Home | Community | Message Board

North Spore
Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder, Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder   North Spore Injection Grain Bag, North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies

Jump to first unread post Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | Next >  [ show all ]
OfflineRonoS
DSYSB since '01
Male User Gallery

Registered: 01/26/01
Posts: 16,259
Loc: Calgary, Alberta
Last seen: 13 days, 5 hours
Re: It's all about Oil... [Re: Innvertigo]
    #848956 - 08/28/02 11:49 AM (19 years, 26 days ago)

yes, the whole world is watching you..and this part of the world is telling you that much of the time you are being spoon fed bullshit. As for if Canada's news is biased, why don't you find out for me? Read a Canadian Newspaper or watch a Canadian news program or even listen to the CBC or even the BBC and let me know?...oh wait..you probably can't down there can you?...like I said...what other sources do you have readily available to you other than your own?


--------------------
"Life has never been weird enough for my liking"


Edited by Rono (08/28/02 11:51 AM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Invisibleluvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
 User Gallery


Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,245
Loc: Lost In Space
Re: It's all about Oil... [Re: Rono]
    #849258 - 08/28/02 02:15 PM (19 years, 26 days ago)

In reply to:

I wish you did too




Oh the pain.... the pain.

Not getting any?


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineRonoS
DSYSB since '01
Male User Gallery

Registered: 01/26/01
Posts: 16,259
Loc: Calgary, Alberta
Last seen: 13 days, 5 hours
Re: It's all about Oil... [Re: luvdemshrooms]
    #849267 - 08/28/02 02:18 PM (19 years, 26 days ago)

Sorry man...I couldn't resist


--------------------
"Life has never been weird enough for my liking"


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
InvisibleInnvertigo
Vote Libertarian!!
Male

Registered: 02/09/01
Posts: 16,296
Loc: Crackerville, Michigan U...
Re: It's all about Oil... [Re: luvdemshrooms]
    #849714 - 08/28/02 06:52 PM (19 years, 26 days ago)

he's reaching for straws now....he thinks the BBC isn't biased..sheesh


--------------------

America....FUCK YEAH!!!

Words of Wisdom: Individual Rights BEFORE Collective Rights

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." -- Thomas Jefferson


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
InvisibleFrog31337
Stranger

Registered: 06/17/02
Posts: 779
Loc: Midwest, US
Re: It's all about Oil... [Re: Rono]
    #850627 - 08/29/02 08:44 AM (19 years, 25 days ago)

>> Sometimes I wonder if the propaganda in the U.S. news is just as bad as the propaganda in Iraq....


I don't watch any US TV news, I do read the papers though. My other sourse of news is BBCWorld =) I am sure every news org is biases so I take everything with a grain of salt. Again true that Saddam cannot win against the US, but if I were him I would launch everthing I had (chemical, nuclear, conventional) at my enemies before I died. THAT is what I am afraid of. Desporate people do desporate things.

I do agree with you that the average American is ignorant of world/political happenings.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflinePhluck
Carpal Tunnel
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/11/99
Posts: 11,394
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 1 year, 4 months
Re: It's all about Oil... [Re: Innvertigo]
    #852752 - 08/30/02 08:38 AM (19 years, 24 days ago)

"The US is by no doubt Liberaly biased."

Bullshit. Out of all the first world countries, the US is probably the most right wing.

"I know because the whole world is watching us."

The whole world is watching Iraq too. If you spent even five minutes looking at media sources from outside the US you'd notice that the american media is far more likely to blindly accept what the american government does as the best thing, and also far more likely to fail to report stories that portray it in a negative light. I really don't see how you can argue with this, you'd pretty much be forced to agree if you looked into it.


--------------------
"I have no valid complaint against hustlers. No rational bitch. But the act of selling is repulsive to me. I harbor a secret urge to whack a salesman in the face, crack his teeth and put red bumps around his eyes." -Hunter S Thompson
http://phluck.is-after.us


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflinePhluck
Carpal Tunnel
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/11/99
Posts: 11,394
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 1 year, 4 months
Re: It's all about Oil... [Re: Phluck]
    #852758 - 08/30/02 08:42 AM (19 years, 24 days ago)

Another thing to consider, how much of Iraq's media have you taken in? How can you possibly claim to know how biased your media is in comparison if you haven't spent any time analysing theirs?

I don't know if the US's media is more or less biased. I haven't been able to thouroughly analyse both, so I don't make any stupid claims like that.


