Originally posted by Sambo69Ok Stang, simple answer is that Bush will not invest money into something that doesn't make his pockets fatter. Why invest money into an alternative for oil, when you can invade who you like and just take theirs and worry about the consequences later.
I prefer not to be associated with STANG. Can you answer the question ... what do you imagine ?
Originally posted by EsotericWouldn't that make it fair to expect more 9/11's ?
Ok Stang, simple answer is that Bush will not invest money into something that doesn't make his pockets fatter. Why invest money into an alternative for oil, when you can invade who you like and just take theirs and worry about the consequences later.
There was anti west sentiment long before George Bush was in power.
There was recently an article in the Times about how France was terrified of a terrorist attack before the world cup 1998 that it considered kidnapping Abu Hamza (who was seen as a demagogic threat who would inspire attacks) from the street of London.
There were attacks on British Embassies in Africa (remember the missle strikes into Afghanistan order by President Clinton at the height of the Lewinski scandal).
Bush hasnt helped (personally i think the way that 9/11 and the "war on terror" has been turned into an us and them scenario is more damaging than Iraq) but this conflict has much longer history than Bush, going back to the USSR's invasion of Afghanistan and beyond and supplimented by a lack of freedom in Islamic states, the failure of western immigrants to integrate, the failure of western societies to accept immigrants the way they should and other factors.
To reduce all this complicated history to statements attacking just one person's (Bush) part in all this and trying to blame it all on him shows as much lack of understanding about the issue as Bush himself has and does nothing to solve the issue.