".. I don't know where you come off posting shit about the US and Iraq but none of it is newer than 20 years old."
So arguements and FACTS about US shit (your words) older than 20 years do not count? That's a very easy way to deny your government's responsabilty in the current World Affairs.
Also, none of the information I provided so far is newer because your government doesn't want you to know. But if you really want to know about more recent actions of your government, how about this:
Guess who was on the Board of Directors of the Technology Department of the multinational ABB, which only 4 years ago sold 2 nuclear reactors
, for $ 200,000,000 to North Korea? Any idea? Donald Rumsfeld!
Ask him, I'd suggest, in case you don't believe me.
The sale of these two reactors was possible as North Korea then agreed not to use these for nuclear arms purposes. Now american experts assure us that the radioactive material obtained from these reactors can be used for nuclear bombs and might end up in the hands of terrorists..!
"Europe (France) depends heavily upon Gulf (Iraqi) oil exports, the point most folks miss is that the overwhelming majority of oil exports to the US comes from
1. Venezuela, 2. Mexico, 3. Canada."
I don't know where you have gotten these FACTS, but it is obvious that if you would have done some real research on the Internet, you would have come accross the following:
2002 Top 10 Countries from which the United States Imports Oil (thousand barrels per day)
1. Canada 2. Saudia Arabia 3. Mexico 4. Venezuela 5.Nigeria 6. Iraq 7. UK
8. Normay 9 Angola 10. Algeria
Not only does this FACT contradict the FACT presented by you, it also shows US dependence of oil from the Gulf Region.
Another interesting FACT I found, says the following:
"Afghanistan has no proven oil reserves, but may have some natural gas. More important it is would be a desirable route for a pipeline from the oil and gas fields of Central Asia. U. S. oil company Unocal was wooing the Taliban for a pipeline deal, supported by the U. S. gov't, but gave up in 1998. When the Taliban are driven out, the prospects for Unocal’s project are much improved.
" (Source: Oil and Gas Journal)
(In my search on the web for actual US data regarding "Strategic Petroleum Reserves", I came accross the following at http://www.fe.doe.gov/, an official US Department of Energy Website:
"All Annual Reports have been temporarily removed while the Department reviews their content. When this review is completed, all or portions of the information will be reposted."
Now this could be merely due to technical reasons, but I have my doubts.)
Another, more open source (British Petroleum, see http://tomweston.net/provenresrv.htm) in a 2001 report, states that Iraq has 11% of World Proven Petroleum Reserves and comes in second place after Saudi Arabia (25%).
As Shibley Telhami, Fiona Hill, et al, state in their article
"The Persian Gulf region remains central to the global oil market and will become even more vital in the future. U.S. oil imports from outside the Middle East will not change this fact."
Also interesting is to read the following, from the same article:
"U.S. strategic priorities supply a second reason why Saudi Arabia will remain important to the United States. For half a century, the United States has made Persian Gulf oil a primary security interest, and this emphasis is unlikely to dissipate in this decade. The conventional view of U.S. policy in the Persian Gulf is that American strategy and military posture are based primarily on ensuring an uninterrupted flow of oil at reasonable prices. But, as U.S. government documents declassified over the last several years show, the strategy has also focused on preventing hostile forces from seizing and establishing control of Persian Gulf petroleum. From 1949 to the present, American planners have worried that a hostile state may gain too much wealth and power by controlling the dominant share of the world's oil supply -- and thus become more threatening to the United States. U.S. policy toward the region has thus sought the "denial" of oil to enemies while assuring its flow to the West."
Also VERY interesting to read is "Representative Samuel Gejdenson, Democrat of Connecticut, chairman of a House subcommittee investigating "United States Exports of Sensitive Technology to Iraq," stated in 1991:
"From 1985 to 1990, the United States Government approved 771 licenses for the export to Iraq of $1.5 billion worth of biological agents and high-tech equipment with military application. [Only thirty-nine applications were rejected.] The United States spent virtually an entire decade making sure that Saddam Hussein had almost whatever he wanted. . . . The Administration has never acknowledged that it took this course of action, nor has it explained why it did so. In reviewing documents and press accounts, and interviewing knowledgeable sources, it becomes clear that United States export-control policy was directed by U.S. foreign policy as formulated by the State Department, and it was U.S. foreign policy to assist the regime of Saddam Hussein."
As for my Double Standard related to your initial thread of Europe's double standards, the reason why I ommitted to discuss in depth the issue under your threat is that is already had been done by other posters.
"Same theory applies to the Mujahadeen(spl?) in Afghanistan in the 1980's to."
Of course they do apply. Who do you think sponsered the "Muhajadeen"
during that time? That was YOUR CIA
. Don't believe me, follow this link: http://www.msnbc.com/news/190144.asp