--------------------
"I have no valid complaint against hustlers. No rational bitch. But the act of selling is repulsive to me. I harbor a secret urge to whack a salesman in the face, crack his teeth and put red bumps around his eyes." -Hunter S Thompson
http://phluck.is-after.us


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 6 years, 8 months
Re: It's all about Oil... [Re: Rono]
    #853052 - 08/30/02 11:40 AM (19 years, 24 days ago)

Rono writes:

Yes, the oil already belonged to the soviets...but the pipeline still played the same purpose then as it does for the U.S. now...to get the oil to ships so that it can be transported and sold to the western countries or wherever.

This would all be so much easier if you would just look at a map. Ships can't dock in Afghanistan, since Afghanistan is landlocked. The two nearest ports are three hundred miles from the border of Afghanistan: Bandar Beheshti in Iran and Gwadar in Pakistan.

If you don't have a reason, then at least admit that mine is plausible...

So in 1979 the Politburo decided, "We need more money, comrades. Let us invade Afghanistan, and afterwards either Iran or Pakistan as well, so we can build a pipeline across those countries and sell our Caspian oil to the imperialist hegemonists, even though the Arabs are already selling the capitalists all they want to buy."

"But comrade chairman, we already have ports on the Black Sea. Why not build the pipeline to Batumi or Sochi or Novorossiysk? It is a much shorter distance to run a pipeline, it is a much shorter distance for the capitalist running dog tankers to travel, and we don't have to conquer two new countries in order to accomplish this. (Long pause...) Oh! I see!"

I leave it to those readers with access to an atlas to decide exactly how plausible a motive this was for the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.

Where did I mention those countries ANYWHERE in my post? Don't try to make an arguement that isn't there.

Sigh. It's DIRECTLY related to your argument. Let's do a recap, shall we?

Rono wrote: And it was the oil that prompted the good ol' U.S of A to train the offshoot of Islam that produced the jihad that drove out the invaders. Clearly you were referring to the CIA's assistance to the Afghani resistance movement, i.e. the various mujahadin groups.

psm replied: "It was standard practice for the US to aid countries threatened by Communism, oil or no oil." Here I am stating that the mujahadin received aid NOT because their country might some day have a pipeline built across it, but because they were battling communist invaders.

Rono wrote: Sounds good on paper my freind, but I call bullshit...it's about oil. Oil = Power...plain and simple.

psm replied: "It is not necessary to dream up some vast oil conspiracy to explain why the US came to the aid of Korea or the South Viet Namese or Somalia, for example." Here I elaborate with specific examples of the US assisting countries other than Afghanistan who were also resisting a communist takeover -- Korea and Viet Nam -- to show that the motivation for US involvement was anti-communist (or, in the case of Somalia, humanitarian), not pro-oil.

In short, the USSR did NOT invade Afghanistan to get oil, but to add yet another country to their expanding empire. The CIA did NOT aid the mujahadin to get oil, but to prevent the USSR from adding yet another country to their expanding empire.

And as we already established, Bin Laden worked with the CIA, who is directly responsible for his actions.

When did we establish that? Please provide us a mission bin Laden carried out for the CIA. Did bin Laden (as one of many trying to repel the Soviets) receive some CIA training? Yes. Did he "work with" the CIA? Nope. As for the "directly responsible" nonsense --If Moe Howard decides to kidnap a rich woman and hold her for ransom, and he subdues her using knowledge he gained in the US army during his basic training, does that make the US army directly responsible for his actions?

I think it's quite naive to think that the U.S. couldn't have taken out Osama before 9-11 considering he already had a history of terrorism and there are records showing that he was even treated in an American hospital in Dubai while he was still public enemy #1

Did they have opportunities to take him out before he moved to Afghanistan? Undoubtedly, and they were idiots not to have capitalized on those opportunities. But to say they deliberately refused to capture him because they KNEW (years in advance) that he was planning to move to Afghanistan and engineer the bombing of major targets within the US, then STAY in Afghanistan with the stubborn protection of the Afghani "government" is more than a bit of a stretch.

Remember who was running the show for eight years while Osama was becoming pubic enemy number 1. Why, none other than Clinton. Clinton was notoriously soft on terrorism, as was Carter. If every American president since the mid-Seventies had shown a policy of instant and effective retaliation towards Islamic terrorists, would the WTC attacks have taken place?

What about the assasination of Anwar Sadat in Egypt in the 80's, this was the handy work of bin Laden's network and yes the Americans knew all about this, so your claim that "this was before he started terrorist attacks" is shot.

