Theorise: Why are we in Afghanistan?

[larry hurdiss]

hi, Y'all...
aint it fun?
all this jibber-jabber, and the show goes on.
my personal take is that it is not "for the oil", as much as it is for the contol of the oil PRICES...
have you noticed that all we need is even the HINT of instability, attack on a refinery, pipeline, etc, and the prices at the pump continue to climb?
geee..
i wonder who is making all the money?
it couldnt be the supporters of Bush and Cheny?
lol.....
as long as we keep BS'ing....the show goes on....
and history repeats itself...
Nam was about oil and its profits, bought with blood of young men....
now its Iraq, and Afganistan....
but EXXON has just passed WalMart...
yeeeeeeehaaaaaa!!!!
" you cant serve two masters"??

[jBirch]

Originally Posted by Larrison

I did go back and modify my posting.. I also extended the comment from beyond the US to include other countries.

I'll also note that the US does not have a spotless record in this either..

Hey Larrison,

And now on to the substance of that claim...*grin*

Why does the fact that terrorist attacks have originated in Canada provide a reason for us to be engaged in Afghanistan?

James.

[Larrison]

Originally Posted by jBirch

Hey Larrison,

And now on to the substance of that claim...*grin*

Why does the fact that terrorist attacks have originated in Canada provide a reason for us to be engaged in Afghanistan?

James.

I'm not saying this is a reason (I'm not Canadian) but did Canada consider doing something about folks (see the example I quoted) who staged terrorist attacks through Canada? Not alone, but as part of a group of countries? Or at least doing somethign to keep them from coming back in power?

Different circumstances, different responses. I suspect they did something about the terrorists working from Canada (who bombed the Air India plane) via other means.

[VELISARIOS]

Oil, πετρέλαιο,kerosene etc.

[Dr. Pfleschbach]

I know why we went there in the first place - to oust the Taleban who were harboring Bin Laden. I have no problem with that.

The question should be: Why are we still there? The answer to that would be: The Neocons decided we should invade Iraq instead of finishing what we started. And now it looks like Bush is getting ready to attack Iran.

Diagnosis? Foreign Policy Attention Deficit Disorder, although the cynic in me suspects Karl Rove has decided that the best way to distract the citizenry from the administration's incompetence is to always have a new international conflict close at hand.

[Fechter1]

Originally Posted by Dr. Pfleschbach

Diagnosis? Foreign Policy Attention Deficit Disorder, although the cynic in me suspects Karl Rove has decided that the best way to distract the citizenry from the administration's incompetence is to always have a new international conflict close at hand.

DING DING DING DING DING!!! We have a winner!

Why fix problems close to home (immigration, health care, energy costs, social security, drug costs, corporate scandals, homeland insecurity, budget deficit, sanctioned torture, corruption of government... Did I forget anything?), when you can distract the populace by creating new problems overseas...

"Boldly going forward! 'Cause we can't find reverse..."
(If anyone can tell me where that's from, props.)

Even worse: WE'RE LETTING THEM GET AWAY WITH IT!!!

[D'Art]

Originally Posted by Fechter1

"Boldly going forward! 'Cause we can't find reverse..."
(If anyone can tell me where that's from, props.)

Star Trekkin' by MARRS

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by Dr. Pfleschbach

The question should be: Why are we still there? The answer to that would be: The Neocons decided we should invade Iraq instead of finishing what we started.

No, man, the liberal party line is "Because they had no exit strategy". Didn't you get the memo? You're only going to confuse the simple people by presenting multiple possible explanations...

And now it looks like Bush is getting ready to attack Iran.

And by "looks like", you mean "wildly alleged by that tendentious crackpot Seymour Hersh"?

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by Fechter1

DING DING DING DING DING!!! We have a winner!

Yes...but a winner of the booby prize. You are runner-up.

Take an unproved allegation by a fellow known for fudging his facts, assume it's absolutely true, and then proceed on that assumption without bothering to examine the assumption. Brilliant! I mean, in the sense that Michael Palin's obsessively Marxist peasant in "Monty Python and the Holy Grail" was brilliant.

Is it possible for you guys to interpret ANY world event without passing it through the "neocon conspiracy" filter first?

[Amadeus]

Originally Posted by jBirch

Basic question: Why is the US in Afghanistan?
Followup: Why is Canada there too?

basic answer: because they attacked us and we'd feel weak if we didn't respond and bush would be regarded as a pussy and wouldn't be reelected.
followup: because canada is our *****. Face it, canada is like the united states, except colder, less populated, and earlier in alphabetical order.

[Fechter1]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

Yes...but a winner of the booby prize. You are runner-up.

and DING DING DING DING DING, we have a weiner!

Is it possible for you guys to interpret ANY world event without passing it through the "neocon conspiracy" filter first?

