|
Post by sigurdur on Feb 28, 2010 21:37:31 GMT
The people of the US are in Afghanistan for one reason, and one reason only: to capture Bin Laden and Al Kaida. If any other group tries to help them, or gets in our way, then they become targets as well, which includes the Tali-ban. The average American doesn't give a flip about what's grown there or what 'good' the Tali-ban may have done. Nor do I. If there is a 'lie' involved in us believing Laden, et al, were involved in the 9/11 attacks, or that they are somewhere in the Afghan/Pakistan region, Sigurdur, by all means explain it, but let me warn you of this: if those basic facts are true, we don't care what 'real' reasons others may have in us being in Afghanistan. And Hairball, why aren't you asking your OWN government why they don't take this opportunity to wipe out the poppy plantations, since you are not too terribly impressed with 2 of your Irish citizens being turned into gangsters/prostitutes every day? Instead you complain that the US won't do your dirty work. That's not what we're there for. At least your gangsters/prostitutes had some degree of choice about what they are doing. The friends and acquaintances I had who died on 9/11 had no choice at all. We created Al Quida in response to the Russians in Afgan. That creation has come back to bite us. The reason that Afgan is important to the west is because of the oil trapped to the north of it. No pipelines unless through Russia. The main reason we are in Afgan is still oil. We could have had Osamma at Tora Bora very easily, but they only sent 12 men to get him. IF he had been captured/terminated, that would have ended the reason for the US to be there. IT didn't happen. I hate it when innocent people are used as pawns, but it is reality.
|
|
|
Post by curiousgeorge on Feb 28, 2010 22:39:08 GMT
There are a great many reasons, real and imagined, for making war. None of them are of any importance. The only thing that matters is the outcome.
|
|
jtom
Level 3 Rank
Posts: 248
|
Post by jtom on Mar 1, 2010 0:23:57 GMT
Sigurdur:
1. The theory you espouse involves supplying oil for Europe and Asia, not the US. The theory is based on the idea that Bush and Cheney supported the invasion for big profits for their oil friends. Ok. You can argue that it was to produce big bucks for comrades, but it's not a strategic US concern. You then suggest Bin Laden was not captured so as to prolong the US military involvement. There are problems with your arguments, and it is growing daily. Does Obama support the oil industry as well? I don't see that in his resume. Unless he does, why are we still there, without Laden? Also, not capturing Laden at Tora Bora would have required a conspiracy involving micromanaging the war from the White House. Not easy to keep secret. I tend to not ascribe to a conspiracy that which incompetence explains just as well.
Regardless of any secret agenda, the American people would still have demanded the Afghan invasion. So ultimately, the personal agendas of some, if that indeed proves to be the case, did not determine our war in Afghanistan, it simply was simply convenient for them. If their agenda has prolonged our involvement, then they will eventually be dealt with harshly.
One quick question: the Afghan war started October 7, 2001 - about 8 and a half years ago. What's the status of the pipeline?
2. Yeah, the US supports people and groups - Castro comes readily to mind - that turn out to be something other than what they claimed. So do many of our elected officials - but you can't fault the voters. You 'pays your money and takes your chances'.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Mar 1, 2010 0:43:20 GMT
The status of the pipeline corridor is secure. The Afgan government is letting out bids now. The Taliban had given the contract to build and maintain the pipeline to an Argentine co prior to 9/11. I don't know if that co still has any right to the pipeline or not being the Taliban are not in power now.
I am not concerned about Bush/Cheney friendships and profit. President Bush dropped the ball in his admin as there was warning about potential attack. History now, which can't be changed.
There are still questions about the collapse of the towers but the metal at the base was disposed off so quickly that no concrete answers will ever be found.
I think this quote sums the potential well:
Behind the ostensible government sits enthroned an invisible government owing no allegiance and acknowledging no responsibility to the people. To destroy this invisible government, to befoul this unholy alliance between corrupt business and corrupt politics is the first task of the statesmanship of today. --President Theodore Roosevelt, 1906
I shall not comment on this subject again as it belongs in the open forum.
|
|
|
Post by hiddigeigei on Mar 1, 2010 0:44:17 GMT
The US is in Afgan because of oil. The pipeline needs to be built......right? Actually, the military industrial complex is breaking the US and it doesn't care. The US people have become cowards, lead by the fears from the "supposed" leaders. They are willing to sacrifice the nation for nothing. For the life of me, I can't understand how easily they have been swayed and follow the lies. Anyone who thinks they could run an oil pipeline through Afghanistan is nuts. They would have to pay protection to a different warlord and bandits in every valley. Even then, the locals would tap the oil into trucks and sell it to the Chinese. Any disgruntled group would blow up the pipeline just to spite the local bigshot and the local boys would blow it up just for fun.
|
|
jtom
Level 3 Rank
Posts: 248
|
Post by jtom on Mar 1, 2010 3:48:36 GMT
Ok, back to conspiracy vis-a-vis global warming. I think some make the mistake of finding a 'conspiracy' when the situation is simply desperate groups acting in their own self-interest finding it advantageous to promote the same lie or distortion. The groups each know it's a lie, but go along with it. If anything, it's a conspiracy of silence. They need not interact with each other, just play along.