Sadat was assassinated in October of 1981, but it was not at the instigation of Osama bin Laden. It was done by native Egyptians as a reaction to Sadat's repression of violent elements on both sides of the dispute between the Copts and the Muslims.

From http://www.nmhschool.org/tthornton/assassination_of_anwar_al.htm --

"In September, Sadat cracked down hard on both sides. There were mass arrests (nearly 1, 600 were detained). The powerful Islamic student associations (Jama'at Islamiyya ), which had started up after the 1967 war and which had enjoyed government favor throughout much of the 1970's, were banned on September 3. (The leader of one of these student groups at Asyut University, Muhammad Islambouli, was arrested and roughed up. It was his brother, Khalid, who assassinated Sadat the following month.)"

At the time of Sadat's assassination, Al-Qaeda had yet to be formed. That didn't occur until after the Soviets withdrew from Afghanistan in 1989. See:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/1670089.stm

As a matter of fact, bin Laden wasn't even involved with the Afghanistan resistance movement in 1981. He became the chief financier of the mujahadin in the MID - Eighties. See:

http://www.infoplease.com/spot/terror-qaeda.html

...but in all reality, what do you think the afore mentioned countries could have done?

And what do YOU think the USA could have done? YOU were the one who sneered at the USA for "looking the other way" while the Taliban enslaved their own people. To me this implies you believe the USA could have (and should have) prevented this from happening. I ask you again -- exactly HOW should the USA have prevented the Taliban from coming to power? What specific actions by the government of the USA would have been acceptable to you? When should they have initiated those steps?

AFTER 9-11, THE U.S. HAD THE BLESSINGS OF THE WORLD TO TAKE AFGHANISTAN, WHICH WAS EXACTLY WHAT THEY WANTED. If the U.S. tried to go into Afghanistan previous to that, the world would have been screaming bloody murder...

I'm confused. I thought the world would have WELCOMED the elimination of the Taliban. I thought your contention was that it was WRONG for the USA to "look the other way" and allow the Taliban to come to power.

Also, note that the USA did not "take" Afghanistan. The Taliban was eliminated by Afghani forces, and the new government is being assembled by Afghanis, under the protection of the United Nations.

Tibet has oil??? No...or any other exploitable resource for that matter...that's why nothing is being done.

An attempt at sarcasm. If the US government WERE to help the Tibetans, you would doubtless claim their motivation was to enable them to build an oil pipeline across Tibet, since to you "it's all about oil".

So if they had the power to stop funding to these organiztions after 9-11...what was stopping them before?...They knew who the organizations and players were already, or is the heavily funded CIA so incompetant that they were completely surprised by all of this?

Read my post. Anti-terrorist organizations in many countries had been frustrated for years by the refusal of banks to co-operate. The key concept here is CO-OPERATION, i.e. VOLUNTARY action by the banks. The bankers BY LAW did not HAVE to freeze accounts on the say-so of the French SDECE or the Italian anti-terrorist squad or the CIA or the Mossad or the KGB or whoever. After the WTC attacks, two things occurred: many bankers were shamed into co-operating, even though they were not legally REQUIRED to do so, and new laws were passed in some countries making the seizure of accounts easier.

Iraq - Yes they were guilty of these actions, but since the gulf war, what have they done?..face it, they are no more of a threat than Mexico is.

Then why did Hussein refuse UN inspectors access to certain sites? Why did he kick them all out of the country? What was he hiding?

Yes he is a menace but he was another example of a guy the US supported when it suited them.

So he IS more menacing than Mexico?

Let me get this straight. Are you saying that once the US decides to co-operate with a foreign leader, it MUST continue to co-operate for all time, no matter what that foreign leader does later?

The US also gave info to Iraq about Iranian troop movements during the Iran-Iraq war and sold him weapons...

At that time Iran was a threat to the US, Iraq was not. Remember the Iranian hostage crisis? Let's not forget that the US also gave weapons and intelligence to the USSR in the early 1940s, when Germany was a threat to the US and the USSR was not.

Afghanistan - Okay, let's say that the only reason the U.S. went into Afghanistan was to get Bin Laden...do they have him?..no Do they even think he's still in Afghanistan?..no Why are they still there?...you tell me.

They (and other members of the UN coalition) are still there because until a stable Afghani government is formed there is a real possibility of violence breaking out again. As for bin Laden, he MAY still be in Afghanistan. No one knows for sure that he has left the country.

Yet Saudi Arabia is not as U.S. freindly as Ireal is it?

