Okay...who believes that this nation goes to war only when

[sojourner]

we are threatened/attacked directly, or when there is some fundamental threat to our "liberty"?

On one of the London blast threads (#3) somebody challenged the idea that the US goes to war for $$. Anybody up to the challenge?

[Pacifist Patriot]

1. Sorry

I'm trying to come up with a war the U.S. has fought that didn't have to do with money. If someone comes back with "states rights" for the Civil War I swear I'll scream.

[Talismom]

3. Right on!! n/t

[sojourner]

15. thanks for that!

[geek tragedy]

16. World War II doesn't count? It's also hard to see the financial

payoff of the invasion of Afghanistan.

[sojourner]

22. WWII -- we were attacked. But, plenty of profit came from that bloody bit

of business, too.

[Guaranteed]

27. As it does for every war. That becomes a convenient justification, then,

doesn't it.

WWII was as justified as wars ever are.

[sojourner]

30. No disagreement here.

But I happen NOT to believe that wars are justified.

[Guaranteed]

31. Ever?

So I'm guessing that you're a pacifist.

My own personal opinion is that our nation has every right to defend itself, just as any person would their home and family.

[sojourner]

33. That's fine. Your opinion is respectable IMO.

And I don't promise that if assaulted I wouldn't fight back. Or if my family were under attack I wouldn't fight back.

But, once attacked, would I go hunt down the perp and retaliate? No...I'd try to let whatever notion of justice we have take care of the situation.

But, when a nation carries out these actions, innocents die. I find that despicable. And when innocents are targetted it's unforgivable. But nations do it. So I don't defend the notion of war.

Diplomacy should be used first and foremost. And the entire national good should be taken into consideration in such diplomacy, not just the welfare of the elite and corporatists. But that's not the way it is and not the way it will ever be. Don't have to like it, do I?

[Guaranteed]

37. I realize that innocents dying is HORRIBLE.

However, when you get to the point like we did on 9/11, or let's say that we got to the point where someone attacked your family and almost killed one of your children, promising to come back and try again...Would you leave it to the police to take care of the problem? Sure, myself, I'd give them a shot. But if they were unsuccessful, for whatever reason, what then? Would you leave that person out there? Would you just live in fear? Or hunt them down yourself?

Keep in mind that there really isn't the equivalent of the world "police," that isn't us. The U.N. can be extremely helpful, but, more or less, we're the most powerful country on this planet. When we're attacked, it's up to us to make sure it doesn't happen again. And we HAVE to involve other countries, most likely through the U.N. When we're in the right, that shouldn't be a problem. But there is no "police" higher-power-type entity when we're talking about something like 9/11 that we can turn to, and then go to sleep. We have to go get Al Qaeda ourselves, and make sure the job gets done.

There just isn't room for messing around.

[sojourner]

38. Forewarned is forearmed. I'd be ready for the "next time". Might

not be quite what they were expecting either. I'm serious...I've lived through a little shit in my lifetime. Not afraid to use my brain -- and not afraid, period. Most times it's easier than you'd expect to outwit someone who wants to do you harm.

Hunting them down would be a drastic step. It is vigilantism...and is illegal.

As to your argument that we are "making sure it doesn't happen again" .... mmmmm-hmmmm....sure looks like it's working well. What did that report on terrorism (the one that Bush Administration tried to doctor) say? Terror attacks at an all time high? Right...working REAL well!

Sure, I acknowledge that there is something satisfying about strutting around and slapping down anyone who dares to defy you. But it is not a strategy that produces good results. Period. Not in a family, not in a neighborhood and not in the world.

[Guaranteed]

39. Bush has been totally wrong since like two months after 9/11.

He started talking about Iraq.

The world was behind us, though, after 9/11. We should and would have had Osama by now if it wasn't for these idiots wanting to use 9/11 to attack Iraq.

[geek tragedy]

43. I respect your principles, but would never, ever, ever vote for someone

with those principles.

[sojourner]

48. Well....it's a good thing I'm not running for office then, eh?

[geek tragedy]

50. Indeed! eom

[sojourner]

23. Re: Afghanistan....unless your name is Halliburton!

Or any number of oil companies who are dying (well they're not dying but they sure have someone dying) to get that Mideast pipeline constructed so they can transport the oil that they plan on owning.

[geek tragedy]

44. We did not invade Afghanistan to build a pipeline for oil. Jeebus. eom

[sojourner]

52. No?

THE DEADLY PIPELINE WAR:
U.S. AFGHAN POLICY DRIVEN BY OIL INTERESTS
Professor Marjorie Cohn
Thomas Jefferson School of Law
JURIST Contributing Editor

A few days before September 11, the U.S. Energy Information Administration documented Afghanistan's strategic "geographical position as a potential transit route for oil and natural and gas exports from Central Asia to the Arabian Sea," including the construction of pipelines through Afghanistan.

-snip-

http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forum/forumnew41.php

[geek tragedy]

55. One laughably incorrect op-ed piece doesn't prove anything.

The pipeline wasn't even going to carry oil. That article is trash.

[Pacifist Patriot]

26. Afghanistan is all about a natural gas pipeline.

and access to mideast oil.

WWII was in response to an attack but it also helped pull us out of a depression. I'm not saying WWII was about financial gain, but there were certainly economic reasons to participate. Money is always involved.

[Guaranteed]

28. So you're saying that we wouldn't have invaded Afghanistan if it wasn't

for the pipeline.

The guy who killed 3,000 American civilians hiding there, under a sympathetic government, wouldn't do it for you?

[donheld]

32. NO we probably would not have.

"At one moment during the negotiations, the US 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 in an interview in Paris.


http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/oil.html

[geek tragedy]

45. Whatreallyhappened.com? Could you come up with a less credible site?

[sojourner]

51. How about these?

http://www.worldpress.org/specials/pp/pipeline_timeline...

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHI203A.html

http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forum/forumnew41.php

[geek tragedy]

54. All of which fail miserably to prove that we invaded Afghanistan

to build a pipeline.

Especially misinformed are those who claim it was all about oil. The proposed pipeline wasn't even going to carry oil--it was going to carry natural gas.

But, a lot of people have blind faith in conspiracy theories that the blindingly obvious--3000 deads and the main suspects hiding in Afghanistan--can't even cure.

[sojourner]

59. Jesus! Karsai is right now working to build the damn thing....

-- it is not in progress but he is trying to pull it together. No takers just now because of security.

Just because you can't look it up on the front page of the NYT it doesn't exist?

[geek tragedy]

63. What most CT'ers don't get is that EVEN IF the pipeline does get

built eventually, that still in no way proves that we went to war because of the pipeline issue.

The facts, as well as logic, suggest the theory is loony-bin material:

1) The main obstacle to a pipeline being built was a lack of stability and central authority in Afghanistan. Bush has done very, very, very little to establish stability and central authority in Afghanistan.

2) A natural gas pipeline is simply not that big of a deal for our strategic interests.

3) The Taliban have been out of power for well over three years now, and not one single inch of pipeline has been built. No plans, no financing, not a single construction worker hired.

The pipeline theory is nothing more than an article of faith amongst tinfoilers. It has ZERO support from the facts, and is not accepted by credible analysts.

http://www.prospect.org/print/V13/14/silverstein-k.html

[sojourner]

67. But he HAS managed to oust Russia and France.

And I don't know which credible analysts you are referring to. There are precious few of them around these days, IMO.

I just posted links, easily located, with respectable University addresses. I deliberately avoid things by people like Wayne Madsen because I don't think he's credible.

But I also don't go along to get along. I am perfectly willing and perfectly capable of thinking for myself. And while you're talking about proof...why don't you give me some "proof" that we went to war to capture the perpetrators of the attacks on the WTC and not to secure our financial interests in the area?

Is it our ceaseless vigilance in tracking down Osama bin Laden? Is is our deployment of an overwhelming military force so as to completely vanquish the Taliban in Afghanistan? Is it our decision to divert our resources from Afghanistan (before we had completed the "mission") so we could "liberate" Iraq from a dictator that WE installed?

[geek tragedy]

72. The Taliban were thrown out of power, and the terrorist training camps

were closed down permanently. AQ lost its permanent base of operations.

Of course, a lot of those accomplishments were undone by the foolish adventure in Iraq.

Do you want proof that we went to war with Japan because of Pearl Harbor?

After 911, Al Gore would have invaded Afghanistan. John Kerry would have invaded Afghanistan. 99% of the Democrats on Capitol Hill would have invaded Afghanistan. The American people OVERWHELMINGLY supported an invasion of Afghanistan after 911.

A US invasion of Afghanistan after 911 was inevitable and unavoidable. It is silly to suggest that we wouldn't have gone to war but for the pipeline.

[sojourner]

76. Well, YOU read the PNAC pieces on the middle east. Tell me they weren't

looking for an excuse, any excuse to go to war in the mid-east. The Afghanistan pipeline was very much in the works prior to 9/11 and Bush's folly.

Further, it's been reported by more than one source that Bush wanted to attack Iraq as soon as he could do so.

And it isn't silly to suggest that this nation (and every other) goes to war for economic resources. What is silly is to pretend that the government acts for the reasons that it gives its populace.

[geek tragedy]

79. Iraq is a much different matter than Afghanistan.

Btw, Afghanistan is not generally considered the Mideast. It's Central/South Asia.

The evidence OVERWHELMINGLY suggests that the US invaded Afghanistan because of 911. Every single piece of credible evidence points to that conclusion.

Nations go to war for non-economic reasons as well as economic ones.

[sojourner]

81. First of all...I got off track here trying to show you the economic

benefit to be had through attacking Afghanistan. (You found it hard to accept that there was any).

I didn't say it was NOT also because of 9/11, but because you were contesting the economic side of it I tried to provide support for my assertion. I regret the one-sided nature of the argument.

I believe that I and others here have shown that there WAS economic benefit to consider as an added incentive for any invasion. I don't expect it will be persuasive, however, as it doesn't have "credible" analysts to present it.

In any case, I wish you peace.

[geek tragedy]

82. Peace back at you. I would just close by pointing out that the money

spent on Afghanistan is likely to exceed the economic factor by a healthy margin.

Cheers.

[sojourner]

83. Oh boy. I am tired and want to toddle off to bed. But

you should read what you just wrote: the money spent...(went to whom?) --- the economic factor will benefit US corporate interests and NOTHING trumps that, as far I can see. All the more so when the President himself is from an oil family and his cabinet is likewise from oil interests.

But we may well have to acknowledge that we will not agree on these issues. That's okay, I guess. Were it not for warmth I would not recognize cold, would I? Thanks for the discussion, and good night.

[Pacifist Patriot]

85. Good point.

Money spent = taxpayer money

Money received = corporate/personal gain

[sojourner]

34. C'mon. The administration wanted an excuse to invade the middle east.

It's been well documented here and elsewhere. Don't give me 9-11 as an excuse for the war that GW and his PNAC buddies had woodies over back before GW was even elected.

After 9-11, with the cooperation of the entire world, the US was in a position to LEAD a real effort to address terrorism. Instead they drummed up a war that they didn't bother to win before moving on to the next target.

[Guaranteed]

40. I'm not talking about what Bush actually did. He was right to begin with,

though. He just didn't do the job right by relying so much on locals, not putting in enough troops (holding back for Iraq) and then invading some other country like a freaking dumbass!

I'm not justifying Bush's behavior- but we were entirely justified in invading Afghanistan.

[sojourner]

41. more justified in Afghanistan than in Iraq, agreed, but there were OTHER

solutions that might have been sought out in that case as well.

And I'll say again -- the world was united with us after 9/11. I think there might have been greater cooperation in putting terrorism of this sort out of business. Deprived of safe havens, just where in the hell is terrorism supposed to grow and spread?

How much might have been accomplished in such an endeavor, had we spent on it what we have spent bombing and killing both terrorists and innocents?

[geek tragedy]

49. Except there's no oil in Afghanistan, and not even an oil pipeline

proposed there?

Considering that 90% of the population and 99.9% of the Congress approved the Afghanistan invasion, it's safe to say that a freaking pipeline was not the motivation.

[sojourner]

57. Yes there was and is...

That's why US and Russia both had interest in Afghanistan. Remember how Russia and France were against the US taking control of the area? IT IS ABOUT OIL.

Below is from http://ist-socrates.berkeley.edu/%7Epdscott/q7.html ---

Energy Overview
Between the 1960s and mid-1980s, the Soviets had identified more than 15 oil and gas fields in northern Afghanistan. Only three gas fields -- Khwaja Gogerdak, Djarquduk, and Yatimtaq – were developed in the area surrounding Sheberghan, which is located about 120 kilometers west of Mazar-i-Sharif. Afghan natural gas production reached 275 million cubic feet per day (Mmcf/d) in the mid-1970s. The Djarquduk field was brought online during that period and boosted Afghan natural gas output to a peak of 385 Mmcf/d by 1978.

- snip -

[geek tragedy]

65. Again, do you understand the difference between oil and natural gas?

http://www.prospect.org/print/V13/14/silverstein-k.html

[sojourner]

68. The articles I look up state clearly that there are both oil reserves

and natural gas in Afghanistan. The pipeline planned was for natural gas...but there are many "pipe" dreams floated about when the oil companies talk about transport of the precious stuff, and how best to accomplish it.

[geek tragedy]

75. So you think that oil company "pipe dreams" were a more compelling

motivation than 3000 bodies in NYC?

Until you get a common sense transplant, I have to check out of this conversation. It's like trying to debate biology with a Creationist.

[JohnnyRingo]

71. I'm open to the possibility of a pipeline incentive....

But I think Afghanistan has always been strategically desirable, the Russians spent their future trying to colonize it.

[sojourner]

77. Right ... the pipeline was only part of that whole picture IMO

[madeline_con]

56. Here you go...

"Unocal envisions the creation of a Central Asian Oil Pipeline Consortium. The pipeline would become an integral part of a regional oil pipeline system that will utilize and gather oil from existing pipeline infrastructure in Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan and Russia.

The 1,040-mile-long oil pipeline would begin near the town of Chardzhou, in northern Turkmenistan, and extend southeasterly through Afghanistan to an export terminal that would be constructed on the Pakistan coast on the Arabian Sea. Only about 440 miles of the pipeline would be in Afghanistan."

http://www.worldpress.org/specials/pp/unocal.htm

[sojourner]

80. thanks for the link!

So there WERE visions of an oil pipeline, as well as a natural gas pipeline (Oh goodness! Could there actually be more than one pipeline?)

[geek tragedy]

19. World War II doesn't count? It's also hard to see the financial

payoff of the invasion of Afghanistan.

[justinsb]

2. Not me...

Iraq I, Grenada, Panama, Nicaragua (by proxy), Columbia (the war on drugs is actually happening and there are casualties), etc, etc, etc, I doubt that there is another country in the world (since 1776) that has fought more wars - in person or by proxy - than the US

[canadianbeaver]

6. what does that say to you?......

I wonder why that is.....no really, I truly wonder why?

[justinsb]

9. Alot of things

but nothing specific enough that I could put a finger on the problem. It is, I think, a part of the culture. Probably alot more so than most Americans realize. I read a study once, that I wish I could link to, but it was about a decade ago - that showed a rise in violent crime when there is not a war on. Part of it is the gun culture I think, and the resulting facination with weapons of all kinds.

There was also, I think, an early realization that people could be easily motivated by a boogie man - the U.S. has always had one or more: First the founding fathers succesfully motivated a population on the verge of revolt to attack the Brits and protect wealthy land owners - after that, lots of boogymen (natives, blacks, various european powers, communism, drug dealers, crime in general, welfare mothers, terrorism etc.) There always has to be one.

Even on this forum I've noticed that at times there is a hatred of the Bush Admin. that is deeply personal, which is to say it goes beyond the policies and actions of the administration to a general hatred of everyone and everything Republican, regardless of their actions or positions on issues.

All of this, I must admit, had more to do with my decision to expatriate than the Bush administration specifically.

[canadianbeaver]

10. the deep hatred that some may feel....

I think goes both ways...Republican and Democratic...or maybe who ever is in power at the time...someone will always feel they are not being listened to or though of...

But Americans being in more wars than any other country...that to me says EGO.....

[justinsb]

11. Yes that too...

because of course to truly fear the boogie man you have to be better, superior to the boogie man - with all those people to be superior to, it's inevitable.

[canadianbeaver]

12. agreed.....n/t

[sojourner]

17. I really wasn't aware of that...but not at all surprised!

Thanks for the post.

[Massacure]

35. Britain and France were almost always fighting skirmishes somewhere.

I don't think the U.S. would top them.

The U.S. would top them post WWII, but not since 1776.

[justinsb]

84. Add them up,

and I'm counting the 'indian wars' here, the war of 1812, the mexican-american war, the invasion of Florida, the Civil War, etc., etc., etc., I don't think Britain and France are even close rivals.

[spindoctor]

4. We were only attacked twice. Our number of wars is triple digits.

So no, that statement is easily dismissed.

[sojourner]

18. Nicely said......thanks! n/t

[Guaranteed]

29. Which twice? nt

[Solon]

70. I think spindoctor is incorrect...

to a certain extent, if you count since the United States was formed as a Constitutional Republic, then openly attacked only twice(Fort Sumtor, Pearl Harbor, neither the Maine nor Gulf of Tonkin count). Count the Revolutionary War and the Years before and after, then three times, Boston Massacre. War of 1812 is debatable, impressing our sailors into the British Navy to fight Napoleon could be considered an act of war, however not an open attack, though it was an outrage, in and of itself.

[sojourner]

78. I see that......thanks for the clarification.

[Road Scholar]

5. not me. nt

[berni_mccoy]

7. I think my sig

Says exactly why we went to war in Iraq.

[sojourner]

20. Ummm...it's so hard to decipher....do those lines have anything to do with

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$?

[Redstone]

8. No. Please. There can't POSSIBLY be anyone stupid enough

to believe that. Could there?

Redstone

[sojourner]

14. okay then...that settles it for me.

Poster was probably a Freep.

[Karenina]

13. Smedley Butler

"War Is A Racket"

http://lexrex.com/enlightened/articles/warisaracket.htm

[sojourner]

21. Aha! There it is in black and white! THANKS for the link Karenina!

[Disturbed]

24. Capitalism

That is what the U.S. Emperialism is about. The Military and the CIA does not defend and protect Democracy; they defend and protect Capitalism. The U.S. Govt. is run by Corporations that demand the spread of their ventures. The 1st Great War, WW1 was totally about U.S. Corp. interests and the Amerikan people were forced to fight in that war. contrary to ingrained brainwashing WW2 was about the same thing. This continues to this day.

[sojourner]

25. Yep. In fact, in spite of aforementioned "brainwashing" of the masses,

Capitalism is the state religion.

[leesa]

36. Are you joking? It's always money.

[sojourner]

46. That's what I learned in history 101...

but some around here apparently still buy into the whole "self-defense" notion...and I guess they also think that we are the moral leaders of the free world.

[TankLV]

42. Sorry - it's already been proven that we went to war for LIES &

Halliburton.

[sojourner]

47. where's your proof? (just askin')...n/t

[TankLV]

66. Try reading all the other threads posted here daily.

I'm not about to do your work for you.

[sojourner]

73. Hey! I do read here every day.

Wasn't out to start a war with you...just asked -- clumsily, looks like -- about some evidence. I thought you might have a link you'd like to post, as many DUers tend to do.

[sojourner]

74. self-delete (dupe)

[Rabrrrrrr]

53. Nope, all war, always, is fought for financial reasons

Even the ones that say it was religious - like the asshole muslim extremist fucks like Osama, or the crusaders of the old days or the rightwing Falwellian crusader criminal fucks of today - or that it is political, or a matter of honor, or whatever bullshit they're saying - it's always always always about economics.

[napi21]

58. I don't mean to pick a fight, but I was taught all wars are political.

Now the politics does have monetary inserests, but it's always politics as the core reasons.

[Rabrrrrrr]

60. Politics are used as the means to get the people involved,

politics or religion or something else.

But it always comes down to protection of assets or the acquisition of assets.

But it's easier to get the people to rally behind "They are evil!" or "They're communists!" or "THey're of the wrong religion!" or "They want to rape your women!" or whatever, than it is to say, "We need to increase the value of our portfolio holdings".

(though I will say that someone defending themselves, while they might be defending for economic reasons, has all rights to and SHOULD defend themselves; I mean them no ill will).

[sojourner]

61. And what would politics be about?

[napi21]

64. Usually gaining more power!

There are a lot of explainations for why Shrub started the war in Iraq, but listen to him closely! He and his minions always talk about America is the ONLY remaining SUPERPOWER!

I think I remember two other world leaders who said they were going to control the World too! Both are dead now, and they both lost their wars!

[sojourner]

69. And in this world what exactly is it that affords one power?

Even if you answer military might...where and how does one acheive it?

[sojourner]

62. Follow the money. That's it in a nutshell. Thanks for posting.