Comments for Did oil influence America's decision to invade Afghanistan? »
Posted By dissent 7 months, 1 week ago in NewsAmerica has wanted a new government in Afghanistan since at least 1998, three years before the attacks on 11 September 2001. The official report from a meeting of the U.S. Government's foreign policy committee on 12 February 1998, available on the U.S. Government website, confirms that the need for a West-friendly government was recognised long before the War on Terror that followed September 11th:
"The U.S. Government's position is that we support multiple pipelines... The Unocal pipeline is among those pipelines that would receive our support under that policy. I would caution that while we do support the project, the U.S. Government has not at this point recognized any governing regime of the transit country, one of the transit countries Afghanistan, through which that pipeline would be routed. But we do support the project."
[ U.S. House of Reps., "U.S. Interests in the Central Asian Republics", 12 Feb 1998 ]
"The only other possible route [for the desired oil pipeline] is across Afghanistan which has of course its own unique challenges."
[ "U.S. Interests in the Central Asian Republics", 12 Feb 1998 ]
"CentGas can not begin construction until an internationally recognized Afghanistan Government is in place."
[ "U.S. Interests in the Central Asian Republics", 12 Feb 1998 ]
The Afghanistan oil pipeline project was finally able to proceed in May 2002. This could not have happened if America had not taken military action to replace the government in Afghanistan.
Read Full Story at thedebate.org »
RSS Join the Discussion
+ Add CommentComments So Far: 73
-
-
100%
hyperbola7 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
It is more complicated than just oil. It has to do with "imperial dominance" in Central Asia. Obama is just playing the same game as bushie.
Reply
The secrets of Obama's surge
Is United States President Barack Obama telling it like it is as far as his new strategy for the Afghanistan and Pakistan war theater - AfPak, in Pentagonspeak - is concerned? There are reasons to believe otherwise. ...
The Afghanistan-Pakistan war has got to be 2009's prime theater of the absurd. It took the New York Times and the usual "American officials" something like 13 years to "discover" that the Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) - a Central Intelligence Agency twin - helps the Taliban. And this while the CIA, alongside their ISI pals, is compiling a mega hit list in the Pashtun tribal areas inside Pakistan. Maybe this is what US Central Command supremo General David "I'm always positioning myself for 2012" Petraeus means by a "trilateral" love affair, as he told CNN's State of the Union. ...
Obama is selling the surge basically as nation building, based on trust. A hard sell if there ever was one - as Washington cannot trust the ISI or the Pakistani government, while the Pakistani masses don't trust Washington.....
...So this amounts to the State Department admitting that the Pentagon/Petraeus "humint" (human intelligence) component of counter-insurgency in AfPak, hailed as a gift from the Messiah all across US corporate media, is essentially useless. This also means there's no way of winning local hearts and minds....
So the question Americans must ask themselves is this: Would you buy a used car - sorry - war from people like Mullen, Petraeus, McKiernan? Well, former CIA analyst Ray McGovern, who's seen them all since John F Kennedy, wouldn't. For him, "they resemble all too closely the gutless general officers who never looked down at what was really happening in Vietnam. The Joint Chiefs of Staff of the time have been called, not without reason, 'a sewer of deceit'." ...
.... So is AfPak the Pentagon's AIG - we gotta bail them out, can't let them fail? Is it a Predator drone war disguised as nation building? Will it become Obama’s Vietnam? Whatever it is, it's not about "terrorists". Not really. Follow the money. Follow the energy. Follow the map.
http://www.propeller.com/story/2009/04/05/the-secr...
-
-
-
100%
AnteUp7 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
To be completely honest - I did not finish the book
Reply
referenced below, but even if you only read half of it,
you WILL question the 9/11 logic for war. The history of the visits of Taliban leaders to the U.S. - prior to 9/11 - as
our honored guests made me sick. So much for abusing their
women and girls - and our CONCERN! We wanted that pipeline,
BIG TIME. We didn't give a rat's patoutie about the people
of Afghanistan. We were very willing to deal with the Devil -
kind of reminded me of our relationship with Saddam.
Principles - don't ya love them?