In the ways that count as a "base in the Middle East", they are MORE US friendly. For example, the Saudis allow (in fact, INSIST on) a permanent US military presence on Saudi soil.

Why isn't the Saudi government allowing the U.S. to use it's country if it invades Iraq if they are such good buddies of the U.S.?

Allies do not always agree over tactics and strategy. The Saudis were pleased to let the UN coalition base out of Saudi Arabia during the Gulf War while actual warfare was underway and there was a danger that Saddam wouldn't stop at the borders of Kuwait. Peacetime relations between allies differ from wartime relations.

pinky


--------------------


Edited by pinksharkmark (08/30/02 12:01 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 6 years, 8 months
Re: It's all about Oil... [Re: Rono]
    #853064 - 08/30/02 11:48 AM (19 years, 24 days ago)

Rono writes:

You can use your little insults on me all you like, I have been trying very hard to stay above that, since it will not accomplish anything but escalate the arguement.

I try hard as well, but i find it extremely irritating that you won't READ my posts before responding to them. If you really are reading them, but just not making the connections, I apologize for my lack of clarity in getting my point across.

As for your argument, I want to make sure I understand it properly before I refute it further. Since you seem not to grasp some of my points, it is entirely possible that I am not fully grasping some of yours. Let me state your position here as I understand it, and if I have any part of it wrong, please correct me.

1) Top officials of the American government, including the president, had certain knowledge (how long before?) that Al qaeda were going to hijack several commercial jetliners and fly them into targets on American soil. The officials involved kept this knowledge to themselves.

2) Rather than arrest the hijackers before they boarded the airliners, these top officials decided to let the attacks take place. Their motivation for this decision was that they believed a SUCCESSFUL terrorist attack would legitimize an American overthrow of the Taliban (who were known to harbor the terrorists responsible) while a THWARTED terrorist attack would not.

3) There was either unanimous agreement on this decision among all the officials, or at the very least an agreement by those who disagreed that they would keep silent about their knowledge.

4) The reason Afghanistan needed to be invaded was because the Taliban refused to allow oil companies to build a pipeline across Afghanistan (from where to where?) and the officials involved believed a new Afghani government would allow the oil companies to do so.

pinky


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Anonymous

Re: It's all about Oil... [Re: Phred]
    #853139 - 08/30/02 12:24 PM (19 years, 24 days ago)

If Moe Howard decides to kidnap a rich woman and hold her for ransom, and he subdues her using knowledge he gained in the US army during his basic training, does that make the US army directly responsible for his actions?

Couldn't you use another person for your hypothetical example? Like... Rono? I think he served in the Canadian armed forces.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/26/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: It's all about Oil... [Re: Phluck]
    #853168 - 08/30/02 12:41 PM (19 years, 24 days ago)

One of our best-kept secrets is the degree to which a handful of huge corporations control the flow of information in the United States. Whether it is television, radio, newspapers, magazines, books or the Internet, a few giant conglomerates are determining what we see, hear and read. And the situation is likely to become much worse as a result of radical deregulation efforts by the [unelected] Bush administration and some horrendous court decisions.

Television is the means by which most Americans get their ?news.? Without exception, every major network is owned by a huge conglomerate that has enormous conflicts of interest. Fox News Channel is owned by Rupert Murdoch, a right-wing Australian who already owns a significant portion of the world?s media. His network has close ties to the Republican Party, and among his ?fair and balanced? commentators is Newt Gingrich.

NBC is owned by General Electric, one of the largest corporations in the world ? and one with a long history of anti-union activity. GE, a major contributor to the Republican Party, has substantial financial interests in weapons manufacturing, finance, nuclear power and many other industries. Former CEO Jack Welch was one of the leaders in shutting down American plants and moving them to low-wage countries like China and Mexico.

ABC is owned by the Disney Corp., which produces toys and products in developing countries where they provide their workers atrocious wages and working conditions.

CBS is owned by Viacom, another huge media conglomerate that owns, among other entities, MTV, Showtime, Nickelodeon, VH1, TNN, CMT, 39 broadcast television stations, 184 radio stations, Paramount Pictures and Blockbuster Inc.

