Yabby, Reid, again, was attacking America, from an American Airlines plane- bad example once again.
Jordan has a very large BORDER with Iraq, and there was the motive that we were INVADING Iraq to once again, reinforce my point.

Why (Australians) are we paying so much a barrel? It's what a combination of our local oil companies, carbon-discouragament price-hikes, and also government taxing allocates. Oh yeah, and lets not forget a huge jump in the oil price after we entered Iraq. But your "we're going to starve" scenario will be complete bunk because WE HAVE OUR OWN OIL. We only buy Middle Eastern stuff because it (Was) sold cheap and means preserving our own supplies in emergency. Of course, there is always the probability of more lobbyists discouraging allowing foreign businesses that manufacture or trade alternate products far outnumber those who would advocate it. (reason we don't get Walmart yet)

And I thought that would be your mindset; it's just too bad that between Russian withdrawal and the 911 plot, there has since been a lot of events of conflict between Israel and its neighbours (eg Lebanon) and the USA and multiple countries in the middle east which rather obscure your plan.

Since then there have been numerous attacks or attempted attacks on coalition countries demanding their withdrawal.

If trends pointed the opposite, I would support the conflict myself- as they point in the exact opposite direction, I must insist we are WASTING OUR TIME THERE and achieving NOTHING.

Also, why would a terrorist make up a phony list of demands that would not actually satisfy their own actual criteria to stop bombing. And WHY do they never travel to attack politically neutral infidel countries?

*We only buy Middle Eastern stuff because it (Was) sold cheap and means preserving our own supplies in emergency.*

Hazza, you are kidding yourself or don't know much about oil
production. You can't just stick a straw in the ground and suck
it out next week. Australia's production is actually dropping
because as those wells are pumped, they produce less and less.
Reserves are simply what we expect the wells to yield in total,
eventually, before they run dry. So we could not increase
pumping capacity, if we wanted to. Even at 150$ a barrel, we
did not start pumping more, because we could not.

What we have more of, is gas. But last time they increased the
subsidy for cars to convert to gas, installers were booked out
for months, as they could not cope either.

Your next problem is that we live in a globally interdependant
economy. Let me give you a tiny example. I used to buy PET
bottles from a dairy plant in Perth. They made the bottles
on site. The machines that make those bottles are from France.
Parts are sourced by air, if they break down. If the planes
are not flying due to no oil, those machines come to a stop
and Perth residents run out of milk.

Now you are suggesting that you can take 20 million barrels
a day out of oil production, without huge global consequences.
You can't, without the whole thing nearly collapsing. For
that very reason the US stays in the ME to make sure the
supply lines stay open. For that very reason they stay on
good terms with the Sauds, who run oil supplies in SA,
as opposed to the Wahabbs, who run the religious side of
the country. Never forget, the ME is tribal and is still
run on tribal lines.

tbc

Now noboby, but nobody who is informed and with any credibility,
is arguing what you are arguing ie that the global economy could
continue as it is, without ME oil right now. In 10-20 years maybe,
we will see what technology brings, but not yet. Lots of dreams,
lots of hopes, lots of gonna do this or that.

So the US is set to stay in the ME, for good reasons. It is also
welcome by many Govts, for they well know that inter Arab squabbles
are a far larger threat to them, then the US. I remind you that
Kuwait had to be rescued by the US, when it was overrun and
ransacked by Iraq. The Saudis welcomed bases there, for they
fear Iran, or certainly used to.

Yes, they also support Israel with aid, as they do with Egypt etc.
Yes, their protective umbrella will make sure that Israel is not
overrun by Islamist fanatics. Most Arab Govts accept Israel's
right to exist, not so for the Islamists. The real problem with
Israel is religious fanatics of both persuasions, incluing Jewish
religious fanatics. Secular types seem to get along, for there
are no holy books in the way of peace.

* And WHY do they never travel to attack politically neutral infidel countries?*

Because there are countries and people, who they hate even more.
A Danish bloke only had to draw a few cartoons and he survives
now because of police protection.

If you are suggesting that we placate Islamists by giving in to
their every demand, well that will be a sad day. What the Afghan
war is doing is keeping them in the hills and under constant
threat, every day, from US drones. Thus occupied, they have
little time to think about their planned global jihad.

But global jihad is their ideology, as we know.

King Hazza I do not wish to offend you mate.
And you need not answer
But I truly find your stance here different.
With respect mate my question is are you from the middle east?

"Thus occupied, they have
little time to think about their planned global jihad."
THEY can't think about Global Jihad- anybody else so inclined throughout the rest of the world is at precisely the same capacity to act regardless of what state the Taliban and the Al Queda operatives they shelter are in.

THIS is the point you are missing. The Al Queda/Taliban coalition are only one single Islamist terrorist group out of thousands- and those thousand do not rely on them at all to commit attacks of their own- AQ and the Taliban are simply much better at it.

And Belly, nope, not from the Middle east or of Middle Eastern origin.
My point is that attacking Afghanistan will make not a dent in the majority of terrorists and their ability to attack us- instead it gives them a very strong motive (as history has demonstrated).

Domestic terrorists we were dumb enough to let in during the past we can and must handle (such as the Danish toon-hating ones)- terrorists abroad griping over Afghanistan we can do without the hassle.

I will repeat this line again- AL QUEDA doesn't factor jack into the rest of the terrorist world- terrorism only requires an angry fanatic with access to dangerous objects and a target he would use them on- he does not require Al Queda to tell him what to do. Which is why Afghanistan is a waste of time and people.

Thanks KH I see the fanatics as a regional religion.
Not a country, our enemy is primitive belief that only some are meant to inhabit a heaven that never existed.
My question was go or stay, I am unsure still of my views