Afghanistan was an Legitment invasion and take over, no one can dein that was an wrong thing to do. the Taiban were horrible to the afghan people. 

Iraq was for the oil, simple: remove the leader, install puppet government, sell cheap oil to US. They been doing this with south american nations for an while now. 

But Iraq failed. 

Libya is the same thing, remove leader, instal puppet nation, take oil. 

Now you cant say that if you want global support, so for Iraq it was nuclear weapons, and Libya its the murder of civilians. 

its all about the money. 

Oh the Afghanistan invasion was done not just for liberating the people but to blame someone for 911 so the US dont look weak among its enemies eg. china, russia etc. 

A few more epic Libya pics. Hiliarity ensues in many cases:

Why Toyota is the best truck company in the world:

"Hello T-Mobile? I hear your getting bought out by AT&T. I'd like to come discuss this with you"

A man was spotting shooting at government forces declaring "Tunnel Snakes Rule!"

Guy upgrades sunroof to machine gun..

"What are you doing, Mohammed?!?" "Playing Call of Duty!"

This one defies all logic and standards of awesome:

This one could be in Libya or outside Los Angeles. Not quite sure which:

"Get closer! I want to strike them with my sword!"

The economics of occupying Iraq for oil don't stack up. The 'it was only for the oil' thing is gettting a bit old and I say this as a person who opposes the entire Iraq war thing.

When Abu Musab al-Zarqawi sees to the death of Sergio Vieira de Mello for the crime of being a key contributor of peace for the East Timorese which as I mentioned in another post was one of the grievances of al Qaeda/Bin Laden the third to be specific as part of the one hundred and forty six daily operations by the Iraqi resistance which was coordinated by the afore mentioned leader of the AQI and senior members of the Iraqi Ba’ath party there cannot be had; a factual dialectic on the Ba’ath party’s supposedly relational discord with al Qaeda.

I also see that Kasz answered a post directed at me, he's correct and I did indicate as much in a past post in this thread, I'm not in the business and responding to the same issue twice.

Iraq's governments might of misued the oil and not done so well, but Iraq has the 2nd or 3rd biggest amount of oil in the middle east. 

I give up on this, I've yet to be linked to any references for anything you've said despite asking for them.

It's hard to link either being there or talking to people who have been there. I use the net for some sources of information.

Just for the fun of it I google'd 'Sudan nerve gas soil samples' and found quite a few hits, but I didn't click through I didnt notice a CNN article on the top.

I refuse to do someone elses research though, if anything you can research my nouns and corelate from there.

It's not that they're misusing it.  It's that they're using it smartly.  All their oil reserves... and (natural resources) are going to China.

The economics of Oil don't add up because... we aren't getting anywhere near enough oil for it to be worth... anything.  Hell the oil the "US" is getting from Iraq isn't even going to the US.  It's being sold on the international commodities market by US oil companies.  Since unlike china... we allow companies the freedom to sell to anybody.

For fun...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/336375.stm

Rath may not be the only one who needs to do some research.

The US later ended up paying him for the mistake, though claimed they were still sure he was guitly, but rather then give away details would rather pay a terrorist a bunch of money.  Cause that TOTALLY makes sense.

http://www.shmoo.com/mail/cypherpunks/may99/msg00098.html

Actually he is the only one that does need to do his research, your presumption is fair though - but I think without immodesty that I wrote more on the al-Qaeda link to the Ba'ath party than just Sudan. Sudan who at the time of the bombing had helped the United States in every way to rid themselves of Osama Bin Laden and his syndicated crime family, Sudan whose government had given forewarning to an attack planed on the United States at around September. Sudan who up until then had one of the best diplomatic relations of any country in that region with the United States.  That the attack was done without any communication to the Sudanese government and that the US refused to have UN investigators figure the place out. That engineers of the building say it would have been impossible to house nerve gas there and that scientists say without the samples they may never know if the soil was nerve gas or a pesticide.

There were two claims by the US government before the attack; that the pharmacy never commercially sold drugs and that nerve gas was found in the soil.

The latter was reviewed and found to be undoubtedly nerve gas as the chemical compounds differed significantly enough on one end of the molecule from the pesticide variant, the first is and I admit out of my knowledge I never read up on the pharmacies commercial activities. I do know though that the Sudanese government had pictures of essentially over the counter drugs on shelves in the pharmacy prior to the bombing.

It doesn't matter if they had nerve gas or not, the use of the air force was illegal and Clinton should have had to answer for it before a Judge or at least Congress. Even if it was proven they had WMD's without a doubt in other words impossibly absolute clarity of WMD's being manufactured there, the bombings would still be illegal as diplomacy was not even attempted before the attack.

-- I will have to reffer again to International law for my measure of legality.

As fair your presumption may be it is superfluous to put it mildly.