Simple question: Why is the fact that we're in Afghanistan and Iraq

[Subdivisions]

to secure oil and pipeline routes, including the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Afghanistan_Pipeline">Tran-Afghanistan Pipeline, or TAP, hardly acknowledged or discussed here?

The emphasis is always on fighting terrorism and hardly ever, if not never, on the real reasons we're there. And, why are we not outraged that our kids are dying over there for Big Oil profits and American imperialism while our government perpetuates the "fighting terrorism" meme?

[tekisui]

1. We dropped that when we were sold the wars from a Democratic President.

[unpossibles]

3. The President did not get us into those wars

And he has to tread carefully getting us out, which I think he will.

[berni_mccoy]

20. You have to be the biggest moron on Democratic Underground. Obama didn't "sell" any war.

[tekisui]

31. LOL!

He did, he has, he is and he will.

[rug]

39. True, he only promised war in Afghanistan.

[el_bryanto]

2. Well it is entirely possible people disagree with your intepretation of why we are there

Oh - wait, I see you have a link to Wikipedia. I guess your argument is irrefutable.

Bryant

[Subdivisions]

4. If you have any ideas, please state them.

And, the link to Wikipedia only references the TAP pipeline. It is not there to support the premise of my post.

[el_bryanto]

5. Well I think the attack on September 11th has something to do with why were are in Afghanistan

And the fact that the Taliban Government provided safe haven for the terrorists who attacked us on that day.

Bryant

[Subdivisions]

7. Yup. That's what you were told alright. How about you go and research

what was going on with the Taliban BEFORE 9/11 and get back to me.

[el_bryanto]

41. We had a poor foreign policy prior to 9/11 and a poor one afterwords

That doesn't excuse the Taliban.

[Echo In Light]

8. However, the plans for these phony "war$" were designed prior to 9/11

[Individualist]

16. If you want to know why we're in Afghanistan, google "New Pearl Harbor".

[timtom]

32. September 11.

Yes. Of course. Silly of me not to have noticed.

I'm sure that must be it.

[mike_c]

38. utter bullshit....

I'll echo the OP's call that you educate yourself. No Afghans were involved in the 9/11 attacks. The Taliban offered to turn OBL over to a third party for investigation of the U.S. 9/11 claims. Bush rebuked their offer, knowing full well that the mullahs could not comply with his demands that they turn OBL over to infidels for certain torture and death. Bush wanted war and regional U.S. imperialism more than anything else-- 9/11 was nothing more than a convenient pretext. He used it to justify invading Iraq, too-- another country that had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11.

Afghanistan is not New Jersey. You cannot judge their actions-- neither the Taliban's, the warlords', or the tribes'-- by western standards without making a complete hash of it. Bush exploited that MASSIVE culture gulf to demonize Afghans during the run-up to war.

Now Obama maintains the fiction that occupying Afghanistan has something to do with "war on terror" and that killing more Afghans is somehow "in America's national interest." It's all lies, IMO. Afghanistan has far less to do with global terrorism than, say, Pakistan or Israel, both of whom we pay billions to annually. It is a medieval islamic tribal society, mostly roadless. It has less capacity to export war or terrorism than Antarctica.

[paulsby]

6. golf clap

fwiw, i strongly disagree with 1) going into iraq 2) how the iraq war was managed. i also think that going into afghanistan was justified, but don't think it was managed well either (i have a friend who is a navy seal commander and been reactivated TWICE. he thinks its been poorly managed too. except for the SEALS of course ;) )

but i don't think we into either country for oil.

the UK, fwiw, assisted in both, and they are a net exporter of oil, btw.

[Subdivisions]

13. UK a net EXPORTER of oil? Really?

You are http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/comment/hamish-mcrae-uks-switch-from-net-exporter-to-importer-of-oil-will-not-have-a-dramatic-downside-514645.html">several years wrong.

"...but i don't think we into either country for oil."

You are woefully uninformed.

[paulsby]

15. actually, your link supports my point

when the UK went INTO afghanistan and iraq, they WERE a net exporter of oil. as your article states, the balance switched in 2005. do i need to remind you when the UK went into iraq and afghanistan? (hint: it was pre-2005).

so, thanks for offering a link that supports my point.

[Subdivisions]

19. You said "they are" not "they were" a net exporter. Besides, UK's

status as an importer/exporter of oil is not the issue here. However, I digress. Your response to my OP serves as an adequate illustration of your level of knowledge of the situation.

[paulsby]

22. fine

i concede that i should have said "WERE". you are correct. i was wrong.

however, my point remains. the UK WAS a net exporter of oil WHEN they made the decision. so, that is one data point that goes against "the war is for oil" meme.

it's not dispositive of course. but it's a data point.

[kctim]

9. Um, because it is NOT fact?

[Subdivisions]

10. Really? Don't let me stop you from explaining. n/t

[kctim]

17. Gee, I'll try

Because you did not post any FACTS supporting your view that it is about the TAP, Big Oil profits and American imperialism? If you have these FACTS, not opinions, that prove your point, please give them and I will gladly change my mind. There is always a chance that you and Alex Jones are correct.

[Subdivisions]

21. That's funny. I seem to remember that my premise was readily generally accepted

when the shrub was in charge. Now, for some reason, that has changed?

Ok.

[kctim]

24. That premise

is an opinion not fact, and was readily generally accepted by those of like minds on the subject, who are the minority.
The rest of us prefer the facts.

But feel free to hang out with the likes of the birthers if you wish.

[Joe Fields]

25. you have a right to your opinion, but not your own set of facts.

There is ample evidence (facts) that support Subdivisions thread. Do some research. You may learn some things.

[kctim]

35. I haven't stated my opinion

I only asked for facts to support his. Hell, I even said I would gladly change my mind if he showed them. If there is 'ample evidence' to support him, why can he not provide it?

Seems like the problem is that I HAVE done some research.

[Subdivisions]

26. Oh, so now I'm a birther? Welcome to my ignore list. n/t

[kctim]

37. A birther? No

Using the same tactics? Sure appears that way or you would have provided the facts.
Yes, ignore those who dare question, its the adult thing to do.

[timtom]

33. No, no. Wait. Let's hear what you have to say, first.

I know you've got something terribly important to get off your chest.

[The_Casual_Observer]

11. Iraq was obviously about oil & remains so. Afghanistan

seems to have started out about revenge & has morphed into a Pakistani nukes protection racket.

[snooper2]

12. We really are not at war, it's all CGI Subdivisions...

:P

[geek tragedy]

14. Because it's a nutjob theory, not a 'fact.'

If it were a fact, there would be solid, incontrovertible evidence that we're there because of a pipeline.

There is no such evidence--just a lot of randomly connected facts and a ton of unsubstantiated speculation.

Fact #1: We've been there for 8 years, and not a single inch of pipeline has been put in place.

Fact #2: Bush got out of Afghanistan without adequately securing the place to chase his real petro goal--Iraq.

We are not occupying Afghanistan so that India can build a pipeline.

[MiniMe]

18. We were in Afghanistan because Bin Ladin supposedly attacked us on 9/11

There is some question about whether he did or not, but that is why we were there. I think it was mostly to get our troops over to the middle east. Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld wanted to attack Iraq before they were even in office. Afghanistan was a convenient way to get our troops over there. And we were supported by lots of other countries in that war.

We went into Iraq because Bush wanted to because Saddam tried to kill his daddy, or whatever. But they always felt we didn't finish that war and Bush et al wanted to finish it. So they made up reasons to attack them. They never would have been able to do it without 9-11 imho. As soon as we went into Iraq, Afghanistan was dropped like a hot potato. We never should have gone there, a mistake from the beginning. Resources and plans were dysfunctional from the start, and there was no clear objective or plan to get out.

I really don't think that TAP had anything to do with it.

[harun]

23. Because people watch too much Corporate Media.

[Junkdrawer]

27. Because wars are always sold as Good vs. Evil and NEVER sold...

as "We need the booty to save our economy."

[Ozymanithrax]

28. Misdirection. Republicans and Democrats know Americans won't...

fight over oil. But give them an emotional issue and they will allow their sons and daughters to be slaughtered like cattle.

We were sold the first gulf war with the lie that Iraq unplugged incubators in Kuwait. That entire war was about oil, but it fits America's false view that we are a moral nation that does not become involved in resource wars, a view caught up in the myth of American exceptionalism. Every other nation can fight wars for bad reasons. Only America, the City on the Hill (New Jerusalem) has God and the Angels on its side and fights only for truth, justice, and the American Way.

[Subdivisions]

29. Do you think the average American

knows it's about oil but simply doesn't want to think about it that way?

[Ozymanithrax]

30. I don't think the average American gives a shit...as long as there is gas at the pump...

But those that do care want desperatly to believe that we are the good guys. So to sway public opinion, an important matter in our system, Republicans and Democrats sell the war like they sell beer or any other commodity. To do that, they create an emotional appeal that only has to sound good.

The same is true for the other side. They also believe they are the good guys.

[pleah]

34. I say it every chance I get. I have even

said it in emails sent to congress critters and on petitions I have sign.
k&r

[newtothegame]

36. I know the bumperstickers say "no blood for oil."

Reading bumper stickers is not research.

[Junkdrawer]

40. It's the Oil, stupid! by Noam Chomsky

The deal just taking shape between Iraq's Oil Ministry and four Western oil companies raises critical questions about the nature of the US invasion and occupation of Iraq — questions that should certainly be addressed by presidential candidates and seriously discussed in the United States, and of course in occupied Iraq, where it appears that the population has little if any role in determining the future of their country.
Negotiations are under way for Exxon Mobil, Shell, Total and BP — the original partners decades ago in the Iraq Petroleum Company, now joined by Chevron and other smaller oil companies — to renew the oil concession they lost to nationalisation during the years when the oil producers took over their own resources. The no-bid contracts, apparently written by the oil corporations with the help of U.S. officials, prevailed over offers from more than 40 other companies, including companies in China, India and Russia.

"There was suspicion among many in the Arab world and among parts of the American public that the United States had gone to war in Iraq precisely to secure the oil wealth these contracts seek to extract," Andrew E. Kramer wrote in The New York Times.

Kramer's reference to "suspicion" is an understatement. Furthermore, it is highly likely that the military occupation has taken the initiative in restoring the hated Iraq Petroleum Company, which, as Seamus Milne writes in the London Guardian, was imposed under British rule to "dine off Iraq's wealth in a famously exploitative deal."

...

http://www.chomsky.info/articles/20080708.htm

[raccoon]

42. recd. You rock! nt