Still don't believe me when I say the current administration consists of oil-industry controlled marionettes...?
[ December 16, 2001: Message edited by: Cartman ]
Posted by MIB (Member # 426) on :
Prepares for trench warfare between Jeff, Omega, and 1st Of Two.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
Stupidity made manifest...
EVERYONE benefits from the Taliban being removed (except, of course, the Taliban). Look hard enough, and of course you're going to find some connection to the Bush administration, what with the massive amounds of experience and connections they collectively have in the private sector.
As for benefiting the EEEVIL "Big Oil", well, GOOD! Who do you think powers every industrial nation on the planet? OIL COMPANIES! That pipeline is going to help get the Afgan economy back on its feet. Go Big Oil!
Let us assume, for the moment, that the US government was planning to attack Afghanistan, and that 11 September merely provided an opportunity to make such plans public. Why would it have wanted to?
Well, ignoring the almost totally unfounded assumption, removing an unstable government that you already know is harboring a known terrorist is a GOOD THING. It further allows us to make inroads among the middle-eastern Muslim community, showing that we wish to help their people.
Bush Sr, it turns out, is a paid senior adviser to the Carlyle Group, a private Washington equity firm described by the New York Times as the US's 11th largest defence contractor. Carlyle's investors include -- no surprises here -- the Bin Laden family, as well as Bush Sr and former Secretary of State James Baker
The family that disowned Osama a decade or two ago? That bin Laden family?
The links between administration figures, Big Oil and defence are numerous
Yay! We have people who actually know what they're doing in the White House!
So... what, exactly, is the problem here? Should Bush refrain from doing ANYTHING that might REMOTELY benefit oil companies in ANY way? No? Well, then, until you can propose another course of action...
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
quote:Well, ignoring the almost totally unfounded assumption, removing an unstable government that you already know is harboring a known terrorist is a GOOD THING.
So, the end not only justifies, but renders totally irrelevant, the means?
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
Are we talking about the same thing, here? What aspect of the means do you object to?
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
Actually, what concerns me about this ... did the White House really have evidence against Bin Laden? Or did they just say, "well, we're reasonable sure he did it, so we'll just say we know it was him and bomb Afghanistan and take out the Taliban, and if it wasn't him, oh well."
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
We may never know exactly what evidence they had at the time the decision was made to attack the Taliban. It could easily compromise an intelligence source.
Of course, considering that he bombed the WTC once before, it's a reasonable assumption even without evidence. And of course the video, but that came out when the attacks were nearly complete.
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
quote:Look hard enough, and of course you're going to find some connection to the Bush administration, what with the massive amounds of experience and connections they collectively have in the private sector.
Except in this case, you don't "have to look hard" at all. There are connections all over the place. How damned convenient.
quote:As for benefiting the EEEVIL "Big Oil", well, GOOD! Who do you think powers every industrial nation on the planet? OIL COMPANIES!
Oil. Does. Not. Come. In. Infinite. Supply.
I hate to be the one to break this to you, but oil is going to run out sooner or later. Preferably sooner. The earlier industrial nations become independent of the stuff the better. "Big Oil" has its greedy little fingers into everything, and that situation needs to be changed ASAP.
quote:That pipeline is going to help get the Afgan economy back on its feet. Go Big Oil!
Of course, you nicely "forgot" to mention that the plans for an American pipeline were in the making *long* before the Taliban regime came to power, and that such a line would primarily serve the United States' self-interest. The holy American Economy uber everything, as usual.
quote:Of course, considering that he bombed the WTC once before...
quote:Osama bin Laden, widely believed to have been the mastermind of the August 1998 attacks on the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, would seem a natural candidate to support the WTC bombing, but to date none of the government indictments against him indicate a connection to the incident.
Have a nice day.
[ December 16, 2001: Message edited by: Cartman ]
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
quote:We may never know exactly what evidence they had at the time the decision was made to attack the Taliban. It could easily compromise an intelligence source.
Well, and what makes me nervous about this news, is that there may have been *no* evidence. Cheney or whomever might just've said "Hey, lets blame this on Bin Laden ..." (a not un-reasonable assumption). It sort of seems to me that now that the tape was found, the administration is saying "See? We did get the right guy! What a lucky guess!"
(On the other hand, they might be saying: "Yeah! Now we can prove that Bin Laden did it without compromising our sources!")
It's still disturbing that they were taking steps to get Russia's military alliance in strikes against the Taliban over the summer, and in early winter we find those military strikes underway. Coincidence?
[ December 16, 2001: Message edited by: Malnurtured Snay ]
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
Speaking of something disturbing to think about, since Dubya's hand picked commission came to it's foregone conclusion, is it too late to invest my private Social Security fund in Enron?
[ December 17, 2001: Message edited by: Jay the Obscure ]
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
Tom Daschle won't let anything onto the floor of the Senate, and so nothing can get done. Thus, you can't yet. Now, give the GOP control of the Senate, so the partisan Democrats won't be able to stop things like that, and THEN you'll be able to.
[ December 17, 2001: Message edited by: Omega ]
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Is there a non-newbie way to post a message that consists entirely of *amused giggle*?
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
It is to Laugh Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
Horse puckey.
Let this be a lesson to you, NEVER listen to someone who proclaims themself an "amateur conspiracy theorist." It's a code word for "Paranoiac." (And in this case, possibly 'paid, politically motivated paranoiac.')
Some people are good at picking out patterns in seeming randomness. Other people are good and creating seeming patterns out of true randomness.
"It would benefit Big Oil to remove the Taliban from power?" When the Taliban had already signed the treaty, and there was no guarantee that their opponents or any 'internationally recognized government' would? (Remember 'internationally recognized' in this case means by the UN, which isn't generally in favor or Big Oil or US interests). No, I don't think so.
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :