Army Guy Posted March 1, 2017 Author Report Posted March 1, 2017 16 hours ago, hot enough said: You mean a clue that the US was more than willing to do business with these people, was willing to wine and dine them in the US, was willing to take them on US tours, was willing to produce school books for them that were filled with propaganda for war? You still don't get it, The US white House see's leaders from all around the world, some good, some bad....in fact our own PM has spent a day there , Can we say for sure what was discussed, or set to stone by signing paper work....No and yet some how you want us to believe because they were in the US that something very bad was agreed to, and when the US could not get what it wanted it used force to do so.......You have no proof, no facts just a bunch of maybes....maybes are not facts.....there guesses, they are false news....But then again iof you had the proof the US would be in hot water with the UN and inter national law would it not..... I've asked for proof or facts and you've provided nothing of any substance.....You are bringing these maybes forward, it is up to you to prove them..... Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
Army Guy Posted March 1, 2017 Author Report Posted March 1, 2017 16 hours ago, hot enough said: I have to ask if you can read or at least if you can comprehend what you read. The entire article is about the TAPI pipeline, the acronym T-A-P-I STANDS FOR, from your source, " Turkmenistan- Afghanistan-Pakistan-India, " "... is planned to become operational in 2018. India and Pakistan were originally to get 38 mmscmd each while the remaining 14 mmscmd was to be supplied to Afghanistan. Turkmenistan, which sits on the world's fourth-largest gas reserves, started building its section of the 1,814-kilometre last December, but the three other countries have yet to begin work on their parts of the pipeline. The pipeline will travel 773 km in Afghanistan and 827 km in Pakistan before ending at Fazilka (Punjab) in India.Read more at: http://www.moneycontrol.com/news/current-affairs/tapi-project-pact-inked-for-36200-mn-investmentstudies_6193081.html?utm_source=ref_article Yes i can read and comprehend sources..... There are a couple of pipelines in discussion right now, yours the caspian sea pipeline, an oil pipeline, which was suppose to run through Afghanistan and has not been built nor is it planned to be built..... two very different pipelines.....but these are the only pipelines mentioned for Afghanistan.....if you have a different source please provide....I did explain the difference between the two, thought you would be able to keep up..... There is the TAPI pipeline which is a natural gas pipeline which is suppose to be routed through afghanistan, which for the most part is built "with the exception of the Afghanistan portion" which as of 2016 has not been started, in fact it may never get started, as the security levels are not even close to being able to build pipelines....which take enormous resources to protect....and Afghanistan does not have those resources.... Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
Army Guy Posted March 1, 2017 Author Report Posted March 1, 2017 16 hours ago, hot enough said: This conversation is not headed where you are too frightened to go, but if you aren't willing to address issues that illustrate the lies, then you can't make claims that you are being fair. I'm very confident in the information I have to provide. Why is everyone so unwilling to discuss it? I am more than willing to look at anything anyone wants to provide in order to resolve the issues. And discuss it. I gave you the opportunity to make your own topic.....You chose not to, the topic i chose is Canada's Afghanistan mission and it's myths...No where does it mentions anything about conspiracy theories about what happened on the day of 9/11. try to maintain focus....of course your always free to make your own topic.... You've have no proof on the topics of pipe lines........and you have no proof on the mineral theories.....reality has shown us that the US military has withdrawn most of it's military forces from Afghanistan, with plans to total withdrawal when the Afghanistan military is able to handle all of it's tasks., and some how your suggesting that in the middle of the night a US C-5M is going to land and scoop up all this shit.....so lets recap , no pipelines now or in the near future......no major effort to extract minerals......No major US companies in country...... But since you have no proof on these topics , now you want to get into the theory that 9/11 was a hoax, carried out by the CIA, so they could invade Afghanistan, because of aircraft can not produce the heat or impact to topple a modern skyscraper.....sorry i can not go down that rabbit hole with you...nor will I find another sucker....and another topic. Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
GostHacked Posted March 2, 2017 Report Posted March 2, 2017 The invasion of Afghanistan was all about pipelines. But some of us who said that years ago were called crazy loons. 2 Quote
Army Guy Posted March 2, 2017 Author Report Posted March 2, 2017 11 minutes ago, GostHacked said: The invasion of Afghanistan was all about pipelines. But some of us who said that years ago were called crazy loons. Your so right Gost...infact there must be thousands of pipelines built by now, perhaps you can name one.....just one anyone....I did not call you a loon , but if it quacks like a loon, walks like a loon, odds are it is a loon... Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
hot enough Posted March 2, 2017 Report Posted March 2, 2017 15 hours ago, Army Guy said: Yes i can read and comprehend sources..... There are a couple of pipelines in discussion right now, yours the caspian sea pipeline, an oil pipeline, which was suppose to run through Afghanistan and has not been built nor is it planned to be built..... two very different pipelines.....but these are the only pipelines mentioned for Afghanistan.....if you have a different source please provide....I did explain the difference between the two, thought you would be able to keep up..... There is the TAPI pipeline which is a natural gas pipeline which is suppose to be routed through afghanistan, which for the most part is built "with the exception of the Afghanistan portion" which as of 2016 has not been started, in fact it may never get started, as the security levels are not even close to being able to build pipelines....which take enormous resources to protect....and Afghanistan does not have those resources.... I provided many sources, many different sources, many different news sources, which you seemed incapable of reading or comprehending. You have provided no sources whatsoever. Now I can understand that you have a great deal emotionally invested in this, but exactly that and the complete abscence of you providing any sources is very telling. You maligning people is highly illustrative of just how deep your emotional investment is. Your absolute refusal to look at the science is also very telling. The scientists who went to WTC with FEMA, the ones who described the absolutely impossible molten/vaporized steel [4,000+F] are not conspiracy theorists. The RJ Lee Group, who described vaporized lead [3,180F], molybdenum [4,700F], molten iron [2,800F] are not "conspiracy theorists". http://www.consensus911.org/point-tt-6/ The thousands of scientists, architects, engineers, lawyers, scholars, firemen, ... are not "conspiracy theorists". The scientists who independently discovered active thermitic material in the WTC dust, not to mention others after them who back their findings, are not "conspiracy theorists". Niels H. Harrit*,1, Jeffrey Farrer2 , Steven E. Jones*,3, Kevin R. Ryan4 , Frank M. Legge5 , Daniel Farnsworth2 , Gregg Roberts6 , James R. Gourley7 and Bradley R. Larsen3 1 Department of Chemistry, University of Copenhagen, Denmark 2 Department of Physics and Astronomy, Brigham Young University, Provo, UT 84602, USA 3 S&J Scientific Co., Provo, UT, 84606, USA 4 9/11 Working Group of Bloomington, Bloomington, IN 47401, USA 5 Logical Systems Consulting, Perth, Western Australia 6 Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, Berkeley, CA 94704, USA 7 International Center for 9/11 Studies, Dallas, TX 75231, USA https://benthamopen.com/contents/pdf/TOCPJ/TOCPJ-2-7.pdf They haven't been fired from their positions. The real "loons" are the ones who won't address the science, and most telling in this present situation, the ones who can't even provide their own sources, or read and understand those provided by others. Quote
dre Posted March 2, 2017 Report Posted March 2, 2017 18 hours ago, Army Guy said: Your so right Gost...infact there must be thousands of pipelines built by now, perhaps you can name one.....just one anyone....I did not call you a loon , but if it quacks like a loon, walks like a loon, odds are it is a loon... The fact that there's no pipelines doesn't mean pipelines were not part of the original plan. The morons that dreamed up that mission thought they would easily be able to install a puppet government and secure the country relatively quickly. What they didn't understand is the tribal nature of regions in Afghanistan, and the fact that no revenue stream exists in the country to fund a central government capable of providing security to the whole country and its remote regions. Not to mention they put organized criminals in charge that had no intention of getting rid of the Taliban or wrestling control away from the regional warlords that really run the place. So it makes sense that under those conditions, and given the colossal and epic failure of the mission, any pipeline plans that may have existed would have been abandoned. I'm not saying pipelines were a major motivator... Just saying your logic for dismissing them is nonsensical. My feeling is that the US just wanted a big show of force after 911. They weren't equipped for real counter terrorism operations, and had very little real human intelligence there. What they WERE equipped to do is explode a lot of things and blow a lot of big holes in the ground, so that's what they did. Its interesting that after the Oklahoma bombing and before Timothy Mcvey was identified as the perp, the US government was already talking about attacking Afghanistan THEN too. So it would seem that 911 was just a justification to do something that they had already wanted to do for a while. And as I said before profiteering was also a major motive. If you could put a miniature tracking device on each of the trillions of dollars wasted on the war on Terror to see who has all that money now, I think you would be surprised. My guess is that most of that money went directly to government lobbying US contractors, and never even left the US. The mother of all pork barrels. You can call me a conspiracy theorist, but you will have to call President and Army General Dwight Eisenhower a conspiracy theorist too... Quote In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. The reality is that selling a false sense of security to fear-dumb Americans is the most lucrative and profitable endeavor in the history of the world. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