I'll give you an actual example that I witnessed in close quarters since I had one foot in research and one in politics (only on the edges). It's a 'no-no' topic that is very un-PC to discuss, but since I've already stepped on a great many toes here, I'll just dive right in: it's the great Heterosexual AIDS epidemic. (just for the record, I am in no way trying to minimize the tragedy of the illness or its victims, editorializing on lifestyles, or anything else - only the 'silent conspiracy that took place).
The players were the Gay Community, Surgeon General C. Everett Koop, health research community, and of course the MSM.
You all know the effect AIDS has had in the Gay Community. You may not know that Koop is a conservative Christian doctor who was the Surgeon General during the Reagan administration. As a Christian, he strongly believes in monogamy.
All the research (I was in a position where had access to the actual research papers, not the MSM version) indicated there was only one specific sexual act which could transmit AIDS effectively, and it was not an act widely practiced among heterosexuals (at least back then - no idea today!). Heterosexuals were not at risk sexually, but you had to look at the viral transmission vectors to determine that.
But the Gay Community was demanding unlimited funding to end the disease. Moreover, it was becoming clear that the 'sexual revolution' (I was never drafted, sigh) was screeching to a halt over fear. Koop emphasized the danger of the disease, helped get funds to research AIDS, and always implied the safety of being monogamous.
The research community was very happy to get the added funding, and the MSM had a really good crisis to sell - one that could affect every reader. None of the groups publicized the research that indicated heterosexuals were NOT at risk. The data wasn't hidden, but you had to interpret it yourself. Moreover, since heterosexuals COULD perform that act, I'm sure researchers had no reluctance in making the assumption that they DID do it (it's all in the assumptions, isn't it?). Several scientists tried to point out the facts; the Gay Community labeled them homophobic.
At one point Oprah (yeah, the 'crisis' was THAT popular) announced this on her show in 1987:
“Research studies now project that one in five — listen to me, hard to believe — one in five heterosexuals could be dead from AIDS at the end of the next three years. That’s by 1990. One in five. It is no longer just a gay disease. Believe me.”
(Notice the use of the word 'could', followed with the certainty of AIDS being a heterosexual problem)
Of course 1990 came and went, with no epidemic. Then 1991, 1992, 1993, and the MSM slowly dropped the AIDS epidemic stories, moving on to another crisis. The research resulted in AIDS being treatable, quieting the Gay Community. Koop moved on to the private sector. (There were 'losers' in this. Several diseases such as heart disease, stroke, and some cancers lost research funding despite more people suffering and dying from those ailments than AIDS). But the epidemic just faded out in the memories of the general population.
I see a very strong parallel today with AGE. A convergence of interests where no actual conspiracy is required, groups reinforcing each other using a known distortion of reality to get what they each seek. I also see the same tactics being used: labeling the 'non-believers', promoting fear, predictions of doom, diversion of funds, treating assumptions as facts, and holding back information that could 'dilute the message.'
|
|
jtom
Level 3 Rank
Posts: 248
|
Post by jtom on Mar 1, 2010 3:53:05 GMT
Ha! Last paragraph: AGW, not AGE, though it is a typo due to age.
|
|
|
Post by scpg02 on Mar 1, 2010 4:15:47 GMT
I see a very strong parallel today with AGE. A convergence of interests where no actual conspiracy is required, groups reinforcing each other using a known distortion of reality to get what they each seek. I also see the same tactics being used: labeling the 'non-believers', promoting fear, predictions of doom, diversion of funds, treating assumptions as facts, and holding back information that could 'dilute the message.' No there is no need for a conspiracy just with AGW but for people like me it is more than that. I came late to the party, I'm a recent convert but once you take that red pill and start to understand what is really going on you can not go back. The red pill is hard to swallow though and many refuse to try.
