external image

The War in Afghanistan

Israel lied? well then we may as well shuv all the other counties under the bus who " Lied" about it because Israel is not the only country they got this information from. Who knows if there were weapons or not. Just because they were not found a number of different possibilities could have happened. Non the less, I feel Bush would have gone in there anyway.
The Mossad Israel's intelligence service was the only source for all the information about Saddam and his 'weapons', all the other countries were also receiving ALL their information about Iraq from Israel. See the Mossad didn't want any other countries intelligence service in 'their' backyard so all the counties got their info about Saddam from the Mossad... and they Lied so we would go to war for them as Iraq was Israels biggest threat at the time.

I do think your right about Bush going in. It is obvious in retrospect that he was looking for reasons and even inventing reasons to invade. The pressure from Haliburton and the Vice Pres. to get their hands on all that Iraqi oil must have been awesome.

Added - If you want insight into what was going on in the middle east at the time ex-CIA agent Bab Baer is a very good source.
You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

His book "See no evil" is a real eye opener about the goings on in the middle east.
 
The Mossad Israel's intelligence service was the only source for all the information about Saddam and his 'weapons', all the other countries were also receiving ALL their information about Iraq from Israel. See the Mossad didn't want any other countries intelligence service in 'their' backyard so all the counties got their info about Saddam from the Mossad... and they Lied so we would go to war for them as Iraq was Israels biggest threat at the time.

I do think your right about Bush going in. It is obvious in retrospect that he was looking for reasons and even inventing reasons to invade.

Israel would have no problem fighting there battles with Iraq. It is the U.S. who told them not to go in there. Bush made the call to go in there. I doubt Israel was the main source of information. No offense to anyone in the U.k but Israel and the U.K do not exactly have a lovey dovey friendship going on. They can't and never will.I highly doubt that U.K would get information from Israel and be it's only source.
 
Israel would have no problem fighting there battles with Iraq.
LOL... just like they didn't have any problems with Lebanon.

Do some research. Check it out... you'll see I'm right about the Mossad and the information about Iraq. One of the reasons the UK and Israel do not have such good relations right now is in part because of the false info received by the UK from the Mossad about Saddam...

And I am still wondering what good things Israel has done for America... I sure can't think of any.
 
LOL... just like they didn't have any problems with Lebanon.

Do some research. Check it out... you'll see I'm right about the Mossad and the information about Iraq. One of the reasons the UK and Israel do not have such good relations right now is in part because of the false info received by the UK from the Mossad about Saddam...

And I am still wondering what good things Israel has done for America... I sure can't think of any.

I have done my research, you pull yours off of on line papers.Israel does there own fighting and doesn't need help from anyone. Your wrong about Israel giving out information about WMD. It was the opinion of Israel not to go in to Iraq.
Israel is the only Democracy in the middle east able to give information to the U.S . Not everything is as black and white as you would like it to be. It sure is easy to hate Israel, unlike others, if you criticize Israel they wont hunt you down and kill you. As far as England and Israel they have no problems with each other. I was trying to say it is the Citizens of that country who are not exactly happy about Israel.


Tell me what exactly Palestine has done for the U.S. as they get large sums of Money from the U.S. as well.
 
I do not hate... anyone.

Not everyone that disagrees with the US policy towards Israel hates Israel.

You see I love my country and I don't care about Israel one way or the other. I just don't see where the US getting involved with Israel or Palestine is doing the US any good at all.

We can no longer afford to help the Israeli's or the Palestinians. We NEVER should have gotten involved with these foreigners problems in the first place and IMO we should leave them to their own devices, let them kill each other till they are all gone... or till they get tired of killing each other.
 
I do not hate... anyone.

Not everyone that disagrees with the US policy towards Israel hates Israel.

You see I love my country and I don't care about Israel one way or the other. I just don't see where the US getting involved with Israel or Palestine is doing the US any good at all.

We can no longer afford to help the Israeli's or the Palestinians. We NEVER should have gotten involved with these foreigners problems in the first place and IMO we should leave them to their own devices, let them kill each other till they are all gone... or till they get tired of killing each other.

I pray for world peace.
 
I pray for world peace.
I agree 101%
End the war & do it now.
World Peace for all.
WeCanHaveWorldPeace.jpg
 
Last edited:
So we have votes to pull out and other opinions to go in and get the job done at all costs.

IMO, neither will get us any closer to world peace in the long run.

First I believe the underlying cause of today's conflict is religion. This is in contrast to the political/idealogical causes of WWI, WWII, Vietnam and Korea. We're back to the conflicts that plagued Europe and the Middle East during the crusades. How many times did control of Israel change hands?

Will guns ever solve this problem? Will religion ever solve this problem?

Here's a question for those schooled in theology. Do muslims 'believe' in Jesus? The surprising answer is central to the ultimate solution me thinks.
 
I'm not a member of that faith, but I understand that Muslims do accept Jesus - but only as a prophet.

But even the Muslims have internal friction - the differences between Shias and Sunnis that have roots in different opinions on dynastic succession following the death of Muhammad continue to cause death and destruction among Muslims themselves.

Then there are the fanatical extremes of the fundamentalists, which I suspect are being cynically used for political motives.

And there is the basic resentment that any of us would feel at the continued presence of foreign troops on our soil - invited by government or not.

It's too complex a problem to merely classify as a religious conflict from the Muslim side imo.
 
I'm not a member of that faith, but I understand that Muslims do accept Jesus - but only as a prophet.

But even the Muslims have internal friction - the differences between Shias and Sunnis that have roots in different opinions on dynastic succession following the death of Muhammad continue to cause death and destruction among Muslims themselves.

Then there are the fanatical extremes of the fundamentalists, which I suspect are being cynically used for political motives.

And there is the basic resentment that any of us would feel at the continued presence of foreign troops on our soil - invited by government or not.

It's too complex a problem to merely classify as a religious conflict from the Muslim side imo.

I'm not of that religion either. Muslims do accept Jesus and Moses as G-d's messengers but not as their Prophet. But it doesn't matter who believes what.I feel most religions are man made.
You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.
 
Last edited:
I'm not of that religion either. Muslims do accept Jesus and Moses as G-d's messengers but not as their Prophet. But it doesn't matter who believes what.I feel most religions are man made.
You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

I believe Muslims believe Jesus was a prophet, just not The Prophet (Mohammed). My point with this piece of the puzzle is that Christians do not believe Mohammed was a prophet. Most Christians believe, of course, that Jesus was the only son of God.

Jetset made a good point about the age old conflicts between the Sunnis and Shites. I believe there are solutions for the West to opt out of such conflicts. But what about fundamentalist Muslims that want sharia law for all?
 
I believe Muslims believe Jesus was a prophet, just not The Prophet (Mohammed). My point with this piece of the puzzle is that Christians do not believe Mohammed was a prophet. Most Christians believe, of course, that Jesus was the only son of God.

Jetset made a good point about the age old conflicts between the Sunnis and Shites. I believe there are solutions for the West to opt out of such conflicts. But what about fundamentalist Muslims that want sharia law for all?

I agree with clj, those folks have been fighting each other for thousands of years and will continue as long as they have no others to fight with. I strongly believe that the US should always back Isreal as they are a tiny country bordered by many countries that wish them blown off the face of this earth, i also believe that the Palastinians should have a homeland also but not at the expense of killing innocent Jews and their foe, war is war and its never one sided, its as nasty as humans can get imo.........laurie
 
I think clj7221 raises a very valid point in her comment that religions are man-made, because that is the only explanation for the imperfect nature of the relationships between different beliefs and some of the more barbaric things that are done in the name of religion.

How many millions down through the ages have been killed or most brutally tortured and despatched in the name of religion? I'm not an atheist, but I have massive trouble accepting that any supreme being would countenance the mumbo-jumbo, manipulation, inequities and downright misuse and abuse of religion by power seekers and politicians.

Faith and adherence to the solid basic values that exist in most theological models is one thing, and an admirable one at that, but the manner in which that faith can be cynically subverted into a cruel and unthinking weapon - and I'm talking about all religions here - is horrifying.
 
Seems most progressive thinkers understand the problems associated with and caused by religion. Whether man-made or not the problem is that all religions believe that they are right. And followers of some believe it is their duty to die for their beliefs, if necessary.

What if the western allies pulled out of the middle east immediately but islamic extremists became more powerful and continued carrying out terrorist acts abroad. What would be the next step? To retaliate would bring things back to our current situation.

What function, if any, could the Vatican play in negotiating peace?
 
Seems most progressive thinkers understand the problems associated with and caused by religion. Whether man-made or not the problem is that all religions believe that they are right. And followers of some believe it is their duty to die for their beliefs, if necessary.

What if the western allies pulled out of the middle east immediately but islamic extremists became more powerful and continued carrying out terrorist acts abroad. What would be the next step? To retaliate would bring things back to our current situation.

What function, if any, could the Vatican play in negotiating peace?

None. The Vatican is not a leader of all religions. Also, Israel had a much better realtionship with the vatican before the two established full diplomatic ties in 93.
 
None. The Vatican is not a leader of all religions. Also, Israel had a much better realtionship with the vatican before the two established full diplomatic ties in 93.

Why would the Catholic church need to be a leader of all religions to be effective? And diplomatic ties are irrelevant. Look at the problem (as I see it) a little deeper - that all religions believe they are right and that all others are wrong. Remember when the Catholic church changed their stand on Jews getting into heaven? What would happen if the pope acknowledged Mohammed as a prophet of God?

I am not suggesting the middle eastern situation is simple or that any leader - political or religious - could broker peace simply by negoiation. But for every problem there exists a solution.
 
Why would the Catholic church need to be a leader of all religions to be effective? And diplomatic ties are irrelevant. Look at the problem (as I see it) a little deeper - that all religions believe they are right and that all others are wrong. Remember when the Catholic church changed their stand on Jews getting into heaven? What would happen if the pope acknowledged Mohammed as a prophet of God?

I am not suggesting the middle eastern situation is simple or that any leader - political or religious - could broker peace simply by negoiation. But for every problem there exists a solution.

I see the problem deeper then most and certainly a lot more knowledgeable about the middle east,especially Israel. It doesn't matter who tries to broker peace. The Arabs do not want it with Israel. Israel wants Peace and has gone to all kinds of negotiations for peace ( go back to Golda Meir how she did all she could for peace with Arab countries) it just wont happen.Do you remember the peace talks at Camp David with President Clinton, Prime Minister Ahud Barack and arafat? and Clinton had P.M Barack offer almost everything including half of Jerusalem? it wasn't good enough for Arafat, the Palestinian people or any other Arab country. The only final solution they want is for Israel to be wiped off the map. I really think you need to study up more about the middle east situation.
 
Last edited:
I think that keeping religions the hell away from secular issues could well contribute to world peace....but I don't see that happening.

Result is that power seekers will continue to corrupt religions to their own purposes - at a continuing high human cost.
 
I think that keeping religions the hell away from secular issues could well contribute to world peace....but I don't see that happening.

Result is that power seekers will continue to corrupt religions to their own purposes - at a continuing high human cost.

Jetset, you are correct. Especially since these wars have already started because of religion. But Israel is not fighting for any religious cause. They are defending themselves from the Terrorists.
 
I see the problem deeper then most and certainly a lot more knowledgeable about the middle east,especially Israel. It doesn't matter who tries to broker peace. The Arabs do not want it with Israel. Israel wants Peace and has gone to all kinds of negotiations for peace ( go back to Golda Meir how she did all she could for peace with Arab countries) it just wont happen.Do you remember the peace talks at Camp David with President Clinton, Prime Minister Ahud Barack and arafat? and Clinton had P.M Barack offer almost everything including half of Jerusalem? it wasn't good enough for Arafat, the Palestinian people or any other Arab country. The only final solution they want is for Israel to be wiped off the map. I really think you need to study up more about the middle east situation.

I think you need to read my posts better! I clearly said negotiation would not work. Regardless of any knowledge you may have on the middle east I invite you to open your mind.
 
I think you need to read my posts better! I clearly said negotiation would not work. Regardless of any knowledge you may have on the middle east I invite you to open your mind.

Your are right. I jumped in without reading your entire post. So sorry. It's to late to let me edit it. Again I really am so very sorry.
 
Ok, you're probably right. But what is the solution?

Damned if I know.

Perhaps the current strategy will have the desired effect of a strong and West-friendly Afghanistan in the long haul. But does the West still have the sort of grit to hang in?

Certainly President Obama and his presumably smart and informed advisers are mulling the whole situation over at some length, so maybe they'll come up with an innovative solution. If that happens I believe the rest of the West will follow.

It's a little more difficult to negotiate when you're faced with fanatical lunatics with a desire to see the decadent West perish, but maybe there's a way to retreat gracefully.

Afghanistan would appear to have little to offer other than stopping the flow of drugs, denying the area to terrorists and the imponderables of regional balance.
 
Jetset, I think the key to the solution may be in your previous statement:

"Result is that power seekers will continue to corrupt religions to their own purposes - at a continuing high human cost."

Religions will always be corrupted but if religions stopped worrying about who is right then it seems the need to fight each other would diminish.
 
It's an intriguing hypothesis, but can you see religions achieving unity?

It's taken centuries for the Catholics and Protestants to come to an uneasy acceptance of one another - and even that is strained in some places to this day.

The gulf - and attitudes towards any sort of significant rapprochment - between, say, Islam and Christianity is even wider despite the similarities in the fundamental positives of these two dominant (are they the dominant?) world religions.

No, I think success in defusing the Middle East tensions is more likely to reside in the realm of politics....and I say that as someone with little admiration for politicians!
 
Do you guys really think it is about religion or maybe, just maybe, the Trans-Afghanistan Pipeline (TAP or TAPI). That is a proposed natural gas pipeline being developed by the Asian Development Bank. The pipeline will transport Caspian Sea natural gas from Turkmenistan through Afghanistan into Pakistan and then to India. Proponents of the project see it as a modern continuation of the Silk Road. The Afghan government is expected to receive 8% of the project's revenue.

A little history on this: ;)

On February 12, 1998, John J. Maresca, vice president, international relations for UNOCAL oil company, testified before the US House of Representatives, Committee on International Relations. Maresca provided information to Congress on Central Asia oil and gas reserves and how they might shape US foreign policy. UNOCAL's problem? As Maresca said: "How to get the region's vast energy resources to the markets." The oil reserves are in areas north of Afghanistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan and Russia. Routes for a pipeline were proposed that would transport oil on a 42-inch pipe southward thru Afghanistan for 1040 miles to the Pakistan coast. Such a pipeline would cost about $2.5 billion and carry about 1 million barrels of oil per day.

Maresca told Congress then that: "It's not going to be built until there is a single Afghan government. That's the simple answer."

Dana Rohrbacher, California congressman, then identified the Taliban as the ruling controllers among various factions in Afghanistan and characterized them as "opium producers."

Then Rohrbacher asked Maresca: "There is a Saudi terrorist who is infamous for financing terrorism around the world. Is he in the Taliban area or is he up there with the northern people?"

Maresca answered: "If it is the person I am thinking of, he is there in the Taliban area." This testimony obviously alluded to Osama bin Laden.

Then Rorhbacher asked: "... in the northern area as compared to the place where the Taliban are in control, would you say that one has a better human rights record toward women than the other?"

Maresca responded by saying: "With respect to women, yes. But I don't think either faction here has a very clean human rights record, to tell you the truth."

So women's rights were introduced into Congressional testimony by Congressman Rohrbacher as the wedge for UNOCAL to build its pipeline through Afghanistan. Three years later CNN would be airing its acclaimed TV documentary "Under The Veil," which displayed the oppressive conditions that women endure in Afghanistan under the rule of the Taliban (a propaganda film for the oil pipeline?).

Rohrbacher then went on to say that a democratic election should take place in Afghanistan and "if the Taliban are not willing to make that kind of commitment, I would be very hesitant to move forward on a $2.5 billion investment because without that commitment, I don't think there is going to be any tranquility in that land."

Beginning in 1998 UNOCAL was chastised, particularly by women's rights groups, for discussions with the Taliban, and headed in retreat as a worldwide effort mounted to come to the defense of the Afghani women. This forced UNOCAL to withdraw from its talks with the Taliban and dissolve its multinational partnership in that region. In 1999 Alexander's Gas & Oil Connections newsletter said: "UNOCAL company officials said late last year (1998) they were abandoning the project because of the need to cut costs in the Caspian region and because of the repeated failure of efforts to resolve the long civil conflict in Afghanistan."

Three days following the attack on the World Trade Centers in New York City, UNOCAL issued a statement reconfirming it had withdrawn from its project in Afghanistan, long before recent events. [www.unocal.com September 14, 2001 statement]

UNOCAL was not the only party positioning themselves to tap into oil and gas reserves in central Asia. UNOCAL was primary member of a multinational consortium called CentGas (Central Asia Gas) along with Delta Oil Company Limited (Saudi Arabia), the Government of Turkmenistan, Indonesia Petroleum, LTD. (INPEX) (Japan), ITOCHU Oil Exploration Co., Ltd. (Japan), Hyundai Engineering & Construction Co., Ltd. (Korea), the Crescent Group (Pakistan) and RAO Gazprom (Russia).

Just because CentGas had dissolved does not mean that the involved parties have totally abandoned their interest in building an oil pipeline out of Central Asia. There is also talk of another pipeline thru Iran. India and Pakistan are bidding to be the pipeline terminal ocean port since they would obtain hundreds of millions of dollars in fees.

So, in 1998 Osama bin Laden was identified as the villain behind the Taliban, Afghanistani women the victims of an oppressive Taliban regime, and the stage was set for a future stabilization effort (i.e. a war). Was all this a cover story for a future oil pipeline?

In November 2000, Bruce Hoffman, director of the Rand Institute office in Washington DC, indicated that the next US President would have to face up to the growing threat is Islamic terrorism. Hoffman: "The next administration must turn its immediate attention to knitting together the full range of US counter terrorist capabilities into a cohesive plan." [Los Angeles Times, November 12, 2000]

All that was needed now was a triggering event. Thus we lead into the Sep. 11th (911) World Trade Center event and collapses that did indeed get us back there into Afghanistan, and now here we are..;)

Theory, maybe...conspiracy, definitely! It's all about the $$$ Money peeps and the never ending quest for the worlds oil domination to be in the hands of a small select group!
____
____
 
Humor me, Rob. What is the bounty on OBL? $50 MM I believe. If it were all about money someone would turn him in!!

In the middle east it has been about religion since the crusades (although the Knights Templar were clearly motivated by money) and certainly well before the advent of the combustion engine. The value and location of oil and natural gas reserves simply compound the problem, IMO.
 
Humor me, Rob. What is the bounty on OBL? $50 MM I believe. If it were all about money someone would turn him in!!

Surely you don't believe that no one hasn't already tried to turn him in do you? It's hard to turn in a man that has been on the CIA's payroll since the early days of the 80's when he was seen in the media as being on our side and helping to fight the cold war that was being waged by the west at the time against Russia when they were in Afghanistan. Hell, we even supplied him and his band of merry men with the weapons! Theory or maybe? Will we commoners ever really know for sure?

In the middle east it has been about religion since the crusades

I agree with you on that, but I was mostly addressing your title to this thread here in my post above.

(although the Knights Templar were clearly motivated by money) and certainly well before the advent of the combustion engine. The value and location of oil and natural gas reserves simply compound the problem, IMO.

Agreed.
____
____
 
Humans by culture, evolution and instinct are a territorial and tribal animal.

Our instincts are to be suspicious of other humans not in our tribe and especially be suspicious of humans that are "different" from us.

Humans also have the uncanny ability to magnify small differences between each other, making small insignificant differences seem huge and insurmountable.

Even though I am an Atheist, I have spent quite a bit of time studying religions. The one thing that struck me most was how similar ALL the major western religions are to each other (and how different they are from Eastern Religions, but thats a another story). The differences between what the Christians, Jew's and Muslim's believe is microscopic compared to the common beliefs these religions share.

The conflicts within each religion, the Sunni, Shea and the Catholic, Protestant or the Chasidic and Reform, are examples of how we humans take very minor differences and turn them into something to hate or kill over.

I think this is Human nature and I also believe we are not going to change anytime soon.

I also believe that some Men will always use Religion and our instinctual suspicion of 'outsiders' as a tool to get what they want...


**Back to the thread topic:

The people of Afghanistan see us as invaders from another 'tribe' and they are going to resist us until we leave... There will never be 'Peace' in Afghanistan till we bring our troops home. I see Viet Nam all over again. A country full of hard tough people that will not give up or give in... that will resist till they die or we leave.
 
I also believe that some Men will always use Religion and our instinctual suspicion of 'outsiders' as a tool to get what they want...QUOTE]

Exactly - and it's that very dangerous manipulation of our fears, faith and phobias that enables often extremist groups to wrest control from a generally passive or too-busy-living majority that is metaphorically looking the other way.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Accredited Casinos

Read about our rating system and how it's done.
Back
Top