Are you a lawyer to determine legality of invasion? Lots of experts consider the invasion of the Allied 50+ countries into Iraq to be absolutely legal. The documents detailing the legal basis for the invasion have already been submitted to the UN by the USA/GB/Australian representatives. Regarding your question - no Russia did not invade Iraq. It decided not to participate in enforcing 17 UN resolutions to disarm the rogue regime of Saddam Hussein. It did not participate in the 1991 Gulf War to liberate Kuwait either. It's too busy killing muslims in Chechnya who want to break away from Russia and who happen to have oil on its territory. It's all about oil for Russia (and WMD sales) and it was a sole reason for their UNSC decisions.
Army Depots in Iraqi Desert Have Names of Oil Giants The subtleties surrounding the sensitive role oil plays in the Iraqi war may have eluded the United States Army. Deep in some newspaper coverage yesterday was a report that the 101st Airborne Division had named one central Iraq outpost Forward Operating Base Shell and another Forward Operating Base Exxon.
Again, this poster conveniently leaves out salient facts given in the article. The big question is why would these "outposts" be named after "oil companies?" They're not, actually. As the article states "The forward bases are normally refueling points â they're basically gas stations in the desert," i.e. they have been named after gas stations. Also, notice how msfe leaves out the url to this article.
"The forward bases are normally refueling points â they're basically gas stations in the desert," a Pentagon spokeswoman said Also, notice how conveniently Maxigirl leaves out the url to this article - and the fact that it´s the Pentagon and not "the article" that made this funny statement. "others involved in the oil industry say the Pentagon's indifference to the names of the bases was poorly considered. "You have this atmosphere of suspicion and apprehension now, and that's just among your allies," Jan Stuart, head of research for global energy futures at ABN Amro, the Dutch investment bank, said. "And in this atmosphere, you call your own supply effort this. It's mind-boggling the degree of insensitivity. There is little doubt the Americans will win the war, but you have to wonder how people who are so insensitive are going to win the peace."
"This is not about oil, although Iraqi oil will be put to use once the war is over. And it is not about money, although large sums of it is being spent in prosecuting the war. For the U.S. it is about establishing a base in the Middle East from which the U.S. can more easily attack al-Qaeda. It is about trying to turn Iraq into a Democratic and successful economy so that the poor, and unemployed wonât be easy recruits for al-Qaeda. And it is about sending a message to Islamic militants that when they decide to commit acts of terrorism, such as 9-11, the U.S. will come into their back yard and cause a great deal of discomfort. The U.S. failed to tell the world that Iraq was as much a logical target as a strategic one. Saddam Hussein, the U.S. thought, was someone that neither Europe or the rest of the world would miss. Thus, the U.S. decided to attack a target that it thought would not lead to a great deal of opposition. So it began to shape its story around the weapons of mass destruction issue and the violation of human rights. In the process, they forgot one of the most crucial tenets of doing business, that money talks. And money seems to have talked well between Baghdad, Paris, Moscow, and all kinds of places in between for a long time. Because the governments in the Middle East, France, Germany, and Russia all have or have had major economic bonanzas in dealing with Iraq, they have opposed the war. So why are we having this war? For many reasons. But in the end, it all boils down to business. When al-Qaeda perpetrated the 9-11 disaster, aside from the human aspect, and the horror of it all, it made it difficult for the U.S. to do business around the world, as fear led to economic contraction, and resources were diverted to security, while businesses began to rethink spending plans. But, there are always two sides to a story. The first Gulf War led to sanctions against Iraq, and the U.N.âs food for oil program. This situation gave other countries the opportunity to monopolize commerce with Iraq. And the monopoly was quite lucrative for the select few that were involved. Thus, it only makes sense then that now that the U.S. is attacking Iraq, those who have profited from sometimes illegal commerce with Iraq to vigorously oppose the war. And continue to oppose it they will. And continue to try to sabotage it they will. UPI reported that France and Germany have put up a fight to keep U.N. Secretary General Kofi Anan and his office from taking over the administration of the Iraq food for oil program. The program means $70 billion for Franceâs Banque Paribas, and has allegedly been used to smuggle illegal devices such as the hotly debated GPS jamming gear that Russia denies it sold to Iraq in violation of U.N. sanctions. There have also been news reports that France is exploring ways to enter into the bidding for Iraqi reconstruction projects."
Well, if I'm in the middle of a sandstorm, my M1A1 Abrahms Tank is near empty and I ask for directions to a place called "Exxon" (that was named for a place to get gas), I think there can be no mistake as to which part of the battleground I'm in need of directions to. F*CK PC and all other ridiculous "insensitivities." I suppose Tariq Aziz is going to go on Al-Jeezera and bitterly complain how the American imperialist dogs have had the unmitigated gall to name their refueling bases after American and British gas stations. PS "Maxigirl?" Ad hominem attacks are simply the tactics of a loser.
Max, there weren't a billion OTHER names they could have thought of? It's not about being PC. Given how incredibly simple it would have been to name the bases something else, I find it hard to believe how insanely stupid they were to use these names. In case you didn't notice, there is another war being fought; the one for public opinion. I can assure you that in that arena "ridiculous insensitivities" aren't all that ridiculous at all.
Why do you think they chose those names? On a whim? They were most likely chosen so that there can be no mistake as to what that forward base is for- refueling. Please enlighten how this alleged insensitivity will impact- well, anything. They didn't name them "Refueling Base Camel Jockey." Let's see if the Arab world complains.