|
|
|
Post by slh1234 on Mar 1, 2010 5:16:50 GMT
I see a very strong parallel today with AGE. A convergence of interests where no actual conspiracy is required, groups reinforcing each other using a known distortion of reality to get what they each seek. I also see the same tactics being used: labeling the 'non-believers', promoting fear, predictions of doom, diversion of funds, treating assumptions as facts, and holding back information that could 'dilute the message.' No there is no need for a conspiracy just with AGW but for people like me it is more than that. I came late to the party, I'm a recent convert but once you take that red pill and start to understand what is really going on you can not go back. The red pill is hard to swallow though and many refuse to try. I guess this is where this discussion really starts to lose me. What exactly are you talking about by taking a red pill and starting to understand? What gave you this secret knowledge that many of the rest of us are just refusing to accept?
|
|
|
Post by scpg02 on Mar 1, 2010 5:52:06 GMT
I guess this is where this discussion really starts to lose me. What exactly are you talking about by taking a red pill and starting to understand? What gave you this secret knowledge that many of the rest of us are just refusing to accept? the red pill is a reference to the movie the matrix. You take the red pill to come out of the matrix. No secret knowledge. Just a better understanding of the chess game being played by the global elites.
|
|
|
Post by aj1983 on Mar 1, 2010 20:39:42 GMT
aj1983: Thanks in return. One caveat that should have been mentioned is the danger in comparing the US to just about any other country in the world. Until recently, most countries, Western Europe in particular, had a high cultural homogeniety of its citizens. That is, most (note the 'most') of the population shared similar backrounds, common morals and social behavior, shared beliefs, religion, work ethic ... even similar physical characteristics. This has as obvious impact on consensus building as to what and how to do things collectively. It even impacts such things as the crime rate, and although I haven't researched it, I bet there's less income desparity, too. The US has never had a homogeneous population. As late as pre-WWI, more than 6% of American schoolchildren received their primary education in German! Today, many are taught in Spanish. Where ever there is a difference between people, there tends to be a divide. There are cultural clashes and disagreements. Inevitably, instead of accepting 'different' as meaning simply that, there are those who think in terms of 'better' and 'worse'. Members of groups will support each other first, before non-members. And there are those who don't fit, or don't want to fit, in with any group. The mingling of every culture in the world in one country manifests problems that must be dealt with that no other country has had to face. The one common culture which we have tried to impress on each other is that, somehow, we will all try to live together (compare how the US responded in WW2 - merging all the cultures together for a common cause - with Germany's divisive 'it's them or us' attitude resulting in anyone perceived as 'different' being executed on sight.). So I get irritated when the US is compared to other countries. We are unique. Those places in the world where multi-culturalism is evolving (primarily due to immigration) are beginning to experience the same growing pains this country has been dealing with since day one - and they are beginning to understand the problems which the US has managed (sometimes with great diffulty and a civil war) to work through for the last 200+ years. The people in the US were forced to live together in order to survive. You had to build up everything from scratch. That creates a bond. Also they had common enemies, and a common country to live in. Most of the multicultural problems were created when you imported people from Africa. This is still a struggle for you, although there seems to be a slow but solid improvement over the years. Our multicultural problems were created - when we imported people from Africa.- This happened only 40 years ago, so our problems are relatively new. I just don't hope we will need civil wars to solve it. What you are trying to point out however is the grand difference between countries in the EU (which will always consist out of different countries with completely different cultures, so very difficult to make any decisions), and the states of the US. You are one country, though with different cultural backgrounds, your country did not originally consist out of many countries different countries (well, the Indians were, but it is well known what happened to them (not to blame you, we did worse things with our colonies at that time). Even if we (the EU) will ever become one country, the fact that the ground (cities, etc) has been from so many diverse countries will limit the union of the people, even if we are 3 or 400 years from now. Also the countries in the EU are much more diverse than the people who came to the US (which were mostly from Western Europe).
|
|
|
Post by aj1983 on Mar 1, 2010 20:45:29 GMT
This sort of debate should probably take place in the general area of the boards...But seriously, any powerful nation would have retaliated under similar circumstances. It's a fairly simple "Give him to us or we'll try to get him ourselves." sort of thing. But I think the grand conspiracy this thread is SUPPOSED to be about is either a conspiracy to take control under the threat of global warming...or a conspiracy to suppress information about global warming. Probably all of the conspiracies you name here are non-existing. I think the above reason for the attack on Afghanistan is reasonable. That does not mean there might have been groups or persons with a different agenda. There always are. The reasons for attacking Irak (for the second time) I don't really understand, but I think are much more shady...
|
|
|
Post by hunter on Mar 1, 2010 20:49:03 GMT
It does not take a back-of-the-room X-Files secret group to set up conditions where a lot of people can believe and act on stupid incorrect ideas. AGW is just one of many. The AIDS example- which started out as a global apocalypse gonna-kill-us-all plague was a great example by jtom. The great ice age of the 1970's has been well discussed, even if the AGW community still pretends it was not widely accepted.
