That one went by me. Pearl harbor? Singapore?
Japan got the US into the war?
It’s all the damn oil in my ears. I can’t think.
Well golly gee bloom, show me when the IRA killed 3000 people in the US and I’ll concede that we were morons for not taking them out earlier. Did a lot of their money come from the US? Yep. Should we have done more to stop them? Sure, they’re assholes. Do you have absolute proof that the US was behind the IRA? Want to tell me how, exactly, the US government supported the IRA? You can’t, because they didn’t. Also explain how we’re the biggest supporters of terror in history, b/c that’s just crazy talk. RE: your blather about Iran Contra etc. etc.; you’re absolutely right they were misguided policies (in retrospect) but can you honestly not see what has changed in the past year (or hell, since the Cold War ended for that matter)? Now it’s dangerous to support small, extra-national groups simply because they’re NOT controllable and they can possibly take out an entire city. Before it was an accepted part of foreign policy practiced by both the USSR and the US (and probably other nations too). So yea, I think now the US is waging war on terror (or, more precisely, small extra-national groups) because there’s a danger of this low-level conflict getting out of hand. Now, unless you think a world where the likes of Al Qaeda roam around unchecked is ideal, explain to me why our past policies somehow invalidate what we’re trying to do now. Now we can scream about trade agreements all you want but let’s face it, the EU is looking out for its economic interests (and slanting the news its way) and the US is doing the same thing. So stop pretending like all Europe has done is be reasonable and nice and the US just stomped all over them. You’re not victims, simply players in the game.
RE: Wring’s statements: then why are we in the Phillipines? I think this really will be a ‘war on terror’ all over the globe. The stakes in allowing these groups any safe haven is just too dangerous. It’ll take time, of course, but I would imagine that we’ll eventually even go back to that shithole Somalia if we find proof that AQ is there. Even though we are the US, allegedly the only super power left (which I disagree with, BTW), we can’t do everything all at once. I personally think a UN-backed police action using regional allies backed by US (and European) military might is the way to take out any problem state. Hopefully that’s how this little conflict will play out.
When you’re confronting evil all bets are off. Mandela was.
Then what the fuck is this first strike policy (which you support) all about, oh espouser of crass over-simplifications ?
Or perhaps you’re telling us you didn’t support the US action in Afghanistan post 9/11 – which is it ?
For someone so damn curious, you don’t seem to read too well. Read my post again and look for words like “resolution”, “calling” and “for”.
BTW, are there really people on this board that don’t understand the linkage between the (historic) position of the US on IRA terrorism and Irish-American (Catholic) voting / fundraising power ?
Exactly. Also, the “global reach” part of the Pax Bushicana.
In debate we used to call this a flip or a turnaround. The only way out is to define evil as apartheid but not the evil Bush wants to confront.
As for allowing IRA fundraising through Sinn Fein on U.S. soil, that’s bad, and always has been.
bloomingidiot, please go back to democratic underground and don’t come back. You’re annoying us, and making an ass out of yourself.
My request is simple. I just want a cite for this little gem from bloomingpouf:
Mainstream source please. Thx.
Grim
[SIZE=3]
I wonder about Dick Cheney - VICE PRESIDENT - was considering when he was saying the following:
One has to consider also that the following occured:
"
Call me a conspiracy theorist if you like - But I don’t work in the Oil Industry any more _ I just used to deal with the Guys who were nogotiating the deals and backing from the Interested Governments to get at the Oil and gas in the Caspian Basin!
Today the Caspian and tommow the Tarim Basin in China - and have a look at how close it is to Afghanistan and even Pakistan!
Dearest Darling Debaser or is that Deb-ASS-er???
You can kep up the Adhominem attacks as much as you like. You reveal your arrogance when you can’t belive that your own government could be a bit nasty. I mean - the CIA have never ben naught and involved in Regional Insatability - such as occured when they wee giving Guns, Amunition and even a few Surface to Ait Missiles like the stinger to a group called the Taliban back in the 1980’s???
You wonder if the USofA has had any interest in Afghanistan and the Caspian basin - they have and the Government was doing it long before 9/11
A Farewell to Flashman: American policy in the Caucasus and Central Asia
by Strobe Talbott
Address at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, Baltimore, Maryland
US Department of State Dispatch, July 1997
http://www.treemedia.com/cfrlibrary/library/policy/talbott.html
I love the bit where it says:
“It would matter profoundly to the United States if that were to happen in an area that sits on as much as 200 billion barrels of oil. That is yet another reason why conflict resolution must be job one for U.S. policy in the region: It is both the prerequisite for and an accompaniment to energy development.”
If you and your friends want tpo play Holy Patriot - off you go. Others are able to have valid and supported opinions bvased upon facts and infromation you refuse to look at!
You can throw your Ad Hominem atacks but they only reveal your weakness and inability to counter the information. It’s the oldest and the laziest Trick in the Book - Kill the messenger cos you don’t like the message. How Mature - rational and indicative of a fine mind… NOT!
OOOOOOOHHHHHHH, this is an Oops, boys and girls!!!
The last 2 messages went up in my name instead of BloomingPoufs because I forgot to logout when I was using the computer earlier.
Sorry if this caused any confusion to those of you who can’t grasp the concept of two people sharing a computer.
Been doing a bit of research myself. All from mainstream sources. Pay attention to the dates.
26 October, 1997
A senior official of the dominant power in Afghanistan, the Taleban, says it has not agreed any deal for a gas pipeline across the country linking Turkmenistan to Pakistan.
December 4, 1997
Taliban in Texas for talks on gas pipeline.
10 December, 1997
US pledges support for Afghan oil pipeline if Taliban makes peace.
