Posted on 12/10/2001 9:04:18 AM PST by Timesink
Just a little helpful advice....
First of all, the link you provide says absolutely NOTHING about the Bush administration "demanding" the Taliban be part of the new regime?
Second, since it seems that news is slow to get to your bunker, a peace accord has already been signed! Read about the Taliban-less interim government here.
It is also interesting to note that according to Jane’s—MARCH 15, 2001, the US-Russia-Iran-India anti-Taliban coalition and strategy were in place several months ago. In fact, US military intervention had already started and the present bombing is to carry out an operation that was already in progress several months before 9-11:
It seems you may have provided the wrong link, because all that says is the US was providing intelligence to the Norther Alliance against the Taliban prior to 9/11, obviously in excange for possible information to help locate ObL. This may be news to you, but ObL was a bad guy BEFORE 9/11.
Good point. I appreciate your take on this as I know you have followed this issue extensively. I am concerned, however, about the extent of people that classify oil "actions" as the be-all and end-all of all international conflicts and motivations. They are certainly an underlying subtext to many issues, no matter what party is in power, but to rank them so high as to belittle the impact of international terrorism as masked as reactionary Islamic Jihad is to fail to percieve the enemy at our gates, and there I do not see you standing.
I guess what bothers me is the difficulty of giving the Oil motivations of NGOs, States, Individuals and Corporations the right measure of involvement and responsibility. To attribute all events to their actions is hardly sensible, but where is the balance?
Could you post the quote in the article where this is said?
three years since Congress discussed removing the government of Afghanistan to make way for an oil pipeline,
Please show us the quote in the testimony where the term "remove the government" or something like it is used.
five months since BBC heard about the planned invasion of Afghanistan,
The date of the story you linked is 18 September, 2001, not quite three months.
ten months since Jane's Defense got word of the planned invasion of Afghanistan,
Show us where this story mentions a US invasion of Afghanistan.
Face it, none of those links say ANYTHING CLOSE to what you claim they do.
I would say something in response, but TomB's total evisceration of your tinfoil claims beat me to it.
I admit, however, I got quite a chuckle from your attempt to link Clinton and Dubya together in a Unocal conspiracy. I must have missed an issue of the Council on Foreign Relations Weekly Newsletter.
It wasn't in the newsletter, but if you would have been at the last secret meeting, they explained it all at that time. Your absence wouldn't have been so bad except it was your turn to bring the doughnuts! When Kissinger found out there weren't any, boy was he pissed! All he did was pout all night and mumble something about "this won't happen when I'M king".
Make sure it doesn't happen again.
But while we're discussing total fantasy, I find the idea of our government somehow involved in the 9/11 attack fascinating. If I follow the "logic" correctly, Bush is helping his oil buddies by ousting the Taliban and installing a "stable afghan government", an oxymoron if there ever was one. What guarantee do they have that the new government will be any more stable than the old?
Also, the tenuous argument has it that Bush's oil buddies need a "stable" Afghanistan in order to run a pipeline from the Central Asian countries to Pakistan to the coast, so that they have access to the oil.
So here we have it. Bush must find, instigate or create an incident that will allow him to invade Afghanistan. He must convince the Pakistani leaders (bribe) to completely reverse their standing policy and move against the Taliban. He must also negotiate deals with Uzbekistan and Tajikistan in order to use their countries as forward bases (this is in their oun interest, it should be rather easy). He must also, and this is the tricky part, negotiate some kind of deal with Putin, since this completely removes Russia as a player in the Central Asia oil deal. Vlad will NOT be happy with this. A:ong with all this, Bush has to hope the evidence he can manufacture is good enough to convince such well known war-mongering nations as France to contribute arms to the conflict. He must also give enough of the pie to each and every faction within Afghanistan to keep them quiet and not spill the beans.
Bush must accomplish all that for the single purpose of getting an oil pipeline from Central Asia to the Arabian Sea. Which brings up the question, if he can accomplish all that, why can't he just drop sanctions against Iran? If he does that the oil companies could start building a pipeline through Iran tomorrow, in a country with a rather stable, if somewhat maniacal, government, much better infrastructure, and immeasurably better terrain.
Let's see if he continues to ingore them.
