Donate to DU!
Democratic Underground Latest Threads
Latest
Greatest Threads
Greatest
Lobby
Lobby
Journals
Journals
Search
Search
Options
Options
Help
Help
Login
Login
Google

Reply #49: It's always all about money... [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
First thread | Last thread
Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU
warren pease (1000+ posts)  Journal Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Thu Jul-02-09 11:55 PM
Response to Reply #48
49. It's always all about money...
everything else is bullshit.

In this case, we all know goddamn good and well that the US marines have been killing civilians in that war-besotted country since 2001 -- mostly women, children and old people just looking for a little place in the sun at the end of their miserable war-torn lives.

Before that, it was the Taliban; before that the so-called Northern Alliance -- all happily blowing up their own countrymen. Before that it was the Russians. And before that, maybe Venusians or Saturnalians or Plutocrats... Most likely the latter.

You also know it never has, nor ever did have, a goddamn thing to do with terrorism. The real terrorists lived at, and may still inhabit, 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

It had to do with money, as does every other fucking thing in the US and the industrialized world these days.

It had to do with satisfying Unocal's lust for a pipeline from the Caspian basic to the Indian Ocean. It had to do with US negotiator Christina Rocca's promising Taliban leaders that "...either you accept our offer of a carpet of gold, or we bury you under a carpet of bombs."

The following is excerpted from another of those banned-in-the-US books exposing the Bushies' complicity in "the events of 9/11"(tm). Or perhaps you believe the official conspiracy theory, in which case we really have nothing in common except internet access. But let's err on the the side of intellectual honesty rather than cognitive dissonance.

So there's this book, written by a couple of French intelligence analysts named Jean-Charles Brisard and Guillaume Dasquie, entitled Bin Laden, La Verite Interdite (Bin Laden, the Forbidden Truth).

Their intel chops seem in good working order. Brisard was until the late 1990s director of economic analysis and strategy for Vivendi, the French media conglomerate. He also worked for French secret services, and wrote for them in 1997 a report on the now famous Al Qaeda network, allegedly headed by bin Laden.

Dasquie is an investigative journalist and publisher of Intelligence Online, a respected newsletter on diplomacy, economic analysis and strategy, available through the Internet. In a November 2001 interview, they claim that:

Before September 11, the U.S. government had an extremely benevolent understanding of the Taliban. The Taliban was perceived "as a source of stability in Central Asia that would enable the construction of an oil pipeline across Central Asia" from the rich oilfields in Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan, through Afghanistan and Pakistan, to the Indian Ocean. This would have secured for the U.S. another huge captive and alternate oil resource centre. "The oil and gas reserves of Central Asia have been controlled by Russia. The Bush government wanted to change all that... this rationale of energy security changed into a military one," the authors claim.

"At one moment during the negotiations, U.S. representatives told the Taliban, 'either you accept our offer of a carpet of gold, or we bury you under a carpet of bombs'," Brisard said. On November 24, representatives of the Northern Alliance, former King Zahir Shah's confidantes, and possibly, non-Taliban Pashtun leaders, will meet in Berlin under the aegis of the U.S.-led coalition to discuss a broad-based government in Afghanistan.


According to a November 14, 2001 article in the Seattle Weekly:

In December 1997, Unocal hosted Taliban delegates in Texas and, according to news reports, even took them to the mall and beach. It also gave nearly $1 million to a job-training program in the Taliban stronghold of Kandahar, out of the $15 million to $20 million spent on the pipeline effort. It hired former U.S. ambassador to Pakistan Robert Oakley to press its case, special ambassador John J. Maresca to, in Unocal media chief Barry Lane's words, "look at corporate responsibility globally," and Henry Kissinger to cap the Turkmenistan side of the deal. "We didn't focus on the Taliban," Lane insists. "We also sponsored a training program in Northern Afghanistan" and hosted some of the warlords now in the Northern Alliance. But with the Taliban gaining ground and controlling the planned pipeline route through southern Afghanistan, some focus was inevitable. "If this leads to peace, stability, and international recognition, then this is a positive development," Unocal vice president Chris Taggart declared after the Taliban took Kabul in 1996.


So it had to do with keeping the Taliban occupied in the cities so that pipeline engineers could run free across the bombed-out countryside, taking various readings and refining their maps.

Surely the Taliban are among the earth's true scumbuckets. Surely they repress their own people, enforce Shariah fundamentalist law and compel women to wear the veil -- the middle eastern equivalent of Chinese foot-binding.

But what they didn't do is hijack four planes, smash three of them into building and the fourth into the Pennsylvania countryside. Nor in all likelihood did bin Laden, unless you really believe the Bushies told the truth about 9/11, which would be the only time in their entire miserable serial lying lives they ever told the truth about anything.

For those truths, you probably need to look inside Cheney's office and towards Pakistan and the ISI, whose chief Mahmood Ahmed just happened to be having breakfast with some of the Bushies on the morning of Sept. 11, 2001, "the day that changed everything"(tm) -- namely Robert Johnson, at the time a spokesperson for Transportation Secretary Norm Mineta and formerly a spokesman for Arizona Congressman Jon Kyl, Porter Goss, Bob Graham and at the time Pakistan ISI Intelligence. Ahmed was later linked to wiring $100,000 to Mohammed Atta.

My last $50 says Osama is, at this very moment, cooling his jets down at that recent Bushie land grab in Paraguay, hanging out in a hammock, sipping cold Lone Star talls, slapping mosquitoes, dining on forbidden pork ribs, a new set of kidneys functioning like clockwork, trading one-liners with good ol' boy George Jr., whose command of English is just barely better than Osama's after his three-month full-immersion ESL course.