December 29, 1997
Race to unlock Central Asia’s energy riches.
August 22, 1998
Trans-Afghan pipeline cancelled after US attacks.
June, 2000 (My italics)
30 August, 2000
New proposals to build a pipeline from Turkmenistan’s gas and oil fields across Afghanistan to Pakistan.
29 October, 2001
Controversial op-ed from non-controversial source, the Editor of Oil and Gas International:
30 May, 2002
Afghan pipeline given go-ahead.
16 September, 2002
Officials from Afghanistan, Pakistan and Turkmenistan are meeting in the Afghan capital, Kabul, to discuss the details of a long-delayed pipeline project that will pump natural gas across the three countries.
Finally, the identity of Unocal’s Afghan pipeline adviser: Enron.
Interesting links Zombies
Energy Information Association - educational.
This is becoming a dead horse, but anyway:
Afghanistan
http://www.eia.doe.gov/eme
If you want to get into exact figures, Nationalist forces were responsible for just over 1600 or so of the Casualties in Northern Ireland.
Dont forget there were (and still are) Loyalist groups that were aided and abeited by representatives of her Majesties government to kill innocent Nationalist civillians.
The UK government has helped terrorist forces, and for years assisted a system of gerrymander to preserve an unfair Unionist government in Northern Ireland.
And if you want to get into the US governments anti terrorist record, best not mention Coloumbia, or Chile, or any of the right wing Coups that the CIA helped fund and achieve…
bloomingpouf
I don’t think that article provides the information you think it does. The request for a cite was for this quote of yours:
This quote says, in essence, that the US Government (i.e. the President or a spokesperson speaking on the administrations behalf and with the President’s approval) has specifically stated that a goal of the administration is to change the Afghanistan government in order for private oil corporations to get access to Kazakhs Oil Reserves. In addition you state that this was a stance that has been held by multiple presidents and administrations since the 80’s per your quote here from page 1:
I’ve read the article you cited. It doesn’t say anything of the sort. Let’s look at the three excerpts you provided.
I’m sorry but this is simply unacceptable. Who is the unnamed energy expert cited here? An anonymous source indicating what he thinks U.S. policy is does not constitute a public declaration by the U.S. Gubment of the same.
As you know Cheney wasn’t V.P. at the time of this quote. So how could it possibly represent official U.S. foreign policy position in any capacity?
This may be so but it’s completely meaningless. Just because a U.S. department and/or commission documents a situation in no way constitutes a declaration of foreign policy intent. The gov’ment does this sort of thing ALL the time. The government is constantly doing studies. Geopolitical analysis. What-if-scenarios. Scientific studies. Economic research. etc. etc. None of these studies automatically mean a policy change, foreign or otherwise.
I’m willing to keep an open mind here but I’m going to require something which more directly address my request for a cite. Before posting another cite please keep in mind that for it to be valid it needs to:
-
Be from a named source. No anonymous quotes.
-
Be from a person in office at the time of the quote.
-
Be from a person representing U.S. government foreign policy and speaking in that capacity as representative (NOT their opinion).
-
Indicate a foreign policy intent to cause a government change in Afghanistan for the explicit purpose of taking advantage of Kazakhs oil reserves.
No op-ed pieces please unless they fulfill the above requirements.
Grim
If you try to convince a schizo the voices in his head aren’t real, he’ll just dismiss you and think you’re “in on it.” The same goes for folks like bloomingpouf. He’s got a load of info which he’s warped into a conspiracy, and no amount of convincing will get him to change his mind. To him, we’re all just mindless idiots with blinders on.
He was probably thinking: with all this need for oil & natural gas extraction , in addition to the Military Infrastructure required for a future regime change and occupation in Iraq, who wouldn’t want to invest in This company?
Wow. Good job Bush cleaning up the al-Qaeda problem in Yemen, Afghanistan, The Phillipines, Pakistan, and Angola, and brokering peace between Israel and Palestine. Clears our schedule to take on Iraq.
Wait a minute, he did none of the above.
He has been directly responsible for the growing rapprochment between those long term enemies, Iran and Iraq. I mean, credit where credit is due, those guys used to be rabid enemies! Our Leader has brought them closer to mutual understanding.
Now that’s no mean feat! “Blessed are the peacemakers”, and all that.
The exact figures according to CAIN are 2043 deaths from republican paramilitaries, of which 1706 are attributable to the IRA. Still a hell of a lot less than were killed in 9/11, bloomingpouf.
ruadh, twisty and others…. I did a rather morbid, and extremely rough, extrapolation of numbers the other day…what would you think of this:
9/11: Just under 3,000 deaths from a population of 280 million
Omagh: 29 deaths from a population (in the North) of 1.6 million
Omagh: 29 deaths from a population in the whole of Ireland (3.6 million + 1.6 million) 5.2 million
That would mean – very obviously not in absolute numbers but strictly in relative terms apropos the impact of terrorism on that particular society – that the Omagh bombing would be considerably more significant to the North than was 9/11 to the US as a whole.
Again, just in terms of the direct impact of terrorism on a particular society (radicalising, traumatising, etc rather than sheer quantity of human misery, etc) , the *effect *of Omagh on the North would seem to be far more significant than was 9/11 (if it didn’t come at the end of 30 years of same on a community already traumatised to some extent)
Given that the goal of terrorism is to influence society, that would seem to be a valid way to view the direct effect of terrorism on a community/society ?
London: How does the effect on the people and their attitude differ? The American response to Pearl Harbor, for example, was
“They sank our fleet! Let’s kick their ass!”
We ain’t used to this.
Compare and contrast.
There will be an exam on Tuesday.
CP