The essential problem with television is not just a right-wing bias in news and programming, or the transformation of politics and government into entertainment and sensationalism. Nor is it just the constant bombardment of advertising, much of it directed at children. It?s that the most important issues facing the middle-class and working people of our country are rarely discussed. The average American does not see his or her reality reflected on the television screen.

http://free.freespeech.org/americanstateterrorism/mediadeception/CorporateChokeholdMedia.html


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/26/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: It's all about Oil... [Re: Phred]
    #853192 - 08/30/02 12:57 PM (19 years, 24 days ago)

In short, the USSR did NOT invade Afghanistan to get oil, but to add yet another country to their expanding empire. The CIA did NOT aid the mujahadin to get oil, but to prevent the USSR from adding yet another country to their expanding empire.

The CIA were destabilising Afghanistan throughout most of the seventies trying to turn it into an american base. Russia realised this and invaded to stop a US coup d'etat. The americans realised this was their chance to give Russia it's very own Vietnam and so prolonged the war by creating and arming the Islamic Fundamentalist movement. By doing this they prolonged a civil war that killed thousands of innocents and gave birth to Osama and al-queda.

exactly HOW should the USA have prevented the Taliban from coming to power? What specific actions by the government of the USA would have been acceptable to you? When should they have initiated those steps?

1) By not arming Bin Laden and the Taliban during the 80's. Afghanistan shares a border with Russia. Look at Cuba for an example of how the US treats countries close to it that if finds threatening. Now imagine Mexico was a russian controlled state. Would the US invade? You bet your ass they would.

2) By not inviting the Taliban heads of state to America and treating them like royalty as long as we thought they'd let us build an oil pipeline. It was only after they refused to let us take the oil that they became our "enemies". Before that we considered them wonderful people for stopping opium production.


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineRonoS
DSYSB since '01
Male User Gallery

Registered: 01/26/01
Posts: 16,259
Loc: Calgary, Alberta
Last seen: 13 days, 5 hours
Re: It's all about Oil... [Re: Phred]
    #866475 - 09/06/02 05:59 AM (19 years, 18 days ago)

I'm still here Pinky...I think I answered your questions that you posed for me in the other thread (excpet for how long they knew), or do you have more?...I told you where the pipeline is being built, I've explained why...anything else I'm missing?


--------------------
"Life has never been weird enough for my liking"


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 6 years, 8 months
Re: It's all about Oil... [Re: Rono]
    #866623 - 09/06/02 07:55 AM (19 years, 17 days ago)

Robo writes:

anything else I'm missing?

Yeah. Did the officials involved know which targets were to be attacked?

Let me restate your modified position, incorporating your clarifications:

1) Top officials of the American government, including the president, had certain knowledge for some unspecified time before the attacks occurred that Al qaeda were going to hijack several commercial jetliners and fly them into targets (did they know which targets?) on American soil. The officials involved kept this knowledge to themselves.

2) Rather than arrest the hijackers before they boarded the airliners, these top officials decided to let the attacks take place. Their motivation for this decision was that they believed a SUCCESSFUL terrorist attack would legitimize an American overthrow of the Taliban (who were known to harbor the terrorists responsible) while a THWARTED terrorist attack would not.

3) There was unanimous agreement on this decision among all the officials connected with Bush's oil cronies, but even the officials who WEREN'T in the pockets of the oil interests -- those who disagreed with letting the attacks take place -- agreed that they would keep silent about the plot.

4) The reason Afghanistan needed to be invaded was because the Taliban refused to allow oil companies to build a pipeline across Afghanistan from Turkmenistan to the Pakistani border and the officials involved believed a new Afghani government would allow the oil companies to do so.

Is this a correct presentation of your position or do I still have some parts wrong? Pay particular attention to point number 3, as I am unsure I interpreted your answer correctly.

pinky


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineRonoS
DSYSB since '01
Male User Gallery

Registered: 01/26/01
Posts: 16,259
Loc: Calgary, Alberta
Last seen: 13 days, 5 hours
Re: It's all about Oil... [Re: Phred]
    #866671 - 09/06/02 08:31 AM (19 years, 17 days ago)

In reply to:

1) Top officials of the American government, including the president, had certain knowledge for some unspecified time before the attacks occurred that Al qaeda were going to hijack several commercial jetliners and fly them into targets (did they know which targets?) on American soil. The officials involved kept this knowledge to themselves.



Yes..they knew the Targets. ...the Mike Vreeland case clearly shows that. (Although not all of the intended targets were hit)
In reply to:

2) Rather than arrest the hijackers before they boarded the airliners, these top officials decided to let the attacks take place. Their motivation for this decision was that they believed a SUCCESSFUL terrorist attack would legitimize an American overthrow of the Taliban (who were known to harbor the terrorists responsible) while a THWARTED terrorist attack would not.