Why yes, it is. I tried it a while ago, but then the coincidences just kept piling up until my cynycism reservoir blew out the overpressure valve... Besides, the alternative for all this is gross incompetence, and what does that say about the american voter...
[/sarcasm]
Seriously though, you have to admit, something's going on behind the scenes, and from what's been leaking out, the human mind has a natural tendency to let the mind wander and assume the worst.

[Dr. Pfleschbach]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

Is it possible for you guys to interpret ANY world event without passing it through the "neocon conspiracy" filter first?

Look, they've been calling the shots that led to this situation, so it's pretty lame to try to claim they aren't responsible for the horrible mess we're in. And I could care less what Seymour Hersh thinks. I don't read him and I don't need him to point out what's already obvious. This administration is so arrogant they don't even try to hide their blatant manipulation of truth. If you're so convinced that they are blameless in all this then why don't you put forth an argument that lays out some convincing evidence instead of just slinging meaningless insults that you memorized from some right wing blog?

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by Fechter1

Why yes, it is. I tried it a while ago, but then the coincidences just kept piling up until my cynycism reservoir blew out the overpressure valve... Besides, the alternative for all this is gross incompetence, and what does that say about the american voter...

That a nation ( or a people ) gets the government it deserves.

Yes, that's right, George W. Bush is your just dessert!

I will pass over the bifurcation fallacy this time, only because I admire the ability to worry out the humor from even my most sourly worded posts.

Seriously though, you have to admit, something's going on behind the scenes, and from what's been leaking out, the human mind has a natural tendency to let the mind wander and assume the worst.

Wait, you were just praising the clarifying virtues of cynicism! Doesn't the cynic in you wonder how an Administration could keep actual proof of their many "lies" from coming out somehow, but one lone liberal journalist could somehow divine what was "going on" in NSC and Joint Chiefs meetings when no one else could?

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by Dr. Pfleschbach

Look, they've been calling the shots that led to this situation, so it's pretty lame to try to claim they aren't responsible for the horrible mess we're in. And I could care less what Seymour Hersh thinks. I don't read him and I don't need him to point out what's already obvious. This administration is so arrogant they don't even try to hide their blatant manipulation of truth. If you're so convinced that they are blameless in all this then why don't you put forth an argument that lays out some convincing evidence instead of just slinging meaningless insults that you memorized from some right wing blog?

Whew, now there's a congeries of fallacies to conjure with!

[TrainingDummy]

Do so! Or he will be banished to the "logical fallacies" thread, forever to be a companion to charlatans and mountebanks!

[lochinvar]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

Take an unproved allegation by a fellow known for fudging his facts, assume it's absolutely true, and then proceed on that assumption without bothering to examine the assumption. Brilliant!

Sounds suspiciously like Chrisitianity...

[Dr. Pfleschbach]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

Whew, now there's a congeries of fallacies to conjure with!

Are you saying that neocons weren't the ones who formulated and implemented our Iraq policy? Are you denying that the Bush administration manipulated the truth in support of it's goal to invade Iraq? Are you claiming there is no contingency plan to take military action against Iran? Or are you just making vague and meaningless statements? Let's hear something of substance from you, if you have any to contribute.

[jBirch]

Originally Posted by Dr. Pfleschbach

Are you saying that neocons weren't the ones who formulated and implemented our Iraq policy? Are you denying that the Bush administration manipulated the truth in support of it's goal to invade Iraq? Are you claiming there is no contingency plan to take military action against Iran? Or are you just making vague and meaningless statements? Let's hear something of substance from you, if you have any to contribute.

While interesting, this is meaningless to the rationale for continued military action in Afghanistan or its initial invasion.

Why is it that any mention of Afghanistan immediately starts people arguing that the invasion of Iraq was unjustified?

James.

[Dr. Pfleschbach]

Originally Posted by jBirch

While interesting, this is meaningless to the rationale for continued military action in Afghanistan or its initial invasion.

Why is it that any mention of Afghanistan immediately starts people arguing that the invasion of Iraq was unjustified?

James.

I don't agree. My position is that we redeployed military personel and resources to Iraq that were needed to complete the mission in Afghanistan. The question about whether the invasion of Iraq was justified or not is relevant because the answer determines whether the dilution of military forces in Afghanistan was done out of necessity or incompetence.

[jBirch]

Originally Posted by Dr. Pfleschbach

I don't agree. My position is that we redeployed military personel and resources to Iraq that were needed to complete the mission in Afghanistan. The question about whether the invasion of Iraq was justified or not is relevant because the answer determines whether the dilution of military forces in Afghanistan was done out of necessity or incompetence.

Agreed that Iraq effects the current deployment and capability in Afghanistan, but how does that go to the initial justification for being there in the first place?

James.