Army Guy Posted March 2, 2017 Author Report Posted March 2, 2017 6 hours ago, hot enough said: I provided many sources, many different sources, many different news sources, which you seemed incapable of reading or comprehending. You have provided no sources whatsoever. Now I can understand that you have a great deal emotionally invested in this, but exactly that and the complete abscence of you providing any sources is very telling. You maligning people is highly illustrative of just how deep your emotional investment is. Your absolute refusal to look at the science is also very telling. The scientists who went to WTC with FEMA, the ones who described the absolutely impossible molten/vaporized steel [4,000+F] are not conspiracy theorists. The RJ Lee Group, who described vaporized lead [3,180F], molybdenum [4,700F], molten iron [2,800F] are not "conspiracy theorists". http://www.consensus911.org/point-tt-6/ The thousands of scientists, architects, engineers, lawyers, scholars, firemen, ... are not "conspiracy theorists". The scientists who independently discovered active thermitic material in the WTC dust, not to mention others after them who back their findings, are not "conspiracy theorists". Niels H. Harrit*,1, Jeffrey Farrer2 , Steven E. Jones*,3, Kevin R. Ryan4 , Frank M. Legge5 , Daniel Farnsworth2 , Gregg Roberts6 , James R. Gourley7 and Bradley R. Larsen3 1 Department of Chemistry, University of Copenhagen, Denmark 2 Department of Physics and Astronomy, Brigham Young University, Provo, UT 84602, USA 3 S&J Scientific Co., Provo, UT, 84606, USA 4 9/11 Working Group of Bloomington, Bloomington, IN 47401, USA 5 Logical Systems Consulting, Perth, Western Australia 6 Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, Berkeley, CA 94704, USA 7 International Center for 9/11 Studies, Dallas, TX 75231, USA https://benthamopen.com/contents/pdf/TOCPJ/TOCPJ-2-7.pdf They haven't been fired from their positions. The real "loons" are the ones who won't address the science, and most telling in this present situation, the ones who can't even provide their own sources, or read and understand those provided by others. Your not interested in debating the Canadian myths about this mission, in fact your trying to continue another topic that you started here before..that ended with everyone calling your ideas crazy.....so you duped me into this post not having read your orginal post ... Sorry i to think your theories are on the wild side...I did provide you with plenty of sources, however your the one that is making incredible statements with NO proof, yes you have provided sources from gods know where that mention secret reports, or government here say....with no actual reports......Here's a sample disneyland has also produced a report one that sees perhaps mickey and mini have had a hand in the downing of the twin towers, using a stolen laser from the props warehouse and a powerful magnet purchased from INC that was used to drag those planes from the sky, while the laser vaporized them just as they struck the building for good visual effects...this theory has been proven by a long list of scientist, including the famous "Goofy" who stakes his reputation on the whole event... Now you can call me crazy or a loon, or someone that can not read a source or comprehend the topic at hand.....What i can tell you was during my 3 tours in Afghanistan, not once did i see a pipe line.....nor did i see any new mining operations....these things would have been major targets for the taliban, and NATO would have been briefed on them.....and with the down sizing of NATO military personal and equipment building those things and keeping them from being a target for the taliban is a fairy tale....they knew that before the mission started and they know that now....i guess we will see if this New Natural gas pipeline gets built in 2019....I got 10 bucks says in does not..... 1 Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
hot enough Posted March 2, 2017 Report Posted March 2, 2017 Sure I am, but this silly notion that certain topics are off the table when it is all so intricately connected is really loony. Quote
Army Guy Posted March 2, 2017 Author Report Posted March 2, 2017 1 hour ago, dre said: The fact that there's no pipelines doesn't mean pipelines were not part of the original plan. The morons that dreamed up that mission thought they would easily be able to install a puppet government and secure the country relatively quickly. What they didn't understand is the tribal nature of regions in Afghanistan, and the fact that no revenue stream exists in the country to fund a central government capable of providing security to the whole country and its remote regions. Not to mention they put organized criminals in charge that had no intention of getting rid of the Taliban or wrestling control away from the regional warlords that really run the place. So it makes sense that under those conditions, and given the colossal and epic failure of the mission, any pipeline plans that may have existed would have been abandoned. I'm not saying pipelines were a major motivator... Just saying your logic for dismissing them is nonsensical. My feeling is that the US just wanted a big show of force after 911. They weren't equipped for real counter terrorism operations, and had very little real human intelligence there. What they WERE equipped to do is explode a lot of things and blow a lot of big holes in the ground, so that's what they did. Its interesting that after the Oklahoma bombing and before Timothy Mcvey was identified as the perp, the US government was already talking about attacking Afghanistan THEN too. So it would seem that 911 was just a justification to do something that they had already wanted to do for a while. And as I said before profiteering was also a major motive. If you could put a miniature tracking device on each of the trillions of dollars wasted on the war on Terror to see who has all that money now, I think you would be surprised. My guess is that most of that money went directly to government lobbying US contractors, and never even left the US. The mother of all pork barrels. You can call me a conspiracy theorist, but you will have to call President and Army General Dwight Eisenhower a conspiracy theorist too... The reality is that selling a false sense of security to fear-dumb Americans is the most lucrative and profitable endeavor in the history of the world. Are you kidding me....how many soldiers would you need to protect 700 KM of pipeline, how much funding would be needed to fund just that.....when NATO could not even get countries to ante up more troops for fighting.... Let alone to talk about the costs....Even the US has it's limits , and i'm pretty sure they don't spend 100 to make a 1 dollar profit.... Not to mention that the mineral surveys were done near the end of the conflict.....trillions of dollars just waiting in the ground for someone to dig up.....and yet it still remains in the ground....maybe next time...Now you may of been convinced , but here in reality were the sky is blue, why would you leave all that stuff in the ground, and not build a pipeline if it was your main objective...... Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
dre Posted March 2, 2017 Report Posted March 2, 2017 (edited) 20 minutes ago, Army Guy said: Are you kidding me....how many soldiers would you need to protect 700 KM of pipeline, how much funding would be needed to fund just that.....when NATO could not even get countries to ante up more troops for fighting.... Let alone to talk about the costs....Even the US has it's limits , and i'm pretty sure they don't spend 100 to make a 1 dollar profit.... Not to mention that the mineral surveys were done near the end of the conflict.....trillions of dollars just waiting in the ground for someone to dig up.....and yet it still remains in the ground....maybe next time...Now you may of been convinced , but here in reality were the sky is blue, why would you leave all that stuff in the ground, and not build a pipeline if it was your main objective...... The pipeline plan had nothing to do with minerals in Afghanistan. It had to do with getting natural gas from the Dauletabad Field Turkmenistan to existing pipelines in Malta. The US took the plan seriously enough to appoint Zalmay Khalilzad (an oil company adviser for Unical who had been trying to negotiate a pipeline deal with the Taliban since 1997) as special envoy to Afghanistan and special adviser to Donal Rumsfeld. I think they would have loved to build that pipeline but they just gave up on the idea once it became apparent that the mission was a colossal failure and it would be impossible to provide security for a 16km pipeline across western Afghanistan. Quote Now you may of been convinced , but here in reality were the sky is blue, why would you leave all that stuff in the ground, and not build a pipeline if it was your main objective..... Before you declare that your opinion is "reality" it might behoove you to do at least a tiny bit of research on the subject. And I never said I was convinced... I think the pipeline maybe have been a factor but I dont really know. I think profiteering and sheer stupidity and misplaced optimism were probably bigger factors. Remember these are the retards that said the Iraq project would "pay for itself" and take "a few months". And like I said, the US wanted to put on a show of force after 911, and they had a huge conventional military that they had spent trillions on. When the only tool you have is a hammer everything looks like a nail. The US wasnt going to be satisfied with only covert counter terrorism action as a response to 911... They wanted fireworks and saw dirt poor Afghanistan as an easy target to set an example for everyone else. Edited March 2, 2017 by dre Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
eyeball Posted March 3, 2017 Report Posted March 3, 2017 On 2/27/2017 at 7:36 PM, Army Guy said: Afghanistan was all about big oil,... No it wasn't, it's the ME that was all about Big Oil. Afghanistan was merely a repercussion of that. 1 Quote I said now watch what you say they'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, oh fanatical criminal
dre Posted March 3, 2017 Report Posted March 3, 2017 21 minutes ago, eyeball said: No it wasn't, it's the ME that was all about Big Oil. Afghanistan was merely a repercussion of that. I think the two factors were these... 1. A show of force after 911. The worlds superpower could not be seen doing nothing after the biggest attack on it since Pearl Harbor. 2. The liquidation of military equipment for the purpose of certain corporations close to the government making a shitload of profit replacing it. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
Army Guy Posted March 4, 2017 Author Report Posted March 4, 2017 On 3/2/2017 at 5:49 PM, dre said: The pipeline plan had nothing to do with minerals in Afghanistan. It had to do with getting natural gas from the Dauletabad Field Turkmenistan to existing pipelines in Malta. The US took the plan seriously enough to appoint Zalmay Khalilzad (an oil company adviser for Unical who had been trying to negotiate a pipeline deal with the Taliban since 1997) as special envoy to Afghanistan and special adviser to Donal Rumsfeld. I think they would have loved to build that pipeline but they just gave up on the idea once it became apparent that the mission was a colossal failure and it would be impossible to provide security for a 16km pipeline across western Afghanistan. Before you declare that your opinion is "reality" it might behoove you to do at least a tiny bit of research on the subject. And I never said I was convinced... I think the pipeline maybe have been a factor but I dont really know. I think profiteering and sheer stupidity and misplaced optimism were probably bigger factors. Remember these are the retards that said the Iraq project would "pay for itself" and take "a few months". And like I said, the US wanted to put on a show of force after 911, and they had a huge conventional military that they had spent trillions on. When the only tool you have is a hammer everything looks like a nail. The US wasnt going to be satisfied with only covert counter terrorism action as a response to 911... They wanted fireworks and saw dirt poor Afghanistan as an easy target to set an example for everyone else. I Get that, neither