A couple of points:
Both Koran and Qur'an are transliterations of an Arabic word, and therefore they are both inexact attempts to interpret a foreign phonetic system. The currently accepted transliteration, Qur'an, is a closer approximation, in particular because the Arabic word in question begins with the uvular stop 'qod' - in other words, from the soft upper back part of the mouth - rather than the palatal stop 'kef', which is pronounced with the toungue on the hard palate at the top of the mouth. (this is true in every dialect of Arabic AFAIK).
Since most (all?) dialects of English make no distinction between the pronunciation of [k] and [q], it's kind of a moot point, but at least /Qur'an/ makes the phonetic distinctions more explicit in text. It's for the same reason that /Peking/ is now transliterated as /Beijing/ - it's not two different cities guys! Note that /Koran/ and other variations are not necessarily wrong, but are often an indication of outdated scholarship.
***
On another note, I can find no evidence to support the claim that the Caspian Sea region (which you must mean by 'Afghanistan and that region') contains greater untapped energy reserves - in particular oil - than the Middle East. This does not negate the strategic significance to the US of a secure secondary (or tertiary) energy resource, of course. But overstating your claims opens your basic thesis up to needless criticism.
***
I feel pity for poor young Sweep, as I fear that he has opened the Pandora's box of American history. I can only hope that he has the courage to see what is contained within. One can hypothetically argue from a stance of moral relativism that American-sponsored terrorism, though widespread and immoral, was undertaken in order to prevent a greater evil from spreading. But to claim that the US has not been a friend to terror and and enemy to freedom outside its own borders is simply counterfactual.
Both Koran and Qur'an are transliterations of an Arabic word, and therefore they are both inexact attempts to interpret a foreign phonetic system. The currently accepted transliteration, Qur'an, is a closer approximation, in particular because the Arabic word in question begins with the uvular stop 'qod' - in other words, from the soft upper back part of the mouth - rather than the palatal stop 'kef', which is pronounced with the toungue on the hard palate at the top of the mouth. (this is true in every dialect of Arabic AFAIK).
Since most (all?) dialects of English make no distinction between the pronunciation of [k] and [q], it's kind of a moot point, but at least /Qur'an/ makes the phonetic distinctions more explicit in text. It's for the same reason that /Peking/ is now transliterated as /Beijing/ - it's not two different cities guys! Note that /Koran/ and other variations are not necessarily wrong, but are often an indication of outdated scholarship.
***
On another note, I can find no evidence to support the claim that the Caspian Sea region (which you must mean by 'Afghanistan and that region') contains greater untapped energy reserves - in particular oil - than the Middle East. This does not negate the strategic significance to the US of a secure secondary (or tertiary) energy resource, of course. But overstating your claims opens your basic thesis up to needless criticism.
***
I feel pity for poor young Sweep, as I fear that he has opened the Pandora's box of American history. I can only hope that he has the courage to see what is contained within. One can hypothetically argue from a stance of moral relativism that American-sponsored terrorism, though widespread and immoral, was undertaken in order to prevent a greater evil from spreading. But to claim that the US has not been a friend to terror and and enemy to freedom outside its own borders is simply counterfactual.