Forbidden Truth: U.S.-Taliban Secret Oil Diplomacy, Saudi Arabia and the Failed Search for bin Laden (Paperback)
by Wayne and Jean-Charles Brisard, Guillaume Dasquie Madsen-
100%
Jaydee407 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I have not read the book but will look for it next time in book store. The thing that gets me is it all was out there without a book so why is it no one seems to be reacting? Are people so indifferent about what their military and government does to others they don't care? Remember what they do to others they will do to you to keep the status Quo.
Reply-
100%
AnteUp7 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Jaydee40 -
Reply
Too many times we don't KNOW - how could we?
Reagan as the great defender of Democracy and human rights?
That one still works for those that never went looking for the REAL
story - El Mozote? - Archbishop Romero's murder ?
Take out the DVD of "Missing" (Cissy Spacek & Jack Lemmon)
and wonder how Reagan could send Jean Kirkpatrick down to
Chile to tell Pinochet that nasty old President Carter was gone -
and the Reagan administration wouldn't bother them about
those pesky human rights issues! Where was the media??
Maybe it's a compliment - did they think if the American public
knew, we might object?
Sadly, as I see the issue of torture becoming the newest social
issue, I wonder if we would have cared. I mean, look at the way
torture is being framed today. It's not a WAR CRIME - it's just another
tool in the Democracy toolbox - some like it, and think it's efficient -
and some don't. When the next crop of hawks inhabit 1600 - it will
be right there waiting for them to utilize it. It's just a societal thing -
crime against humanity? Bah!
You think a time will come when "civilized world" really means something?-
50%
Jaydee407 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I'm sorry but lets look at facts, the information is out there but what can be done about what's going on? It's been popular knowledge the government is being run for the financial gain for those few elite they deem worthy, the rest of Americans simply don't matter. When a government maintains a policy that over 70% of it's people do not approve of for years it tells me they know to voters don't mean anything, even in the long run. Yes there is a new president but has foreign policy change any at all? no it hasn't
Reply
-
-
100%
Natureboy7 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Are people so indifferent about what their military and government does to others they don't care?"
Reply
We have a couple of hundred years worth of history supporting that contention.
Of course, it is a little more complicated than that. The powers that be generally come up with a big lie and wrap it in God and the Flag to make our military aggressions more palatable to the credulous.
-
-
-
44%
slate7 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I think it was about Jet Fuel. Thousands of gallons of it that burned 3000 people to death, by folks associated with OBLs Taliban, which was in Afghanistan.
Reply
I know I know, after we were attacked on 9/11, we should have immediately set upon Switzerland with all the might we could muster, but on second thought, it made more sense to go for Afghanistan since they have oil.-
83%
wtagg7 months, 1 week ago
-
38%
Endoscopy7 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Another conspiracy buff. Tell me more. Where did this leak come from and how hard did they work to prevent it then? Maybe you should compare notes with unome2 about the fact that the US government was behind the attack on the Twin Towers in order to start the war.
Reply-
-
-
100%
wtagg7 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
It came from Clarke. You can start here:
Reply
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_A._Clarke
You are quick with the criticism, but never, ever respond when evidence is provided to dispute your position. Maybe you should consider analyzing the evidence before repeating what you have heard.
I'm still waiting for a response to the countless CRA misinformation that I have disputed. I'm guessing it is because you repeat what you hear without taking the time to understand the real scenario and evidence.
-
-
100%
slate7 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"America has wanted a new government in Afghanistan since at least 1998, three years before the attacks on 11 September 2001."
Reply
1998, now that year was under which president? I'm not sure, but I think Bush was still the Governor of the GREAT State of Texas.
So who was it that for going after Afghanistan oil first and foremost? Hmmmmmm the answer should be easy enough to figure out it seems.-
-
100%
djn3nunez37 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
But advocating for a regime change, and even passing a bill saying that is what the US supports is a far cry from authorizing a military invasion and occupation to remove him isn't it? Hint: One is illegal and the other is not.
Reply
But it has always been my position that Clinton failed to live up to his word to the Taliban after the USS Cole was hit. Yeah sure he there would have been the often-cried Republican charge of "Waging the Dog" and an invasion of Afghanistan in October 2000 would have won the election for Gore. But we would never have has to suffer the Bush debacle........-
-
100%
djn3nunez37 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to--
Reply
(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.
http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/bliraqre...
Since the Bush Administration signed on to SCR 1441, calling for weapons inspectors to determine if Iraq had any undeclared or hidden WMD in which to threat us and the world, the Bush Administration did not live up to the Autorization clause. So, not only was it a breach of international law but also the law written specifically authorizing such military action if Iraq were somehow a threat.
The treaties Saddam signed after his rout in Kuwait was with the UN not the US and the UNSC would be the governing body to determine if such a breach in the cease fire provisions were sufficent to call for further military action. No such action was being considered by the UNSC. -
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
dissent7 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
good for you slate. l knew you'd find a way to bring things back to the shallow end of the pool, your comfort zone of petty partisan politics, once you realized you were way out of your depth. what you're not getting is it doesn't matter whether it was clinton or bush, whether it's democrats or republicans, it's all the same animal called empire and what empire does to earn that title... that's really what this is all about
Reply -
Neutral
Nothing_Tangible7 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
slateblock
Reply
14 hours, 13 minutes ago
"America has wanted a new government in Afghanistan since at least 1998, three years before the attacks on 11 September 2001."
1998, now that year was under which president? I'm not sure, but I think Bush was still the Governor of the GREAT State of Texas.
##################################################...
Just what people represent "America" in your statement?
I don't recall Clinton advocating the overthrow of the leader of a sovereign nation. However, a who's who list of the Bush43 Administration were advocating the overthrow of a leader of a sovereign nation in defiance of all International treaties and laws. This group of people sent a letter to Bill Clinton in January of 1998 recommending the invasion of Iraq which Clinton rejected. While I cannot say why Clinton turned down the suggestion, I would guess it probably had to do with the fact he knew it would be an illegal act without having provocation or in self defense.
-
-
-
100%
djn3nunez37 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
we should have immediately set upon Switzerland with all the might we could muster
Reply
Nah,the plan was to use the next al Queda attack as the catalyst to expand US military influence in the region. Saddam's Iraq was an easy mark. Both Powell and Rice confirmed early in 2001 that it did not WMD and it had not been able to rebuild it's military after the first war. So Iraq was the logical strike. It was a strategic victory for the Taliban and al Queda as they had a chance to reconsitute their forces based in part on the propaganda generated by BW's invasion and occuaption of Iraq. It was a strategic blunder on the Presidents part the cost of which will be payed out over the next generation.
But they were expecting truck bombs not passenger jets.
Switzerland would be too hard to conquer. -
100%
dissent7 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"If Americans were asked what they think their country is doing in Afghanistan, their answers would likely be one variation or another of "fighting terrorism", with some kind of connection to 9-11.
Reply
But what does that mean?
Of the tens of thousands of Afghans killed by American/NATO bombs over the course of seven years, how many can it be said had any kind of linkage to any kind of anti-American terrorist act, other than in Afghanistan itself during this period? Not one, as far as we know. The so-called "terrorist training camps" in Afghanistan were set up largely by the Taliban to provide fighters for their civil conflict with the Northern Alliance (minimally less religious fanatics and misogynists than the Taliban, but represented in the present Afghan government).
As everyone knows, none of the alleged 9-11 hijackers was an Afghan; 15 of the 19 were from Saudi Arabia; and most of the planning for the attacks appears to have been carried out in Germany and the United States.
So, of course, bomb Afghanistan.
And keep bombing Afghanistan.
And bomb Pakistan.
Especially wedding parties (at least six so far)."
http://www.killinghope.org/bblum6/aer65.html -
100%
hyperbola7 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Obama and Terror as a Tool of Empire
Reply
Let's say you were a dedicated imperial militarist who believed that your country's security, prestige and financial interests could best be served by war and the ever-present threat of war. Let's say you had some really hot and juicy operations going on, endless deadly conflicts that were pouring hundreds of billions of dollars into your war machine and entrenching national policy even more deeply in the militarist philosophy – the machtpolitik – that you believe in...
...Well, here's one purely hypothetical approach you might try. You goad and provoke violent extremist groups into retaliating against your attacks, your civilian-slaughtering invasions and incursions into their territory. Being unable to confront directly your war machine – the largest, most advanced military force in the history of the world, sustained by a tsunami of public money that each year surpasses the military spending of the rest of the world – they naturally respond with "asymmetrical" operations. At first, these are directed at nearby targets: your supply lines, the forces of your local proxies and allies, and other chaos-inducing depredations in the groups' own regions, designed to foul the lines of your control and drive you out. Just as naturally, you use these attacks to justify an even greater military presence in their regions. The cycle inevitably, inexorably ratchets upwards and outwards, until at last the extremists strike at your homeland – either with your connivance, or your covert acquiescence, or, in any event, with your foreknowledge that such an attack was sure to come. This is the moment you have waited for; this is exactly what you wanted. Now you can whip the herd back into a martial frenzy, keep the Long War going, and push aside the rabble's petty, small-minded desires for a peaceful, prosperous life at home, minding their own business....
...We can say this as an established fact: It is the policy of the United States government to provoke violent extremist groups into action. Once they are in play, their responses can then be used in whatever way the government that provoked them sees fit. And we also know that these provocations are being used, as a matter of deliberate policy, to rouse violent groups on the "Af-Pak" front to launch terrorist attacks. ...
... When the Obama Administration speaks of "continuity" in American foreign policy, this is an integral part of what they are talking about. So look to see much more on TTP and the demon de jure, Baitullah Mehsud, as the bipartisan Long War grinds on and on, with its ever-present need for "catalyzing" – and terrorizing – the American people into support for the militarist project.
http://www.propeller.com/story/2009/04/01/obama-an...
-
-
45%
Endoscopy7 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
These types of things could be said for any war we ever fought starting with the Revolutionary war. There are already other problems that were building the causes that brought on the war.
Reply
In this case the Taliban was and is a very disgusting terrorist organization imposing a harsh version of Sharia law on the people. They were against any non Muslim country and against the more secular Muslim countries. This cause many problems. They harbored other Muslim terrorist organizations like al Qaeda
Therefore this story is just a bunch of foolishness. Wars are very rarely started on the spur of the moment. The Taliban harboring al Qaeda which had sent terrorists attacking the US ans which had declared war on the US went on for years. The 9/11 incident was the second attack on the Twin Towers by al Qaeda. While the trigger point to war the pressure had been building up for years.
This is similar to WW2. The pressures of Germany and Japan had built and there was war in Europe and Asia before we became directly involved. Pressure had built for us to be involved. Pearl Harbor was just the trigger point.-
71%
hyperbola7 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
If "humanitarian motives" were the motive for our wars, then we would have ended the zionist state of israel long ago. After all, they are the authors of the biggest refugee problem in the world and have 60 years of history of crimes against humanity.
Reply-
50%
vader827 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I am curious hyperbola, you often speak ill of Isreal, are you a fan of the United Nations? I personally am not, and would think that the U.N. should never have established the modern nation of Isreal.That being said, the international community designated this territory as Isreal and they have fought many wars for it. Aside from it being their ancestrial homeland, they have earned it in so many ways.
Reply-
100%
djn3nunez37 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Fact of the matter is the UN did not create Israel. Men and their weapons did.
Reply
The Genral Assembly did pass a resolution, however:
On March 5, 1948, the United Nations Security Council reached an impasse when it refused to pass a resolution which would have accepted the partition plan as a basis for Security Council action.[2] The United States subsequently recommended a temporary UN trusteeship for Palestine "without prejudice to the character of the eventual political settlement", and the Security Council voted to send the matter back to the General Assembly for further deliberation.[3
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1947_UN_Partition_Pla...
When Israel declared it's independence it did so because it thought it could withstand the Arab barrage that was sure to come. -
100%
hyperbola7 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Actually vader82, you are misinformed. As pointed out below, the UN General Assembly passed a proposal (after bribing of a number of our latin american satrapies), but this proposal was turned down by the Security Council (with US approval) in favor of setting up a single country with equal rights for all independent of race, religion or ideology. The zionists started their massive campaign of terror and ethnic cleansing to prevent that UN action.
Reply
Zionism: The Real Enemy of the Jews
.... According to first and still existing draft of history, Israel was given its birth certificate and thus legitimacy by the UN Partition Resolution of 29 November 1947. This is nonsense.
In the first place the UN without the consent of the majority of the people of Palestine did not have the right to decide to partition Palestine or assign any part of its territory to a minority of alien immigrants in order for them to establish a state of their own.
Despite that, by the narrowest of margins, and only after a rigged vote, the UN General Assembly did pass a resolution to partition Palestine and create two states, one Arab, one Jewish, with Jerusalem not part of either. But the General Assembly resolution was only a proposal – meaning that it could have no effect, would not become policy, unless approved by the Security Council.
The truth is that the General Assembly’s partition proposal never went to the Security Council for consideration. Why not? Because the US knew that, if approved, it could only be implemented by force; and President Truman was not prepared to use force to partition Palestine.
So the partition plan was vitiated, became invalid, and the question of what the hell to do about Palestine (after Britain had made a mess of it and walked away) was taken back to the General Assembly for more discussion. The option favoured and proposed by the US was temporary UN Trusteeship. It was while the General Assembly was debating what do that Israel unilaterally declared itself to be in existence – actually in defiance of the will of the organised international community, including the Truman administration.
The truth of the time was that the Zionist state, which came into being mainly as a consequence of Zionism terrorism and ethnic cleansing, had no right to exist and, more to the point, could have no right to exist unless ….. Unless it was recognised and legitimized by those who were dispossessed of their land and their rights during the creation of the Zionist state. In international law only the Palestinians could give Israel the legitimacy it craved. And that legitimacy was the only thing the Zionists could not take from the Palestinians by force. ....
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article18... -
100%
hyperbola7 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
So you support ethnic cleansing on the basis of "god gave it to us" ideology? You would say that the zionists have a right to rob, kill, expel or put in concentration camps over seven million christians and moslems because of that ideology? How would that differ (say) from Hitler's claim that the "aryan master race" was entitled to lebensraum ("living space") by seizing it from neighbors?
Reply
The tragedy is that zionis infouence in the US has kept the UN from developing in the ways that we Americans hoped when we helped write its charter - which amongst other things denies that land can be won by wars.-
Neutral
vader827 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I do not support ethnic cleansing on any grounds, and actually the Isrealis have put far more effort into reaching a compromise than the Palestinians have. Hamas calls for nothing less than the extermination of Isreal, the extremist should be greatful we keep Isreal on its leash. Mind you Hamas is the elected government of Palestine. I have an interesting quote for you,In 1786, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams went to negotiate with Tripoli's envoy to London, Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdrahaman or (Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja). Upon inquiring "concerning the ground of the pretensions to make war upon nations who had done them no injury", the ambassador replied:
Reply
It was written in their Koran, that all nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave; and that every muslim who was slain in this warfare was sure to go to paradise
This is referenced from the wikipedia article on the Barbary Pirates, sounds like some 18th century "zionist" of a different flavor! HMMMM
-
-
-
40%
Georgia507 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
For the uninitiated, hyperbola refers to the refugee camps containing Palestinians who BY LAW are not permitted to leave the refugee camp. And it's not Israel's law, either.
Reply
Hyperbola knows that by keeping hapless Palestinians in what amounts to concentration camps imposed by Islamist violence, the fiction of "Right of Return" is kept alive. Let these people go their own way and this fiction gets the treatment it so richly deserves: a quick flush down the toilet of history.
Yes, hyperbola knows all this. But speak the truth? Nay. 'Tis not in his constitution.-
100%
hyperbola7 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Well Georgia, according to your logic it would be acceptable for anyone who chooses to simply steal jewish property in America - after all the jews can go to Israel. In the meantime, the neighbors could look after them.
Reply
Sorry Georgia, but you simply show your devotion to racist totalitarianism again. The genius of American democracy is that all people have the same rights independent of race, religion or ideology. About time you joined American democracy or moved to your country of first loyalty.
-
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
dunkirk7 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Psssst did you forget someone was warned about 9/11 and prompty went on vacation. Did you forget that for 9 months prior the Oaf of office did nothing BUT vacation. Or did it also slip your mind that Osama was IN Afghanistan during those 9 months and was there while Bush was wining and dining the Taliban. Yeah lets revisit, if they were so reprehensible they got an open invitation to he ranch because? ROFLMAO, yeah maybe you can give us a discourse on selective memory you seem very proficient at it.
Reply-
33%
Codi69347 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Who had UBL in the gunsites twice but let he go? Which president turned down UBL with no US involvement in the operation to capture? Who's foreign policies blunders gave UBL the motivation to plan/conduct 9-11? Clinton's inaction is the biggest reason why we are in this mess today. Thank you Bill!!
Reply-
Neutral
dunkirk7 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Its kinda obvious tho knowing that the Taliban had Ossama that Bush didnt consider him a threat. The right never did have a reasn tho for why when Clinton wanted to freeze BinLadens assest the Repugs screamed long and loud over how there was no evidence he was a b ad guy. Hmmmm yet later keep saying Clinton had two opportunities to get him???
Reply
"Who had UBL in the gunsites twice but let he go?"
That would be Bush who promptly outsourced his capture to the same warlords who but a month earlier worked for ossama.
"Who's foreign policies blunders gave UBL the motivation to plan/conduct 9-11?"
Care to indicate what those blunders where? Seems the towers were a target long before Clinton took office since the initial plan to take them down was dpne during Bush I's regime. So can you recount what the blunders were?? Or does it just make for good rhetoric?
"Clinton's inaction is the biggest reason why we are in this mess today. "
Odd with the exception of the USS Cole CLINTON MANAGED TO CAPTURE all of the terrorists who attacked US interests during his terms and they are currently in prison. Under Clinton worldwide terrorism decreased while under Bush it rose over 600% ( and btw THAT number came from the Bush administration so figure it being low) .
Has to really rankle the righties, like yourself, that when you look at the full picture it appears the one who screwed the pooch was Bush. He should have been taking notes from Clinton,-
0%
Codi69347 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
One time people were called off because a prince from UAE was in the camp with UBL. Policy blunders the big one was leaving Somilia after 19 people died in a raid/recovery. UBL called us a paper tiger. We had the 1st WTC, 2 barracks in SA, 2 embassies Africa, USS Cole. Terrorism increase is including the war in Afghanistan and Iraq. That is like using NASCAR stats for highway crashes. It is a combat zone. AQ leadership is on its 4th or 5th tier by now cause they are all DEAD!!
Reply
Climton look as these attacks as a police priblem when they were fighting a war against us for 10 years. We didn't get the memo until 9-11.-
100%
dunkirk7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
ROFLMAO, and who was calling for us to remove ourselves from Somalia?? Gee the REPUBLICANS. And after all those attacks Clinton response was appropriate, intelligence and covert operatives instead of using tactics from thje secoind world war which aaccomplished nothing., See Clinton CAUGHT the people who did that and they are IN prison, The only exception is the USS Cole wich happened in October of 2001, a few months before Dumya took office, He promptly acted on that when he came into office taking vacation.
Reply
BTW it seem you arent aware of how statistics on terrorism are calculated. mayb e you should do a little research. Bush managed to be the biggest recruiting effort for world wide terrorism the world has ever seen. A 600 percent increase in worldwide terrorism shows a flaw in the approach to fight it. What is the right wings response to that? Keep doing the same thing.
AQ is on its 4th or 5th tier??? ROFLMAO, we got Ossama when? You remember him Public EWnemy No 1? The guy Bush forgot about? Seems they arent DEAD but pretty much alive and functioning.
"Climton look as these attacks as a police priblem when they were fighting a war against us for 10 years. We didn't get the memo until 9-11."
ROFLMAO, gotta love how you selectively forget all the details. Under Clinton terrorism DECREASED, it wnet down. Seems like while they waged a "war" we fought back appropriately. ANd WE as in the public didnt see the memo until 9-11 but Bush had been warned repeatedly about an attack including ignoring FBI agents reporting arabs wanting to learn to fly large planes but not how to land and takeoff. AND the security memo delivered in August. Not to mention that of the top 10 priorities of the Bush administration fighting trewrrorism wasn't one of them. He actually believed that terrorism wasnt as big a deal as Clinton said it was. Seems quite a few REPUBLCIANS were saying that at the time. They should have listened to Clinton.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
100%
djn3nunez37 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
This is similar to WW2.
Reply
In that FDR wanted to go to war and needed a catalyst? Pressure in the form a a raw materials embargo including oil, against Japan?
The similarities stop there. The Taliban and al Queda are simply not reminecent of either Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan in any way shape of form.-
100%
Jaydee407 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
As to WW2 why would the US want to go to war, they were making money off both sides while Europeans and soldiers from Britons commonwealth were dying fighting fascists.
Reply
American money says "In God We Trust" but we all know their god is money.
-
-
-
100%
Hallucinations7 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I must say there is plenty of facts in that article to prove that Bush had plans other than terrorists. I heard that it was over oil before but didn't really believe it. Well I believe it now. I honestly don't know what to say. Sign the petition folks. Tell people about the peitition and we'll get them to talk. We need to work togheter folks tell people.
Reply -
50%
vader827 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I am no fan of George Bush,and question the Iraq war, but Afghanistan was attacked because they were harboring those responsble for spilling blood on American soil. The article mentions previous planning for a potential invasion, it is not suprising considering Al-Queda's previous attacks on U.S. interests. In the case of both Iraq and Afghanistan I believe that we created our own enemies in the interest of opposing Soviet influence in the region, that being said, it seemed like the logical thing to do at the time,hindsight is always 20/20. Regardless of what created Al-Queda or the Taliban, they intentionally killed thousands of innocent civilans without provocation. Take note of the difference between collateral damage and deliberate acts of cowardace.
Reply-
100%
Jaydee407 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You better rethink the term "without provocation". When you go into somebody else's house and cause trouble you invite it back into your own home so yes they had provocation to take Americans lives because Americans took lives in the region first. The real Question is why invade a country with full military when it was a criminal issue and should have been handled as such? Did they want people or land?
Reply-
Neutral
vader827 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Tell me Jaydee, how did we provoke them? Perhaps by aiding them in routing the Soviets? If you're referring to the region as a whole then I suppose youre referring to the first Iraq war. I believe we never should have meddled in the region at all, let the whole damn thing go to the Soviets. That being said, the first Iraq war was a truly international endevure, and we were repelling an invading army from Kuwait. As to your suggestion to handle the 911 attacks in a legal manner, it is quite impracticle to think that we could merely knock on the cave door of Torah Borah with a court subpeona. It is utterly laughable to conceive entering Afghanistan with anything less then a full scale military presence, lest one have their ass handed to them on a platter.
Reply-
Neutral
Jaydee407 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The list is long for western interference in the region, just do some searches and you can find scores of people killed a a direct result of "American intervention or aid". As for my point about a legal investigation into 911 they would have found no need to even go to Afghanistan, they most likely would of not even needed international air travel.
Reply-
Neutral
vader827 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"The real Question is why invade a country with full military when it was a criminal issue and should have been handled as such? Did they want people or land?"
Reply
I took this to mean that you were rerering to the capture and prosecution of Al-Queda personel. From your last reply it would appear that you were refering to powers that be in the U.S. being responsible? While there have been some things that dont entirely add up regarding 911, I have found little evidence of wrongdoing on our governments part. I have watched with and open mind, "Loose Change", and listened to other theories, but all of these claims are reffuted when further invesigated. In the case of Loose Change I found numerous instances of selective editing of statements and utter falsehoods. -
-
-
-
-
100%
dissent7 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"The article mentions previous planning for a potential invasion, it is not suprising considering Al-Queda's previous attacks on U.S. interests."
Reply
the article does "mention previous planning for a potential invasion" it also mentions that the planning was because of oil and how we wanted it, not because al qaeda. try reading the headline
-
-
sonofreasonComment removed: Hard Banned2 Replies
-
100%
NoWayMan7 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
um, yeah.
Reply
Bush's texas oil buddies - led by Unocal out of Sugarland, TX and other companies, such as Enron - were actually holding meetings with the taliban a few years prior to 911 in an attempt to secure a deal for a trans-afghan pipeline. despite objections from many Unocal shareholders.
unocal then helped create the Central Asia Gas Pipeline (CentGas) consortium.
but the deal fell through. then Bridas from argentina stepped in to make the deal with the taliban. a tentative deal was hammered out but then what happened? argentina's economy fell apart. hmmmmmm.
then 911 happened.
then we blamed it all on the taliban, ignoring the fact that almost all the hijackers were from saudi arabia and not one sinlge hijacker was a taliban.
then we invaded afghanistan.
and now the trans-afghan pipeline is being built by CentGas (and btw, Unocal, which was bought by ChevronTexas, claims it no longer has ties with CentGas). -
-
AbuAmirahComment removed: Spammer, Hard Banned
-
Neutral
Nothing_Tangible7 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Just do some research with an open mind and try to connect the dots in this list.
Reply
Samuel Prescott Bush
Fritz Thyssen
Adolph Hitler
E.R. Harriman
Frank & John D. Rockefeller
Turkmenistan
Pakistan
Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline
Petróleos de Venezuela, S.A
Ordnance, Small Arms and Ammunition Section of the War Industries Board
Buckeye Steel
Remington Arms
National Association of Manufacturers
loading ...
Add a Comment
Sign In With Your Propeller Account
Please keep your comments relevant to this story.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.