has anything to do with the other, however, people are saying if it is not the pipeline then it was for the minerals both theories are Bullshit....Yes US companies were trying to gather favor for the pipeline, that was up until the first set of cruise missile strikes took out several terrorist camps in Afghanistan. Shortly thereafter, however, the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were blown up, leading the United States to launch cruse missile strikes against OBL's camps in Afghanistan. These and related developments led Unocal to withdraw from CentGas, convinced that Afghanistan under the Taliban would never have the peace and stability needed for the pipeline project.38 Rashid, finishing his book in mid-1999, wrote that the Clinton Administration had shifted its support to the pipeline route from Azerbaijan through Georgia to Turkey, adding that "by now nobody wanted to touch Afghanistan and the Taliban."39 http://www.911myths.com/html/9_11_and_the_afghan_pipeline.html Notice the time line, well before the 9/11, and the Unocal had already decided to cancel the afghan route and move it to another which is built today and running....where the Afghan route is still not built....so why would the US, if it was it's objective to do anything to get this pipeline through risk it all by launching a few cruise missiles at OBL camps... Quote Let's recap. America themselves contributed to the killing of the Afghan pipeline project by refusing to recognise the Taliban, and launching a missile attack on bin Ladin. Griffin's own source tells us that they shifted their support to another route that didn't cross Afghanistan, and agreement was achieved to "take forward the construction" of that back in 1999. Why, then, attack Afghanistan after 9/11? Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
Army Guy Posted March 4, 2017 Author Report Posted March 4, 2017 On 3/2/2017 at 5:49 PM, dre said: Before you declare that your opinion is "reality" it might behoove you to do at least a tiny bit of research on the subject. And I never said I was convinced... I think the pipeline maybe have been a factor but I dont really know. I think profiteering and sheer stupidity and misplaced optimism were probably bigger factors. Remember these are the retards that said the Iraq project would "pay for itself" and take "a few months". And like I said, the US wanted to put on a show of force after 911, and they had a huge conventional military that they had spent trillions on. When the only tool you have is a hammer everything looks like a nail. The US wasnt going to be satisfied with only covert counter terrorism action as a response to 911... They wanted fireworks and saw dirt poor Afghanistan as an easy target to set an example for everyone else. Your convinced enough to post your opinion....and yet bold enough to tell me to do some research.....The fact there is no pipe line in existence today, follow the time line and it will show you, or at least show the common sense portion of the pipeline...... add the UnoCal tears up the proposal before 9/11, then the attack, and then the withdrawal of most of the NATO forces in Afghanistan....without a pipeline....being built....Not to mention the spending of hundreds of bils just in fighting the conflict and hundreds of bils more building new infra structure...Only to come up empty, no pipeline shit not even the trillions in minerals..... why would they invade just for a pipeline then never build it..... Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
dre Posted March 6, 2017 Report Posted March 6, 2017 On 3/4/2017 at 8:30 AM, Army Guy said: I Get that, neither has anything to do with the other, however, people are saying if it is not the pipeline then it was for the minerals both theories are Bullshit....Yes US companies were trying to gather favor for the pipeline, that was up until the first set of cruise missile strikes took out several terrorist camps in Afghanistan. Shortly thereafter, however, the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were blown up, leading the United States to launch cruse missile strikes against OBL's camps in Afghanistan. These and related developments led Unocal to withdraw from CentGas, convinced that Afghanistan under the Taliban would never have the peace and stability needed for the pipeline project.38 Rashid, finishing his book in mid-1999, wrote that the Clinton Administration had shifted its support to the pipeline route from Azerbaijan through Georgia to Turkey, adding that "by now nobody wanted to touch Afghanistan and the Taliban."39 http://www.911myths.com/html/9_11_and_the_afghan_pipeline.html Notice the time line, well before the 9/11, and the Unocal had already decided to cancel the afghan route and move it to another which is built today and running....where the Afghan route is still not built....so why would the US, if it was it's objective to do anything to get this pipeline through risk it all by launching a few cruise missiles at OBL camps... The activity Im talking about happened after 911 not before. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
dre Posted March 6, 2017 Report Posted March 6, 2017 On 3/4/2017 at 8:39 AM, Army Guy said: why would they invade just for a pipeline then never build it..... Its hard to get through a conversation with you when you don't bother to read. I never said they invaded "just for a pipeline". That's a blatant straw man. And I already explained how the assertion that just because they didn't build a pipeline must mean they never planned to. Remember... the morons that planned the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq were outrageously optimistic and drastically underestimated the challenge that bringing stability to these countries post invasion posed. Its quite possible that they WERE interested in building a pipeline but ditched the idea once they realized what an utter failure the mission was, and that would be neither stability or security in post-invasion Afghanistan. If they had been able to stabilize the situation there like the chirpy, gerbil faced optimists behind the invasion thought they easily would, then maybe there WOULD be a pipeline there today. I guess that's what happens when foreign policy is formulated by a guy that's too stupid to go duck hunting without shooting his friends in the face. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
