative, that was, of the importance of refinery in the oil production industry. Oil in the ground is mostly useless, it must be put in usefull form and that costs money. It must be extracted, properly stored and transported... all costing substantial dough. So in the grand scheme of things total cost of the war so far outweights the projected price of Iraq's proven oil reserves. If it's for the Muslims, who cares? The US publicly stated that it "does not do body counts" so what remains, is their own soldiers. Most, almost all, of the muslim victims of Iraq war were/are at the hands of other muslism, ex. Shias vs Sunnis, Insurgents vs Iraqi police/soldiers/civilians. On the balance of things, the US has far better record at avoiding and taking extraordinary measures to ensure civilian casualities remain as low as possible by not dileberately attacking civilians than muslim insurgents/terrorists. Sad but true!. Hegemony, my friend, is not perpetrated by the average American, who himself is a victim of US power, but by a powerful cabal of corporations and individuals at the upper echelons of power. Few things here. First the US, as anyone who closely observed it would note, has strong streak anti-establishement/intelligentsiarunning through it's political veins. In fact it is the only democracy in the world today where popular public discourse often determines political course of the day. In that sense it can be safely said it is true democracy, run by the people as opposed to by established and well connected few. Second, while US is guilty of many trespasses and excesses it has redeemed itself, at least in my eyes, by providing and being the vanguard of freedom to many people across the globe. During the Cold War it was the US that protected Western Europe from Communism, the resuscitated Japan, made S. Korea a possibility... by providing military, economic and political protection umbrella. Look around at the existing democracies, almost all are only possible BECAUSE of the US. Empires, sole super powers have always and prolly will always exercise their power... tell me ANY super power that has brought so much good to the world not to mention all the inventions in particular medicine and technology. Instead of a show of force, the "tour de force" you mention along with talk-radio, it has shown how vulnerable the US is when stretched like it is. Even worse, the occupation has shown that the US is ill-equipped and lacks the stamina and the moral fortitude to fight long term protracted guerilla warfare. But Castro, the US military objective was to defeat Saddam militarily and overtake Iraq. They did, so mission accomplished on that front. Iraq is firmly in the hands of the US and the insurgent's effectiveness is only proportional to US's restraint... if they were to unleash their full power, the insurgents would obliterated in nano second.

Originally posted by Castro: And don't you dare editing the post now to make them tighter. I've already got it saved. My arguements are generally unassailable. You can try debunking 'em but that is tantamount to shots in the dark... you maybe lucky, maybe not Kiddin, I'd like to here your rebuttal. In the meantime got couple of lectures to attend. Adios!

Digaale, No, just motivating you... Lee, SOL awaits your come back. I KNOW you won't disappoint me but I want you to lyrically smack off that smirk on Digaale's face.

Bixii, First, welcome to Sol. Second, nothing wrong with flashing your goods/achievements... you worked for them or were blessed with them, not much sense shying from pride in them, is there? You only got to live this life just once, make it worthwhile one. And don't listen to Abraar, she's usually clueless and confused about everything. A common characteristic of Funnyhats. Listen to me instead. I have obtained advanced degress and citations from Azhar university among others in Quranic/Hadiith exegesis and hermeneutics as well as presently lecturing as distinguished contributor at Mickey Mouse University. Now, THAT is one helluva impressive credentials, wouldn't you say? I say yeah!

Originally posted by HornAfrique: I would rather be dead then a 2nd or lower class citizen anywhere in this world. Rubbish! Putting the cart before the horse... life comes before 'dignity' and 'honor'. Without life what's there to protect or seek :confused: