Pipelineistan

[billwald]

For you who don't think Afghanistan is a pipe line war see the last part of

http://www.alternet.org/story/14811...e_power_players_in_the_afghan_war?page=entire

 

[NiteShift]

In the 90's, the US-based UNOCAL corporation was interested in building a natural gas pipeline through Afghanistan which would move gas supplies from Turkmenistan to Pakistan and India primarily.

In 1998 the Clinton administration refused to recognize the Taliban government and attempted to bomb Al Qaeda training camps. UNOCAL immediately withdrew from any pipline project in Afghanistan and released a statement which in effect said that as long as the US and the UN would not extend diplomatic recognition to the Taliban as the legitimate government there, then they wanted out of the project.

So if the priority of the US has been to build the pipeline (which would not even directly benefit us) then the easiest thing in the world would have been to NOT go to war in Afghanistan and to accept the Talibs as the legit government there. Simple no?

 

[billwald]

And maybe the twin towers would still be standing.

 

[Don]

And maybe the twin towers would still be standing.

So the atrocity visited upon the U.S. is Clinton's fault?

 

[NiteShift]

And maybe the twin towers would still be standing.

Point neatly side-stepped.

 

[HankD]

So the atrocity visited upon the U.S. is Clinton's fault?

Wait a minute!

Responsibilty for all bad things past, present and future is part of the DNC Bush "W" Job Description.

HankD

 

[NiteShift]

Wait a minute!

Responsibilty for all bad things past, present and future is part of the DNC Bush "W" Job Description.

HankD

We forgotted!

 

[billwald]

>>And maybe the twin towers would still be standing.

>So the atrocity visited upon the U.S. is Clinton's fault?

Maybe.

 

[Don]

I knew a young lady once, whose husband would occasionally smack her around. She would brush it off as, "I deserved it."

 

[poncho]

So the atrocity visited upon the U.S. is Clinton's fault?

How many polticians can you all think of that do not benefit from atrocities in some way?

Rahm Emanuel says "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste. And what I mean by that is an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before."


Like, starting a war or ramming unpopular (unconstitutional) legislation through congress?

Politicians positively love crisis. It enables them to act like heros speaking high and mighty words loudly while strutting their stuff in front of the cameras.

All the while they are grabbing for the three things they lust after most. Money, power and control.

In other words,

It dosn't matter who's fault the crisis is so long as it doesn't go to waste.

It's time to wake up people.

 

[billwald]

Every administration since FDR/HST has encouraged Americans to be afraid of most everything.