Russian attack on country of Georgia

[Pico and ME]

Oh well.

[Undertoad]

Originally Posted by Pico and ME

My assertions are based on the research I did at the time. I discovered that there were several oil companies that needed a much calmer Afghanistan so that they could build a couple of planned pipelines.

I posted the debunking of that one right here in February 2003. The source article is still available.

I cant say any of that is proof, but it sure did keep me from believing the propaganda we were given.

You used something you assumed to be true, to determine other things were false. Don't do that.

[xoxoxoBruce]

I'm pretty sure I understand how and why we got started in Afghanistan, but can't figure out why they did such a piss poor job of it, then moved to Iraq before finishing the job.

[lookout123]

I won't argue with that point Bruce, just the idiocy of the people that still feel 9/11 was part of a big oil conspiracy.

[Griff]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

We only get about 15% of our oil from the Middle East.

The other way to say this is that, "Holy shit 15% of the worlds oil supply is endangered when the Middle East is destabilized!" We are not there to take the oil. We are there to ensure supplies for the world economy. That has nothing to do with tin hats. See y'all after vacation.

[Pico and ME]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

I posted the debunking of that one right here in February 2003. The source article is still available.


You used something you assumed to be true, to determine other things were false. Don't do that.

But I will use that information to question what I am being told. Although I understood the desire for decisive action after the attacks on 9/11, I was still wary of our decision to attack another country so quickly, especially since it was claimed that the attacks were perpetrated by an individual group. So I started to look around for more information and I found many interesting bits that led me to see interesting 'connections'. I admit I am no scholar, and especially when it comes to geopolitical issues, but it is hard for me to discount information that jives with my belief that most of the military action undertaken by the US has economic/resource implications. I will also admit that I did use this information as fodder in the blame game against Bush. However, since, I have come to realize the issue is much more complicated than that.

Speaking of complicated, I just found this article.

[Undertoad]

But I will use that information to question what I am being told.

Now that you know it's false? That's ridiculous. Don't do that.

Current events is really hard - there is so much so know, so much to figure out. But your way is the way of the 911 truthers: aim at something you think to be true, collect every piece of information that confirms your conclusion and throw away ever piece of information that doesn't. Everybody is doing that to some degree, but I swear to you it leads nowhere.

To assume everything you're being "told" is false is madness too. You can't even tell what you're being "told", versus simple facts, typical spin, everyone's aim at "truth", etc. What you must do, if you don't have enough information, is just admit to yourself you don't know and wait for more details.

Speaking of complicated, I just found this article.

This is a natgas pipeline for India and has absolutely nothing to do with the larger issue. Pipelines are a more economical method of transporting things and will appear routinely.

[Pico and ME]

So you dont believe that our invasion of Afghanistan had anything to do with protecting US interests in central Asia?

[piercehawkeye45]

The invasion of Afghanistan happened for multiple reasons. To say it was for a single reason really oversimplifies the situation and US foreign policy in general.

The world is much more complicated then any of us can imagine.

[Undertoad]

Agreed ph but there is one big reason on that one.

Before 9/11 there were many countries around the world, such as the Saudis, that supported terror, both overtly and covertly. The primary support was financial.

Previous to 9/11 our response to terror events was to either run away (Starting with Reagan, Lebanon 1983) or basically do very little, because it was difficult, and pissed too many people off were we actually to try to address it.

This informed those countries that they were free to fund as they liked, and there would be no negative result for them.

After 9/11, then, it became important to demonstrate to those countries that the US was not a paper tiger and would actually do nothing less than invade to address support of terror. Now, many years after the event, we know that the overt support has pretty much stopped; and while we don't know about the covert, we have not been attacked again, which might suggest it was successful.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Pico and ME

So you dont believe that our invasion of Afghanistan had anything to do with protecting US interests in central Asia?

George Jr administration did everything possible to get 11 September blamed on Saddam. But facts were irrefutable no matter how hard Cheney, Rove, etc spun it. Bin Laden was the mastermind behind 11 September. Virtually no responsible American civil servant was going to say otherwise.

US ultimatum was bluntly clear to Mullah Omar and his Taliban supporters. They refused to surrender al Qaeda leaders. So the US put massive support behind the Taliban's enemies. Cheney, et al had no choice - all the while planning for a Pearl Harbor attack on Iraq.

US invasion? Hardly. US forces were not even permitted to go after bin Laden in Tora Bora. The 'invasion' of Afghanistan was support for one war party over another. Some of those American allies were even 'bought off' by the Taliban - which is how bin Laden so easily walked out of Tora Bora.

Worse, the US never bothered to complete what is always required to win any war - ie Phase Four planning. If the US had plans on Afghanistan, then Phase Four plans would have - must have - been implemented. No such plans existed or were quashed by a naive administration that had no plans for Afghanistan. Who were also completely devoid of basic military concepts and strategy. Therefore even the Kabul - Kandahar highway was back in Taliban hands within a few years.

Where are all those corporate plans that justified an Afghan invasion? Back where they always existed - in conspiracy fiction stories. The administration's political agenda always was to take back *our* oil - as defined by principles that united those extremists: "Project for a New American Century". Afghanistan and bin Laden were problems that the George Jr administration repeatedly denied, intentionally delegated to subordinates of subordinates, and routinely ignored. Remember the expression, "Every light is flashing red?" Even multiple FBI investigations that threatened to uncover the 11 September plot were hindered or subverted by an administration that was in complete denial about bin Laden and his Afghan hosts.

US had no intentions on Afghanistan. In fact, Afghanistan was considered a greater threat to Iran. Just another reason to let Afghanistan be. Just another reason the administration wanted to blame 11 September on bin Laden's enemy - Saddam.

[classicman]

I didn't read your novel - yet. but welcome bag there big guy. How was your hiatus?

[Tink]

So now Russia is freezing its military cooperation with NATO and its allied countries. Geez, whats next. Love stong arming, I swear.

[BigV]

What will happen with the current state of US-Russia cooperation in space?

We don't have enough shuttles to man the ISS until the Constellation program comes online. We *need* the Russian cooperation with Soyuz. Will that crash and burn too?

[lookout123]

No worries. We'll just run our shuttles on an unsafe schedule until they go kablooey!