14 Sep 2011 16:34:14
jay you've raised a couple of points i really want to come back to but i can't at work as i can't do it the justice it deserves. I'll try and get something down quick but it'll be quick before the game
That's cool mate, take your time. I'm always happy to have a discussion on these topics.
Peace
Jay
Ps. Class page ed's! {Ed001's Note - cheers mate, we all found ourselves discussing these things between us on our widget, so it made sense to create a site for everyone to be able to join in.}
Peace
Jay
Ps. Class page ed's! {Ed001's Note - cheers mate, we all found ourselves discussing these things between us on our widget, so it made sense to create a site for everyone to be able to join in.}
Agree · 0 · Disagree · 0
Right first off i'll accpet that there ae inconsistancies in the established events. i think we both recognise that.
I do feel that there is no way that the govt could have carried it out, a conspiracy like that would have needed dozens if not 100's of people involved at all levels, something surely would have leaked out by now. However i will accept that certain people are certainly shady characters and may have been acting independently providing that there is sufficient evidence to prove this.
Regards the claims that it was economic Pearl Harbor.
All through history great civilisations have gone to war for economic reasons, to control resources, gain land or slaves. Rome, the British Empire etc etc, this has happened throughout history so for the Americans to go to war for oil makes sense, a necessary resource in a strategically vital region where they have had previous.
So why in the this media driven thirst for revenge go for Afghanistan? If they just wanted a grab for Middle Eastern oil why not just go straight out for Iraq in 2001, why wait 2 years? If as you say they rigged it to put the blame on others why not rig it to look like Iraq and dive straight in there in 2001? Plenty of oil, friendly countries on the borders to provide bases, shorter strategic supply lines. From a viewpoint Iraq made a lot of sense. And from a humanitarian viewpoint he had to go and should have gone back in 1991.
But Afghanistan, ok so the perpetrators were based there, we know this based on what we have been told. But as i said if the Americans had been behind it and oil was the aim why say Afghanistan when they could have just said elesewhere unless it really was those based in Afghanistan.
Also Afghanistan is to me at least a strange choice, as far as i am aware there is no vast amount of natural resources as no one has really been able to conduct a proper survey due to the country being adogs breakfast since the 70's.
Supposedly its meant to be part of a pipeline. From where? It makes no strategic sense to build a pipeline through such hostile terrain and with all those warring factions around. Throw in hostile neighbours in Iran and the uncertainty of Pakistan and that whole area is a massive strategic risk that any competent military man would advise you to avoid.
You'd be far better concentraing on somewhere like Iraq and heading your pipeline towards the Eastern Mediterranean. Of course at some point you need to get either Jordan or Syria on side and sort out the mess thats Israel/ Palestine at least so you can get your pipeine in, but all thats surely easier than messing around in Afghanistan.
Rambling a bit so apologies. Anyway to Libya again yes the oil, but France was the driving force behind that and you can't accuse them of being pro american. As for Syria, i'm not sure there is the appetite for messing overtly in that one, not with Libya coming to a close, Iraq coming to a close and Afghanistan still dragging on. Its overstretch and its a lot of effort especially cost wise in a recession just for a pipeline.
I tend to disagree with the whole 911 was an inside job just to kickstart the American economy because from a point of view it doesn't make sense. Espwcially as it doesn't seem to have worked as the American economy over the last 3 years has been in its worst state for years.
But that doesn't mean that something funny isn't going on, certainly there are shady incidents, little pieces of the puzzle here and there. {Ed033's Note - British soldiers have been trying to take Afghanistan for the last 200 years because it is a strategic location. Also originally it was thought that there were billions of barrels of easy to get to oil in the caspian sea and they wanted to build a pipeline from the Caspian sea and across Afghanistan but then they found out there was not billions of barrels of easy to get to oil in the Caspian sea so went to Iraq first. }
I do feel that there is no way that the govt could have carried it out, a conspiracy like that would have needed dozens if not 100's of people involved at all levels, something surely would have leaked out by now. However i will accept that certain people are certainly shady characters and may have been acting independently providing that there is sufficient evidence to prove this.
Regards the claims that it was economic Pearl Harbor.
All through history great civilisations have gone to war for economic reasons, to control resources, gain land or slaves. Rome, the British Empire etc etc, this has happened throughout history so for the Americans to go to war for oil makes sense, a necessary resource in a strategically vital region where they have had previous.
So why in the this media driven thirst for revenge go for Afghanistan? If they just wanted a grab for Middle Eastern oil why not just go straight out for Iraq in 2001, why wait 2 years? If as you say they rigged it to put the blame on others why not rig it to look like Iraq and dive straight in there in 2001? Plenty of oil, friendly countries on the borders to provide bases, shorter strategic supply lines. From a viewpoint Iraq made a lot of sense. And from a humanitarian viewpoint he had to go and should have gone back in 1991.
But Afghanistan, ok so the perpetrators were based there, we know this based on what we have been told. But as i said if the Americans had been behind it and oil was the aim why say Afghanistan when they could have just said elesewhere unless it really was those based in Afghanistan.
Also Afghanistan is to me at least a strange choice, as far as i am aware there is no vast amount of natural resources as no one has really been able to conduct a proper survey due to the country being adogs breakfast since the 70's.
Supposedly its meant to be part of a pipeline. From where? It makes no strategic sense to build a pipeline through such hostile terrain and with all those warring factions around. Throw in hostile neighbours in Iran and the uncertainty of Pakistan and that whole area is a massive strategic risk that any competent military man would advise you to avoid.
You'd be far better concentraing on somewhere like Iraq and heading your pipeline towards the Eastern Mediterranean. Of course at some point you need to get either Jordan or Syria on side and sort out the mess thats Israel/ Palestine at least so you can get your pipeine in, but all thats surely easier than messing around in Afghanistan.
Rambling a bit so apologies. Anyway to Libya again yes the oil, but France was the driving force behind that and you can't accuse them of being pro american. As for Syria, i'm not sure there is the appetite for messing overtly in that one, not with Libya coming to a close, Iraq coming to a close and Afghanistan still dragging on. Its overstretch and its a lot of effort especially cost wise in a recession just for a pipeline.
I tend to disagree with the whole 911 was an inside job just to kickstart the American economy because from a point of view it doesn't make sense. Espwcially as it doesn't seem to have worked as the American economy over the last 3 years has been in its worst state for years.
But that doesn't mean that something funny isn't going on, certainly there are shady incidents, little pieces of the puzzle here and there. {Ed033's Note - British soldiers have been trying to take Afghanistan for the last 200 years because it is a strategic location. Also originally it was thought that there were billions of barrels of easy to get to oil in the caspian sea and they wanted to build a pipeline from the Caspian sea and across Afghanistan but then they found out there was not billions of barrels of easy to get to oil in the Caspian sea so went to Iraq first. }
Agree · 0 · Disagree · 0
Yes Ed and the fact that British soldiers haven't accomplished it in 200 years says a lot about the operational problems in the place.
Besides reagrds Caspian sea oil, wouldn't the majority belong to Russia? Also looking at the geography and topography wouldn't it be easier, cheaper and make more sense to take a pipeline from the Caspian west rather than east? {Ed033's Note - It appears that they have disbanded the pipeline idea now anyway and decided to place a big military base in Afghanistan which will be expanded under the surface of Afghanistan. }
Besides reagrds Caspian sea oil, wouldn't the majority belong to Russia? Also looking at the geography and topography wouldn't it be easier, cheaper and make more sense to take a pipeline from the Caspian west rather than east? {Ed033's Note - It appears that they have disbanded the pipeline idea now anyway and decided to place a big military base in Afghanistan which will be expanded under the surface of Afghanistan. }
Agree · 0 · Disagree · 0
"If they just wanted a grab for Middle Eastern oil why not just go straight out for Iraq in 2001, why wait 2 years? If as you say they rigged it to put the blame on others why not rig it to look like Iraq and dive straight in there in 2001? Plenty of oil, friendly countries on the borders to provide bases, shorter strategic supply lines. From a viewpoint Iraq made a lot of sense."
To me this would be a reason NOT to do what you suggest - too obvious. They had to make things harder for themselves in a way, and others, to blur the links of association between going to war and wanting the oil. Go to Afghan, reduce the motive and suspicion, but ultimately get the same result, or go Iraq, and immediately have the whole world pointing a finger saying 'this isn't about war or terrorism, this is about oil'.
To me this would be a reason NOT to do what you suggest - too obvious. They had to make things harder for themselves in a way, and others, to blur the links of association between going to war and wanting the oil. Go to Afghan, reduce the motive and suspicion, but ultimately get the same result, or go Iraq, and immediately have the whole world pointing a finger saying 'this isn't about war or terrorism, this is about oil'.
Agree · 2 · Disagree · 0