Army Guy Posted March 7, 2017 Author Report Posted March 7, 2017 21 hours ago, dre said: Its hard to get through a conversation with you when you don't bother to read. I never said they invaded "just for a pipeline". That's a blatant straw man. And I already explained how the assertion that just because they didn't build a pipeline must mean they never planned to. Remember... the morons that planned the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq were outrageously optimistic and drastically underestimated the challenge that bringing stability to these countries post invasion posed. Its quite possible that they WERE interested in building a pipeline but ditched the idea once they realized what an utter failure the mission was, and that would be neither stability or security in post-invasion Afghanistan. If they had been able to stabilize the situation there like the chirpy, gerbil faced optimists behind the invasion thought they easily would, then maybe there WOULD be a pipeline there today. I guess that's what happens when foreign policy is formulated by a guy that's too stupid to go duck hunting without shooting his friends in the face. Your right the entire pipeline argument is nothing but a straw man argument....It pisses of some of the liberals that have said over and over that this entire Mission was about pipe lines, and later it would shift to minerals.....Anything but the real reason which was to take down the Taliban and the long list of terrorists...... The planning portion of the pipeline , i am not denying it, it is a matter of record, what i am saying it was not on the US government radar at the time of the invasion or a side objective in the planning of the invasion of Afghanistan.....It was however a concern of Uncal a civilian company that wanted permission to route a pipe line through afghanistan. It is also a matter of record that the US government dropped the pipeline idea before the invasion of afghanistan, it is also a matter of record that uncal also dropped the ball on pipelines in afghanistan, after the first missile strikes for embassy bombings...Not as you quoted when they realized the utter mission failure.....which if you follow the time line is about mid mission, or about 2006 or 2007.....See source i provided you check the time lines, they do not support your story. Has the mission gone as planed i don't doubt they would be a pipeline, had the taliban just laid down and died....but that did not happen, in fact the subject pipeline was rerouted around Afghanistan...... And now there is talk about a TAPI pipe line for natraul gas, which is suppose to be built in 2019, but it to will end up be re routed the situation in afghanistan with the taliban is still not secure.... Quote The pipeline plan had nothing to do with minerals in Afghanistan. It had to do with getting natural gas from the Dauletabad Field Turkmenistan to existing pipelines in Malta. The US took the plan seriously enough to appoint Zalmay Khalilzad (an oil company adviser for Unical who had been trying to negotiate a pipeline deal with the Taliban since 1997) as special envoy to Afghanistan and special adviser to Donal Rumsfeld. I think they would have loved to build that pipeline but they just gave up on the idea once it became apparent that the mission was a colossal failure and it would be impossible to provide security for a 16km pipeline across western Afghanistan. Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
hot enough Posted March 7, 2017 Report Posted March 7, 2017 On 3/2/2017 at 1:27 PM, dre said: You can call me a conspiracy theorist, but you will have to call President and Army General Dwight Eisenhower a conspiracy theorist too... He was just an enabler of the MIC. What did he ever do about it, ole Ike, ole BSing Ike, nothing, not a fookin' thing. Quote
hot enough Posted March 7, 2017 Report Posted March 7, 2017 Both the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan were illegal invasions, no different than the illegal invasions committed by the German Nazis. Just as Hitler lied his way into illegal invasions, so too did the Bush and Blair governments lie their way into illegal invasions. Quote War on Afghanistan is Illegal Posted in Mass Dissent - February 2011 By Thom Cincotta Though President Obama has frequently spoken of “renewing our commitment” to international law, he escalated military action in Afghanistan. The invasion of Afghanistan has been illegal from its inception, contrary to conventional wisdom that the horrific crimes of 9/11 and the Taliban’s “safe haven” for Al Qaeda justified full-scale war. America’s use of military force to punish, seize, kill, or dismantle Al Qaeda and the Taliban violates the Charter of the United Nations, the Geneva Conventions, and key provisions of eleven international agreements dealing with the suppression and control of terrorism.3 U.S. and NATO actions constitute war crimes pursuant to the Rome Statute, the 2002 treaty establishing the International Criminal Court to prosecute genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity.4 The UN Charter prohibits the use and threatened use of any force in member states’ international relations; states must settle their disputes by peaceful means. It prohibits the use of force to topple foreign governments. Article 2 of the Charter prohibits the use or threatened use of forces against another state. The Article 2 prohibition applies to all force