Let's FACE IT TOGETHER--- If you read (red) all these links, starting with the Gov't link, there is NO WAY anyone, with a fairly average IQ could not not see that the US (and Russia) was involved in the war against the TALIBON as far back as early February.
The gov't site shows CLEARLY the discussion of oil in the area and how the problems in Afganistan would get in the way.
I will do the math for you , since you can't do it, with the times mentioned in the articles. Although you are correct concerning a precise mention of the word OCTOBER, one could have someone in high school or even grade school read these articles and come to the conclusion that the US WAS involved there as far back as Feb. and was talking of "limited military action" if negotiations broke down.
I had assumed that the lack of reasoning was limited to the Democrats but obviously at FR has its' share also.
Also, being I put it, up I do share with the claims from where I got it Which is here "If I were the Government."
And thanks to the media and gov't all the sheeple (including me) knew nothing about it, or maybe you did and that's the reason you don't want to admit to what's in the articles.
Yes, and Dick Cheny was on a documentary last night in a recorded interview wherein he stated that the security of oil supplies from the Middle East was, during the Gulf War, of paramount concern, and he (Cheney) was not going to apologize for that.
When you look at the potential dollars involved (the contracts for oil services co's would be in the billions) and you look at the connections both the Pres and VP have to the oil business, then you have to believe that almost anything is possible.
There are lots of motivations for this country to get involved in a removal of the Taliban govt by whatever means necessary. I really hope that this govt was not complicit in an attack on US citizens, but it wouldn't be the first time. And you wouldn't be the first to say it is preposterous. I don't know about you, but I don't believe anything the govt or the media tells me anymore.
Yes, and Dick Cheny was on a documentary last night in a recorded interview wherein he stated that the security of oil supplies from the Middle East was, during the Gulf War, of paramount concern, and he (Cheney) was not going to apologize for that.
When you look at the potential dollars involved (the contracts for oil services co's would be in the billions) and you look at the connections both the Pres and VP have to the oil business, then you have to believe that almost anything is possible.
There are lots of motivations for this country to get involved in a removal of the Taliban govt by whatever means necessary. I really hope that this govt was not complicit in an attack on US citizens, but it wouldn't be the first time. And you wouldn't be the first to say it is preposterous. I don't know about you, but I don't believe anything the govt or the media tells me anymore.
And you know why? Because AMERICA NEEDS OIL TO SURVIVE. Not just for our evil gas-guzzling SUVs, either. There's a decent chance that the very electricity you're using to power your PC as you read this came from oil.
This would be an indisputable fact whether Bush and Cheney personally owned 100% of the stock in every oil company in America, or if they were such enviropsychos that they made Ed Begley Jr look like an Enron executive.
You are confusing a "lack of reasoning" with a lack of "imagination.
Because you have to have an almost child-like imagination to read those articles and think of them as you do.
, there is NO WAY anyone, with a fairly average IQ could not not see that the US (and Russia) was involved in the war against the TALIBON as far back as early February.
And which one of your claims is this an explaination of? That we "told India that we would be invading Afghanistan in October"? That is has been "Ten months since Jane's Defense got word of the planned invasion of Afghanistan"?
I'm still waiting for you to substantiate the EXACT CLAIMS you made. Which this feeble attempt doesn't come close to doing.
The gov't site shows CLEARLY the discussion of oil in the area and how the problems in Afganistan would get in the way.
NO KIDDING! A murderous regieme unrecognized by almost the entire civilized world making the prospect of building a pipeling difficult.
That, however, is a far cry from your dishonest and misleading statement:
three years since Congress discussed removing the government of Afghanistan to make way for an oil pipeline
Frankly, the fringe nuts like you who have to completely invent incidences to support your insane notions, including the implication that the government was somehow involved with the 9/11 attacks, make me want to vomit.
This whole "war for oil" BS will eventually evaporate anyway, just as every other liberal lie has since 9/11, as the war moves into such oil-rich nations as Somalia and the Phillipines.
Sure, the company that can postition themselves to get on board the new pipeline project can make a bundle, but what about the rest of the companies?
Doesn't it make sense that they would welcome as much turmoil in the rest of the world to pump up prices, and make new domestic exploration more palatable to the masses?
And if they have the power that some claim, why can't they buy Venezuela? There are vast reserves in that region, and an unstable government to take advantage of. But, for all their money and power, they're stuck with a socialist who was a student of Castro's.
VRN
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.