Cynical? Fuck no... Just used to how it all works and old enough not to give much of a shit one way or the other anymore.


sf

the former "Warren Pease" trying to reclaim his lost identity so he can win great prizes in the local essay contest.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
  Can someone define for me what it is to "win" in Afghanistan? superduperfarleft  Jul-02-09 10:10 AM   #0 
   Restore enough stability so that the people there have a chance.  redqueen   Jul-02-09 10:13 AM   #1 
   Like we did in Iraq? n/t  superduperfarleft   Jul-02-09 10:15 AM   #2 
   Yes,  redqueen   Jul-02-09 10:42 AM   #24 
      So explain to me the difference.  superduperfarleft   Jul-02-09 10:44 AM   #27 
         This is a joke, right?  redqueen   Jul-02-09 10:50 AM   #28 
            No, I'm trying to figure out your thought process.  superduperfarleft   Jul-02-09 10:55 AM   #32 
   So we're nation-building again?  Poiuyt   Jul-02-09 10:19 AM   #3 
      Here's a well sourced timeline on the ulterior agendas  Echo In Light   Jul-02-09 10:25 AM   #7 
      From the link (thanks!):  maryf   Jul-02-09 10:38 AM   #19 
         The whole thing reeks of PNAC in the shadows  Echo In Light   Jul-02-09 10:40 AM   #20 
      Am I an official spokesperson now?  redqueen   Jul-02-09 10:43 AM   #26 
   to "win" is to destroy the latest foolish western occupying infidels  leftofthedial   Jul-02-09 10:21 AM   #4 
   I declare this the best post in the thread. Congrats. n/t  superduperfarleft   Jul-02-09 10:42 AM   #25 
   In the same situation, Nixon callled it "Peace with honor."  Tierra_y_Libertad   Jul-02-09 10:25 AM   #5 
   A show of enough organized force to encourage the talking heads  peace13   Jul-02-09 10:25 AM   #6 
   Taliban ceases to exist and al Qaida has no "home" there anymore  scheming daemons   Jul-02-09 10:26 AM   #8 
   al-Qaida has no home?  superduperfarleft   Jul-02-09 10:32 AM   #12 
   I was defining what I would consider a "win".... not how things are right now...  scheming daemons   Jul-02-09 10:32 AM   #14 
   Fair enough. What is the likelihood, in your opinion, of a "win" like that happening? n/t  superduperfarleft   Jul-02-09 10:34 AM   #16 
      First part ... 50%..... second part... 10%  scheming daemons   Jul-02-09 10:41 AM   #22 
   Yeah... then we can arrest them all for vagrancy like we do to the homeless in US cities today. n/t  warren pease   Jul-02-09 10:25 PM   #47 
   How many Pashtuns will you sanction the killing of to acheive that first goal?  endarkenment   Jul-02-09 10:54 AM   #30 
      What does it matter? They're not people, after all.  superduperfarleft   Jul-02-09 11:01 AM   #34 
      Didn't say the people would cease to exist... the "taliban" would cease to exist  scheming daemons   Jul-02-09 11:03 AM   #35 
         The taliban have widespread support with the Pashtun people  endarkenment   Jul-02-09 11:10 AM   #37 
            Or having them change their minds.....  scheming daemons   Jul-02-09 12:00 PM   #38 
               which brings us back to my original question  endarkenment   Jul-02-09 01:16 PM   #41 
   In a nutshell: All the Poshtoons have been pushed to the north and annihilated  ThomWV   Jul-02-09 10:28 AM   #9 
   To "win" is to make sure  truth2power   Jul-02-09 10:30 AM   #10 
   bingo.  leftofthedial   Jul-02-09 10:42 AM   #23 
   Well yeah...  redqueen   Jul-02-09 11:06 AM   #36 
      "War is a racket." n/t  truth2power   Jul-02-09 10:22 PM   #45 
   To secure a stable area in which poppies are grown?  DireStrike   Jul-02-09 10:32 AM   #11 
   Bingo  Echo In Light   Jul-02-09 10:33 AM   #15 
   to win would be to leave , unfortunately, very large corporate interests  Mari333   Jul-02-09 10:32 AM   #13 
   We fucked Afghanistan over.  baldguy   Jul-02-09 10:35 AM   #17 
   What do you mean by "stabilize?" n/t  superduperfarleft   Jul-02-09 10:35 AM   #18 
      What does stability mean for you?  baldguy   Jul-02-09 04:56 PM   #42 
         Well, FWIW, the Afghani people had that (somewhat) under the Taliban. n/t  superduperfarleft   Jul-02-09 09:35 PM   #44 
   Hint: The Black Hills.  Stanchetalarooni   Jul-02-09 10:40 AM   #21 
   We capture the bin laden gang?  endarkenment   Jul-02-09 10:53 AM   #29 
   Capture, preferably, or proven death of bin Laden.  RaleighNCDUer   Jul-02-09 10:54 AM   #31 
   win = military welfare scam makes lots of $$$$ for industrialists and lobbys nt  msongs   Jul-02-09 10:55 AM   #33 
   Don't forget the added bonus of showing the country Democrats  tekisui   Jul-02-09 12:04 PM   #39 
      Obviously, there is no goal. Thus victory cannot be defined, or achieved. Quagmire, death.  timeforpeace   Jul-02-09 12:11 PM   #40 
   the united states gets to install its' own puppet government  onethatcares   Jul-02-09 05:16 PM   #43 
   UNOCAL finally gets its pipeline from the Caspian to the Indian Ocean. n/t  warren pease   Jul-02-09 10:24 PM   #46 
   Wish I knew, short of somehow making money off of it.  flvegan   Jul-02-09 10:32 PM   #48 
      It's always all about money...  warren pease   Jul-02-09 11:55 PM   #49 
 

Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals  |  Links  |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2009 Democratic Underground, LLC