and is a rule of customary international law. Professor Francis Boyle reminds us, Bush Jr. went to the UN Security Council to get a resolution authorizing the use of military force against Afghanistan and Al Qaeda. He failed. You have to remember that. This war has never been authorized by the United Nations Security Council . . . . It constitutes an act and a war of aggression by the United States against Afghanistan.5 Article 51 of the Charter, which defines member states’ right of self-defense, does not create any right to make retaliatory attacks or to engage in the use of force to repel anticipated armed attacks. Former Guild President Marjorie Cohn explains that Operation Enduring Freedom was not legitimate self-defense under the Charter because the 9/11 attacks were crimes against humanity, not armed attacks by another country. Furthermore, there was not an imminent threat of an armed attack on the U.S. after 9/11, and the necessity for self-defense must be “instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation.”6 President Bush stretched traditional notions of self-defense by assigning the Taliban regime responsibility based on “harboring” Osama bin Laden and his operation. Not only was the war unjustified, but there is mounting factual evidence that the war is “demonstrably criminal in its execution,” says Canadian military veteran John McNamer. In a brief sent to members of Parliament, McNamer documents substantial allegations of illegal torture; illegal and abusive detainments – sometimes leading to deaths in custody; civilian deaths from bombing and other indiscriminate use of force, and collusion with illegal “renditions” of individuals to and from other countries for purposes of torture.7 All national and international law forbid the killing of non-combatants. Total civilian deaths caused by U.S. led military actions are estimated at 8,991 to 28,583 direct and indirect deaths.8 http://www.nlgmass.org/2011/02/war-on-afghanistan-is-illegal/ Quote
dre Posted March 7, 2017 Report Posted March 7, 2017 20 hours ago, Army Guy said: Its also a matter of record that the US government dropped the pipeline idea before the invasion of afghanistan, it is also a matter of record that uncal also dropped the ball on pipelines in afghanistan, after the first missile strikes for embassy bombings...Not as you quoted when they realized the utter mission failure.....which if you follow the time line is about mid mission, or about 2006 or 2007.....See source i provided you check the time lines, they do not support your story. That maybe have been their public position, but its not very believable. They appointed Unical's point man on the pipeline project as special envoy to Afghanistan AFTER 911, and made him Ambassador in 2003. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
Army Guy Posted March 7, 2017 Author Report Posted March 7, 2017 Hot enough. I looked at your source written by a Thom Cincotta who has a impressive job title. one that is fully described below it shows he is a program director at Political Research Associates and a Criminal Defense lawyer. I mention this because after a 5 min search on goggle i found lots of mistakes in his article....which i will list one by one....Now i'm only a recently retired Canadian Infantry soldier, with grade 12 education, and 34 years of soldiering for our country.....And thomas has had much more education than i, along with a full staff to ensure that all his facts are correct.....and have been researched....there is also the fact that the article was published by National Lawyers Guild Massachusetts chapter....who should have did they own fact check before publishing....who also should have a full staff who do those things....So i will list the things i think are wrong with the article....and you and perhaps thomas can sort me out.... Quote Thomas Cincotta is the former civil liberties program director at Political Research Associates. A criminal defense lawyer, he led the Denver chapter of the National Lawyers Guild [www.nlg.org] (NLG) in support of peace groups and others during the 2008 Democratic National Convention, and connected progressive lawyers with other community efforts around sentencing reform, immigrant rights, and police misconduct. He also represented migrant farm workers and served on the board of El Centro Humanitario - See more at: http://www.politicalresearch.org/author/thomas-cincotta/#sthash.vbVlLHGL.dpuf 1 st para: It is 100 % correct the US and UK did not receive any permission from the UN to invade, and yet No One stood up to the us and UK and told them they were going to be charged with War Crimes....nor was any charges brought forth....speaks volumes about the power of the UN, and the rest of the world....No one was screaming about charges.....maybe i am wrong, but are they're any pending charges....I get it the lack of charges does not mean that no laws were broken.....but history is a little clouded.... Now for the record this is not the Al queda first attack on the US, in fact lets put a few things into perspective here, there are 4 major events that AL Qaeda took credit for.....Dec 29, 1992 Aden Yemen hotels bombed where suspected US service men were staying, no US soldiers killed or wounded here but Bin ladin and Mohamed Khan take credit.....Feb 26, 1993 World Trade Center bombed 1 st time......again Al Qaeda takes credit....August, 1998 US Embassies in Nairobi and Tanzania are bombed 200 killed 5000 wounded, Oct, 2000 USS Cole bombed 17 us killed.... And some how like magic we can not draw a line and say Al Qaeda will not attack the US again, and somehow we are also expected to think that the Taliban did not know anything of theses attacks.....when the Al Qaeda took credit for them.....they were splashed on every news net work around the globe....including afghanistan media....And yet we are expected to believe the Taliban when they say they knew nothing of AL qaeda activities....when there is a long track record of this terrorist attacks.....and the Al Qaeda took responsibility for them......Here is another tidbit for you.....Bin ladin and is merry band of terrorist were actually embedded into the Taliban's military strength see 055 brigade....which goes a little way to describe that the taliban and Al Qaeda were linked at the hip, to the point they were in the taliban's military chain of command ...which comes in handy when trying to establish link between a state actor, or just a group of people does it not.....just saying.... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/055_Brigade Recap, there is already a direct link between Al queda and it 's several major attacks against the US.....The taliban knew of these connections, one would have to be a blind idiot not to.....which dismisses they knew nothing of any attacks is plain bullshit.....the other point was AL Qaeda was integrated into the Taliban's military arm and took orders from both Bin Ladin and the taliban merry band of idiots....and some how in a lawyers eyes everything is coming up roses, and still hissing about war crimes.... Para 2: I'll guess i'll see your art 2 and see you an art 51...... Quote “Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.” Para 3 : Quote Bush Jr. went to the UN Security Council to get a resolution authorizing the use of military force against Afghanistan and Al Qaeda. He failed. You have to remember that. This war has never been authorized by the United Nations Security Council . . . . It constitutes an act and a war of aggression by the United States against Afghanistan.5 And yet after the invasion , the UN steps up and creates ISAF, but still no war crimes charges.....and while there is no official nod of the UN heads to say yes go ahead.....they did nothing to stop it either.... Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
Army Guy Posted March 8, 2017 Author Report Posted March 8, 2017 Para 5: Quote Not only was the war unjustified, but there is mounting factual evidence that the war is “demonstrably criminal in its execution,” says Canadian military veteran John McNamer. In a brief sent to members of Parliament, McNamer documents substantial allegations of illegal torture; illegal and abusive detainments – sometimes leading to deaths in custody; civilian deaths from bombing and other indiscriminate use of force, and collusion with illegal “renditions” of individuals to and from other countries for purposes of torture.7 All national and international law forbid the killing of non-combatants. Total civilian deaths caused by U.S. led military actions are estimated at 8,991 to 28,583 direct and indirect deaths.8 John Mcnamer was Canadian, but he was not a Canadian military vet, but rather a US army vet.......John McNamer is an independent human rights activist and journalist. A Canadian citizen, he has worked in the past as a researcher and writer for Lawyers Against the War (LAW). He was awarded the Bronze Star Medal for service with the U.S. Army’s 4th Infantry Division in Vietnam. The brief he sent to members of parliament was looked at and then brushed aside, as not credible.... he did pass his brief to an Ottawa prof, who took it and ran and ran ....it did get traction, in fact his entire concept was laid at DND front steps accusing the military of all the above comments...you can goggle it , it's all a matter of record, except after a long and drawn out investigation, by an independent panel, plus one by DND, and the UN, and Human rights council, DND was cleared of all charges......It did however stream line DND entire POW policies.....As for the statement All national and international law forbid the killing of non-combatants. Total civilian deaths caused by U.S. led military actions are estimated at 8,991 to 28,583 direct and indirect deaths.8 is not true, you might want to clarify all that in the Geneva conventions which i'm pretty sure most inter national laws are based on in regards to topics of war....any ways the geneva convention does say that all precautions should be taken to reduce civilian deaths.....notice the words reduce....no where does it say it is again'st the law to kill civilians...if that was the case why do we have the words co lateral damage.... you might want to look that one up , anyways like i said before for a criminal lawyer and all his staff to not find theses mistakes makes you wonder just who wrote this , and then did a fact finding check on it....they need to be fired....as it puts the entire document in question..... Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
Army Guy Posted March 8, 2017 Author Report Posted March 8, 2017 (edited) 2 hours ago, dre said: That maybe have been their public position, but its not very believable. They appointed Unical's point man on the pipeline project as special envoy to Afghanistan AFTER 911, and made him Ambassador in 2003. put yourself in their shoes....would you have spent millions in wining and dining these guys after the US had already dropped a few cruise missiles on them i mean do you think the taliban would be friendly after that or perhaps a little pissed............or would you have developed a wait and see outlook.....I also said that it was not until 2006 or 7 that the mission lost support from the citizens, making getting anything done that required funding almost impossible....so uncal would not have really known what is going on until around that period of time....also around the time that they decide to go around Afghanistan.... Edited March 8, 2017 by Army Guy Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
BillyBeaver Posted March 8, 2017 Report Posted March 8, 2017 (edited) ArmyGuy are you waxing nostalgic, reliving PTSD, or trying spread awareness? I'm genuinely curious as to your motivations. Edited March 8, 2017 by BillyBeaver 1 Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.