NationStates Jolt Archive

I remember in the years after the September 11th attacks that George Bush stated that Taliban/Saddam were all enemies of democracy, and that it was the US goal to route out Terrorism and spread democracy to these countries that are suffering from oppressive regimes. All well and good...


What about Robert Mugabe? Why has no move been made against Zimbabwe to liberate its people, afterall alot of people recently had their houses demolished because the government thought they were in the way.


Or are Bush/Blair's promises only valid when there's a decent reserve of oil in the bargin?

We don't have too many Africans flying airliners into US buildings, so they haven't gotten our attention yet.

Besides, there are plenty of European nations who should clean up Africa - they made the mess during the era of colonialism.

We don't have too many Africans flying airliners into US buildings, so they haven't gotten our attention yet.

Besides, there are plenty of European nations who should clean up Africa - they made the mess during the era of colonialism.



I don't recall any Iraqis flying airliners into US buildings either.

What about Robert Mugabe? Why has no move been made against Zimbabwe to liberate its people, afterall alot of people recently had their houses demolished because the government thought they were in the way.
Despite being a corrupt, authoritarian bastard, Mugabe was elected by a majority of the people of Zimbabwe. That's why we have seen no invasion. Another important reason is that invading Zimbabwe would be a practical impossibility right now.

The liberation of Iraq and Afghanistan wasn't because we're on a mission to spread democracy worldwide. If we were (which I would support wholeheartedly), then there are literally hundreds of places where intervention is required.

They were strategic moves meant to distrupt the terror network of Al-Qaeda and its affiliates, and to plant a modern, democratic regime in the Middle East as a permanent force for change in the region to stop terrorism at its roots. It was meant primarily to remove Saddam Hussein from power because he was portrayed as a threat to regional and worldwide security (now, this is debatable).

This is what the intention was, but the actual outcome could be far different.

We're not getting oil from Iraq; it's being sold by Iraq to the world market through OPEC (which currently does not have quotas imposed on the nation due to rebuilding from Saddam's neglect/war damage). If it were, the US would be paying significantly less for Iraqi oil than world prices, and our retail prices would be lower than they currently are.

The liberation of Iraq and Afghanistan wasn't because we're on a mission to spread democracy worldwide. If we were (which I would support wholeheartedly), then there are literally hundreds of places where intervention is required.

They were strategic moves meant to distrupt the terror network of Al-Qaeda and its affiliates, and to plant a modern, democratic regime in the Middle East as a permanent force for change in the region to stop terrorism at its roots. It was meant primarily to remove Saddam Hussein from power because he was portrayed as a threat to regional and worldwide security (now, this is debatable).

This is what the intention was, but the actual outcome could be far different.

We're not getting oil from Iraq; it's being sold by Iraq to the world market through OPEC (which currently does not have quotas imposed on the nation due to rebuilding from Saddam's neglect/war damage). If it were, the US would be paying significantly less for Iraqi oil than world prices, and our retail prices would be lower than they currently are.


We in the UK were merely sold WMDs as the motive, not Al-Qaeda, nor the argument about Saddam's regime...

I remember in the years after the September 11th attacks that George Bush stated that Taliban/Saddam were all enemies of democracy, and that it was the US goal to route out Terrorism and spread democracy to these countries that are suffering from oppressive regimes. All well and good...


What about Robert Mugabe? Why has no move been made against Zimbabwe to liberate its people, afterall alot of people recently had their houses demolished because the government thought they were in the way.


Or are Bush/Blair's promises only valid when there's a decent reserve of oil in the bargin?

So, why does it have to be the US? The UN has done nothing about this or Darfur. The EU has done nothing about this or Darfur. In addition, the repressive regime of Mugabe has not spread outside his country, yet.

We in the UK were merely sold WMDs as the motive, not Al-Qaeda, nor the argument about Saddam's regime...

Oh, you didn't get the full treatment like we did in the US...

So, why does it have to be the US? The UN has done nothing about this or Darfur. The EU has done nothing about this or Darfur. In addition, the repressive regime of Mugabe has not spread outside his country, yet.

The UN and the EU really should do something about it, that i'm not disputing.

Despite being a corrupt, authoritarian bastard, Mugabe was elected by a majority of the people of Zimbabwe. That's why we have seen no invasion. Another important reason is that invading Zimbabwe would be a practical impossibility right now.


Mugabe only came out with a majority in the election because supporters of the opposing parties were murdered, tortured, subject to blackmail and other such forms of abuse...

I don't recall any Iraqis flying airliners into US buildings either.

Iraqi and Saudi Arabia are quite close and enough Sudis were there. Also if Saudis were inside the plane and the Bushies were after oil why didn't they go after Saudi Arabia. If you say because of thier military I am going to laugh.

Iraqi and Saudi Arabia are quite close and enough Sudis were there. Also if Saudis were inside the plane and the Bushies were after oil why didn't they go after Saudi Arabia. If you say because of thier military I am going to laugh.


Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Saudi Arabia considered an ally in the War on Terror by the US? Saudi Arabia already engages in oil business with the US anyway, doesn't it?

Nowhere in this thread have I made any claims about the war being motivated by oil, so the fact that you're questioning me on that particular ground is neither here nor there...