That's not really how I would put it...but close enough for arguments sake.
In reply to:

3) There was unanimous agreement on this decision among all the officials connected with Bush's oil cronies, but even the officials who WEREN'T in the pockets of the oil interests -- those who disagreed with letting the attacks take place -- agreed that they would keep silent about the plot.



No...I suspect that those that had any chance of disagreeing were not informed, I also doubt that many people knew how everything fit together until afterwards. Each player had his own piece of the puzzle, but not the whole picture.
In reply to:

4) The reason Afghanistan needed to be invaded was because the Taliban refused to allow oil companies to build a pipeline across Afghanistan from Turkmenistan to the Pakistani border and the officials involved believed a new Afghani government would allow the oil companies to do so.



Yes...that is correct.


--------------------
"Life has never been weird enough for my liking"


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/26/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: It's all about Oil... [Re: Rono]
    #866802 - 09/06/02 09:36 AM (19 years, 17 days ago)

4) The reason Afghanistan needed to be invaded was because the Taliban refused to allow oil companies to build a pipeline across Afghanistan from Turkmenistan to the Pakistani border and the officials involved believed a new Afghani government would allow the oil companies to do so.

True. There's a lot of evidence that the US were going to invade Afghanistan even before Sep 11.


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
InvisibleInnvertigo
Vote Libertarian!!
Male

Registered: 02/09/01
Posts: 16,296
Loc: Crackerville, Michigan U...
Re: It's all about Oil... [Re: Xlea321]
    #866919 - 09/06/02 10:26 AM (19 years, 17 days ago)

then you'll be so kind to post the evidence? To date yours has been null and void

While i have no love for Rono at least he TRYS to post evidence and doesn't just spout out a number


--------------------

America....FUCK YEAH!!!

Words of Wisdom: Individual Rights BEFORE Collective Rights

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." -- Thomas Jefferson


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/26/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: It's all about Oil... [Re: Innvertigo]
    #867075 - 09/06/02 11:35 AM (19 years, 17 days ago)

Strange. I posted 3 quotes from UN officials and UNICEF in the other thread. None of you had the balls to reply then. Seems like when you get the sources you go quiet and just stick to those threads where you can say meaningless garbage like "I want the sources".

I have to assume a common level of knowledge. If you've never heard of UNICEF or the UN reports on this I can't help you. You need to educate yourselves first.


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
InvisibleInnvertigo
Vote Libertarian!!
Male

Registered: 02/09/01
Posts: 16,296
Loc: Crackerville, Michigan U...
Re: It's all about Oil... [Re: Xlea321]
    #868646 - 09/07/02 11:01 AM (19 years, 16 days ago)

so you're not going to post any evidence?


--------------------

America....FUCK YEAH!!!

Words of Wisdom: Individual Rights BEFORE Collective Rights

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." -- Thomas Jefferson


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/26/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: It's all about Oil... [Re: Innvertigo]
    #869448 - 09/07/02 04:44 PM (19 years, 16 days ago)

You've never heard of the Taliban invitation to the US to discuss if they would allow them to build a pipeline through Afghanistan?

Go to any major news source, do a search and educate yourself. Don't rely on me spoon-feeding you. When you have a basic level of knowledge we can make some progress.


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Jump to top Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | Next >  [ show all ]

Shop: Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder, Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder   North Spore Injection Grain Bag, North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Interesting Read on Iraq and Afghanistan and why we are there vintage_gonzo 595 0 07/07/07 12:43 PM
by vintage_gonzo
* Oil, Climate, and Terrorism EchoVortex 1,000 2 09/06/02 08:13 AM
by EchoVortex
* South Korea Pays Taliban Kidnappers Ransom
( 1 2 all )
DiploidM 3,198 29 09/05/07 07:51 AM
by kidaihuan
* The Betrayal of Afghanistan Xochitl 1,818 12 09/24/03 04:18 PM
by JonnyOnTheSpot
* The betrayal of Afghanistan Xlea321 646 3 11/03/03 03:21 PM
by Azmodeus
* Understanding Oil Unagipie 574 5 09/28/05 08:20 PM
by phi1618
* Afghanistan & Oil
( 1 2 3 4 all )
Anonymous 4,833 63 04/09/03 11:48 AM
by Xlea321
* Afghanistan Update afoaf 546 1 08/03/04 02:53 PM
by afoaf

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
5,428 topic views. 0 members, 1 guests and 6 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Print Topic | ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2021 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.034 seconds spending 0.008 seconds on 17 queries.