|
|
|
Post by aj1983 on Mar 1, 2010 21:01:20 GMT
Ok, back to conspiracy vis-a-vis global warming. I think some make the mistake of finding a 'conspiracy' when the situation is simply desperate groups acting in their own self-interest finding it advantageous to promote the same lie or distortion. The groups each know it's a lie, but go along with it. If anything, it's a conspiracy of silence. They need not interact with each other, just play along. I'll give you an actual example that I witnessed in close quarters since I had one foot in research and one in politics (only on the edges). It's a 'no-no' topic that is very un-PC to discuss, but since I've already stepped on a great many toes here, I'll just dive right in: it's the great Heterosexual AIDS epidemic. (just for the record, I am in no way trying to minimize the tragedy of the illness or its victims, editorializing on lifestyles, or anything else - only the 'silent conspiracy that took place). The players were the Gay Community, Surgeon General C. Everett Koop, health research community, and of course the MSM. You all know the effect AIDS has had in the Gay Community. You may not know that Koop is a conservative Christian doctor who was the Surgeon General during the Reagan administration. As a Christian, he strongly believes in monogamy. All the research (I was in a position where had access to the actual research papers, not the MSM version) indicated there was only one specific sexual act which could transmit AIDS effectively, and it was not an act widely practiced among heterosexuals (at least back then - no idea today!). Heterosexuals were not at risk sexually, but you had to look at the viral transmission vectors to determine that. But the Gay Community was demanding unlimited funding to end the disease. Moreover, it was becoming clear that the 'sexual revolution' (I was never drafted, sigh) was screeching to a halt over fear. Koop emphasized the danger of the disease, helped get funds to research AIDS, and always implied the safety of being monogamous. The research community was very happy to get the added funding, and the MSM had a really good crisis to sell - one that could affect every reader. None of the groups publicized the research that indicated heterosexuals were NOT at risk. The data wasn't hidden, but you had to interpret it yourself. Moreover, since heterosexuals COULD perform that act, I'm sure researchers had no reluctance in making the assumption that they DID do it (it's all in the assumptions, isn't it?). Several scientists tried to point out the facts; the Gay Community labeled them homophobic. At one point Oprah (yeah, the 'crisis' was THAT popular) announced this on her show in 1987: “Research studies now project that one in five — listen to me, hard to believe — one in five heterosexuals could be dead from AIDS at the end of the next three years. That’s by 1990. One in five. It is no longer just a gay disease. Believe me.” (Notice the use of the word 'could', followed with the certainty of AIDS being a heterosexual problem) Of course 1990 came and went, with no epidemic. Then 1991, 1992, 1993, and the MSM slowly dropped the AIDS epidemic stories, moving on to another crisis. The research resulted in AIDS being treatable, quieting the Gay Community. Koop moved on to the private sector. (There were 'losers' in this. Several diseases such as heart disease, stroke, and some cancers lost research funding despite more people suffering and dying from those ailments than AIDS). But the epidemic just faded out in the memories of the general population. I see a very strong parallel today with AGE. A convergence of interests where no actual conspiracy is required, groups reinforcing each other using a known distortion of reality to get what they each seek. I also see the same tactics being used: labeling the 'non-believers', promoting fear, predictions of doom, diversion of funds, treating assumptions as facts, and holding back information that could 'dilute the message.' So, if AIDS is not dangerous for heterosexuals, all Africans must be practicing what is still by law forbidden in many US states or be gay right? No wonder you don't want to accept the results of AGW research (I'm not talking about the alarmism which have been used widely on both topics). The fact that homosexuals have a greater risk of AIDS can be explained by many other reasons, which, inconveniently (yeah, there you have that word again) do not exclude a risk for heterosexuals. Still, it is clear that monogamy reduces the risk of getting AIDS by reducing the risk of having sex with someone who is infected by it.
|
|
|
Post by scpg02 on Mar 1, 2010 23:08:34 GMT
So, if AIDS is not dangerous for heterosexuals, all Africans must be practicing what is still by law forbidden in many US states or be gay right? No wonder you don't want to accept the results of AGW research (I'm not talking about the alarmism which have been used widely on both topics). The fact that homosexuals have a greater risk of AIDS can be explained by many other reasons, which, inconveniently (yeah, there you have that word again) do not exclude a risk for heterosexuals. Still, it is clear that monogamy reduces the risk of getting AIDS by reducing the risk of having sex with someone who is infected by it. AIDS in Africa may not be what you think. There are few if any AIDS tests in AFrica so how do they really know how many people have AIDS? AIDS IN AFRICAIn Search of the Truth By Rian Malan Rolling Stone 22 Nov. 2001 www.virusmyth.com/aids/hiv/rmafrica.htm
|
|