Author Topic: Yup...we're in Afghanistan because of terrorism.  (Read 2330 times)

Offline Swager

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1352
Yup...we're in Afghanistan because of terrorism.
« Reply #15 on: January 02, 2003, 05:29:28 PM »
I have to agree with Weazel on this one!  There is alot going on behind the backs of the American people.

I do not believe Bush's main concern in his policies in the Middle East region is the snuffing out of terrorism.

IMHO
Rock:  Ya see that Ensign, lighting the cigarette?
Powell: Yes Rock.
Rock: Well that's where I got it, he's my son.
Powell: Really Rock, well I'd like to meet him.
Rock:  No ya wouldn't.

Offline GRUNHERZ

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 13413
Yup...we're in Afghanistan because of terrorism.
« Reply #16 on: January 02, 2003, 05:40:00 PM »
Weazel I was making a little joke, your signature just grabbed my atention and inspired it.

We all know in our hearts bush is evil and amreeka is the great satan!

Death to Amreeka!


All kidding aside, so what? are we not go after oil now that we can because we kicked out an enemy government who killed or tried damned vest to help kill 3000 innocent americans, most civilans? You arent trying to say bush welcomed 911 and the little coincidence that bin laden was in afghanistan?

Calm down.. Hows that different than building nup japan or germany after the war and selling and gving them US goods and making profits there.

Offline Pongo

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6701
Yup...we're in Afghanistan because of terrorism.
« Reply #17 on: January 02, 2003, 05:45:21 PM »
"After all, thats the PC thing to do."
must preserve their ancient culture!

Offline Hortlund

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4690
Yup...we're in Afghanistan because of terrorism.
« Reply #18 on: January 02, 2003, 05:48:11 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Pongo
"After all, thats the PC thing to do."
must preserve their ancient culture!


LOL, something like that yeah

Offline Thrawn

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6972
Yup...we're in Afghanistan because of terrorism.
« Reply #19 on: January 02, 2003, 05:49:39 PM »
It calls into question the methodologies of how your leaders persecute a war and why they do, when they start making money off of it.

How can you make a informed choice of who to vote for when when the information on your governments actions and disicions are now longer available to you.  Transperency is necessary to a democracy.

Offline weazel

  • Parolee
  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1471
Gee funked, isn't idolatry a sin?
« Reply #20 on: January 02, 2003, 06:12:19 PM »
Quote
"whoopee EVIL AMREEKA!!!
HOW DARE THEY REBUILD ECONOMY OF COUNTRY THEY FREED FROM TALIBAN!!!
DETH TO AMREEEKA!!!!


I expect it from the cabby and grunherz types.

Any act of critical intelligence, any reasoned effort to see through the mask of power, enrages typical Bush supporters.

Such high-strung supporters demand a God-like father-figure who will always reassure them that they needn't think, and so they snap into attack mode any time they sense a threat to such authority; and in this case, their fury is especially intense, because their idol is so small a man that even they can see that something's missing.

I never expected you to be one of those brownshirt wannabes who pipe up from the cheap seats, cursing out the critics in mad sympathy with their offended leader.

Desublimated as they are, such venters tend to tell us more about themselves than any self-respecting person wants to know.

Come on...I know your better than that.  ;)

Offline whgates3

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1426
Yup...we're in Afghanistan because of terrorism.
« Reply #21 on: January 02, 2003, 06:20:47 PM »
i think theres a conspiracy around the fact that the word conspiracy now means 'the insane theories of an aboslute moron'...it didn't used to be that way...what word or phrase can i now use to describe something like the JFK kill & the warren report?

Offline Gunthr

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3043
      • http://www.dot.squat
Yup...we're in Afghanistan because of terrorism.
« Reply #22 on: January 02, 2003, 06:46:13 PM »
Quote
Yup, chimpy secured the pipeline deal in Afghanistan for Halliburton...off to the next bunch of evildoers with oil....how convenient.  


Its multi-national commerce, Weasle. Its a good thing. Willing sellers and willing buyers. What is your problem?
"When I speak I put on a mask. When I act, I am forced to take it off."  - Helvetius 18th Century

Offline weazel

  • Parolee
  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1471
My problem?
« Reply #23 on: January 02, 2003, 06:59:30 PM »
I think you should re-phrase that...it's Americas problem when a corrupt leader decides to use the US military as a tool of big business.

You don't have a problem with that?

Offline AKIron

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 12959
Re: My problem?
« Reply #24 on: January 02, 2003, 07:06:50 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by weazel
I think you should re-phrase that...it's Americas problem when a corrupt leader decides to use the US military as a tool of big business.

You don't have a problem with that?


uh, did you forget why we invaded Afghanistan? I bet you think it was all a conspiracy designed by Israel right?
Here we put salt on Margaritas, not sidewalks.

Offline K98k

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 89
Yup...we're in Afghanistan because of terrorism.
« Reply #25 on: January 02, 2003, 07:12:14 PM »
Why is everyone in an uproar about the U.S. invading? because everyone wants a piece of the pie when it starts getting cut, and others don't want to lose what they already have


Iraq’s declaration of its weapons programs contains explosive news for Germany, a Berlin paper has reported. The dossier is said to detail covert arms deals between German defense firms and Iraq.

Just as the heated debates within the German government over the role of German troops and equipment in a possible war against Iraq seem to be cooling down, another potential bombshell threatens to reignite the fires.

On Tuesday, the Berlin-based left-wing paper, Tageszeitung reported that aspects of the 12,000-page Iraqi report on Iraq's weapons programs, submitted to the U.N last week, could prove highly embarrassing for Germany.

The newspaper - believed to be the first to have access to the top-secret dossier - has written that the Iraqi declaration contains the names of 80 German firms, research laboratories and people, who are said to have helped Iraq develop its weapons program.

Germany, Iraq’s number one arms supplier?

The most contentious piece of news for Germany is that the report names it as the number one supplier of weapons supplies to Iraq. German firms are supposed to easily outnumber the firms from other countries who have been exporting to Iraq.

They have delivered technical know-how, components, basic substances and even entire technical facilities for the development of atomic, chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction to Iraq right since 1975.

In some cases, conventional military and technical dealings between Germany and Iraq are said to date till 2001, ten years after the second Gulf war and a time when international sanctions against Saddam Hussein are still in place.

The paper reports that the dossier contains several indications of cases, where German authorities right up to the Finance Ministry tolerated the illegal arms cooperation and also promoted to it to an extent.

Wait and watch says German Finance Ministry

The German Finance Ministry has said that it will react to the report only once it has studied the Iraqi declaration.

"We’ll first wait till the report is in our hands," a spokesman from the ministry said on Tuesday.

The spokesman however said that the German government of the time in 1990 had informed the parliament about such German supplies to Iraq.

Ever since Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990, there has been a strict embargo against the country. The spokesman said that there have been a few cases of violation of the embargo and the government has initiated investigations.

German military exports to Iraq nothing new

Explosive as the newspaper report may appear, it’s not the first of its kind.

For months rumors have been circulating in the German media of murky deals between German arms companies and businessmen with Iraq despite the rigid embargoes in place.

In October this year, a magazine of the German radio channel, Südwestrundfunk reported that electronics giant Siemens had delivered specialized technical equipment to Iraq for the treatment of kidney stones, but which could also under certain circumstances be used as a detonator for atom bombs.

Siemens insisted that the device could not be misused because it had commissioned an Iraqi company to regularly monitor the equipment. In fact the delivery was even sanctioned by the sanctions council of the U.N. and the Federal Office of Economics and Export Control (BAFA).

The latest newspaper report also touches upon the gray zone between medicine and armaments and writes of so-called dual-use goods that can be used for developing weapons as well as for civilian purposes.

The German government was apparently informed in 1999 of the delivery of such dual-use goods to Iraq, but is said to have turned a blind eye.

German defense firms conduct roaring trade with Baghdad

German arms companies in the meantime have been conducting booming business with Iraq in recent years. According to the German Federal Statistics Office, German military exports to Iraq have been steadily rising from year to year.

From annual exports amounting to 21,7 million euro in 1997, the volume of exports for the following year shot to some 76,4 million euro. The trend continued in 2001 with exports to Iraq bringing German firms profits in the range of 336,5 million euro.

German goods worth 226,2 million euro have already been shipped to Iraq in the first half of this year. Some of the official heavyweights in the export scene are the German electronics firm Siemens with medical equipment and energy distribution systems and carmaker DaimlerChrysler. Both are reported to rake in revenues worth double digit figures in the millions.

Chancellor Schröder in precarious situation

Though the German government has not officially reacted to the Iraqi declaration detailing its role in supplying Iraq with arms, there is little doubt that the issue is bound to stoke passions.

Ever since Chancellor Gerhard Schröder refused to be part of any military action in Iraq before the German general elections in September, Berlin’s relation to Washington has been a strained one.


With Schröder sticking to his pacifist line, but dithering over the level of cooperation with the U.S. in the case of a war against Iraq, the latest report is guaranteed to provide ammunition to the opposition who have strongly criticized Schröder’s policy towards America.

Another real fear is that Schröder’s image as a staunch pacifist might now be sullied if it emerges that Germany has all along been helping the very leader who it has been unwilling to topple, to stockpile his weapons.

The report could also provide the U.S. with an excuse to step up the pressure on Germany to give in to American military demands for deployment of German troops and use of German military equipment in the case of a military attack on Iraq.

Offline weazel

  • Parolee
  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1471
Yabba Dabba Doooooo!
« Reply #26 on: January 02, 2003, 07:13:27 PM »
If you can't put any meat on the table don't pull up a chair akiron.

Yep, K98K, remember the stink raised over the US removing the Iraq dislosure papers a few weeks back?

I wonder if this info was part of what they're trying so hard to hide?

Halliburton Co., the oil company that was headed by Vice President Dick Cheney, signed contracts with Iraq worth $73 million through two subsidiaries while he was at its helm, the Washington Post reported.

During the last presidential campaign, Cheney said Halliburton did business with Libya and Iran through foreign subsidiaries, but maintained he had imposed a "firm policy" against trading with Iraq.

"Iraq's different," the Post quoted him as saying.

Oil industry executives and confidential U.N. records showed, however, that Halliburton held stakes in two companies that signed contracts to sell more than $73 million in oil production equipment and spare parts to Iraq while Cheney was chairman and chief executive officer, the Post reported.

Two former senior executives of the Halliburton subsidiaries said they knew of no policy against dealing with Iraq. One of them said he was certain Cheney knew about the deals, though he had never spoken about them to the vice president directly.

If he "was ever in a conversation or meeting where there was a question of pursuing a project with someone in Iraq, he said, 'No,' " Mary Matalin, Cheney's counselor, said.

"In a joint venture, he would not have reviewed all their existing contracts," Matalin told the Post. "The nature of those joint ventures was that they had a separate governing structure, so he had no control over them."

The deal was legal, the Post said, and they showed how U.S. firms use foreign subsidiaries and joint ventures to avoid doing business with Baghdad. The practice is not a violation of U.S. law and falls within the U.N.-run oil-for-food program.

The Post said U.N. records showed that the dealings were more extensive than originally reported and than Cheney had acknowledged, however.

According to the report, the Halliburton subsidiaries, Dresser-Rand and Ingersoll Dresser Pump Co., sold material to Baghdad through French affiliates. The sales lasted from the first half of 1997 to the summer of 2000. Cheney resigned from Halliburton in August.

"Halliburton and Ingersoll-Rand, as far as I know, had no official policy about that, other than we would be in compliance with applicable U.S. and international laws," said Cleive Dumas, who oversaw Ingersoll Dresser Pump's business in the Middle East, including Iraq.

Cheney's spokeswoman, Juleanna Glover Weiss, referred the Post's calls to Halliburton, which in turn, directed them back to Cheney's office.

In a July 30, 2000, interview on ABC-TV's "This Week," Cheney denied that Halliburton or its subsidiaries traded with Baghdad. Three weeks later, on the same program, he modified his response after being informed that a Halliburton spokesman had said that Dresser Rand and Ingersoll Dresser Pump traded with Iraq.

Cheney said he did not know the subsidiaries were doing business with the Iraqi regime when Halliburton purchased Dresser Industries in September 1998.

The firms traded with Iraq for more than a year under Cheney, however. They signed nearly $30 million in contracts before he sold Halliburton's 49 percent stake in Ingersoll Dresser Pump Co. in December 1999 and its 51 percent interest in Dresser Rand to Ingersoll-Rand in February 2000, the Post quoted U.N. records as saying.


CEO of a corporation...but he didn't know he was dealing with Iraq?

Suuurrrrreeee he didn't...
« Last Edit: January 02, 2003, 07:24:49 PM by weazel »

Offline funkedup

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9466
      • http://www.raf303.org/
Yup...we're in Afghanistan because of terrorism.
« Reply #27 on: January 02, 2003, 07:15:04 PM »
DETH TO AMREEKA!
BOSH IS STEALE OUR OIL!!!

Offline K98k

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 89
Yup...we're in Afghanistan because of terrorism.
« Reply #28 on: January 02, 2003, 07:19:12 PM »
This site is probably where weazel (a.k.a. Jihad) and Thrawn frequent to get the latest.

http://memri.org/cartoons/

after seeing some of these and hearing Thrawn and Jihad they sound awfully familiar.

Offline funkedup

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9466
      • http://www.raf303.org/
Yup...we're in Afghanistan because of terrorism.
« Reply #29 on: January 02, 2003, 07:23:15 PM »
Weazel basically I'm 99% sure you are a mentally ill conspiracy nut so that's why I don't reply in earnest.

But you ask so I will try better:

I will ignore your inference that the US didn't invade Afghanistan due to 9/11, because it is a ridiculous allegation.  The organization responsible for 9/11 (and many other attacks) was based in Afghanistan, with the full cooperation of the the Afghani government.  If you don't think this is sufficient cause for invasion then there is no use in further discussion.

But assuming you agree with me that 9/11 was sufficient cause to take military action against Afghanistan, how could you possibly believe that the US should not act in her best economic interest in the aftermath?  If we are going to risk the lives of our sons and daughters and pay billions of dollars to ensure the security and development of a new government, and pay billions of dollars to help them rebuild their economic system, shouldn't we get an return on our investment?  
To fail to do so would be irresponsible.

What, you think Bush should have a made sure a French (e.g.) company got the pipeline contract?  You don't think the people of Afghanistan and Pakistan and Turkmenistan will benefit from this?

It's very ironic that the same group of people who have been crying about how Bush ruined the economy are now damning him for doing things which benefit US companies and workers.  Make up your frikkin mind.  :rolleyes:
« Last Edit: January 02, 2003, 07:31:10 PM by funkedup »