Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 159 (8167 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 11-26-2014 4:54 AM
52 online now:
PaulK, Phat (AdminPhat) (2 members, 50 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: MarkG
Upcoming Birthdays: Raphael
Post Volume:
Total: 741,996 Year: 27,837/28,606 Month: 2,894/2,244 Week: 298/710 Day: 8/161 Hour: 0/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   KONY 2012
dronester
Member
Posts: 1136
From: usa
Joined: 11-19-2008


Message 10 of 36 (655183)
03-08-2012 12:47 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by GDR
03-08-2012 10:28 AM


"I really just don't spend that much time on him"
GDR writes:

Shouldn't the west be just as concerned about justice in his case as they were for Bin Laden?

I am unsure of your point. Do you mean NOT concerned at all about justice or Kony? . . .

quote:
bush jr regarding bin laden, March 2002:

Who knows if he's hiding in some cave or not. We haven't heard from him in a long time. The idea of focusing on one person really indicates to me people don't understand the scope of the mission. Terror is bigger than one person. He's just a person who's been marginalized.... I don't know where he is. I really just don't spend that much time on him, to be honest with you.


http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-779454482760098900

quote:
The rhetoric shift is complete when Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Richard Myers states on April 6, The goal has never been to get bin Laden. [Evans, Novak, Hunt & Shields, 4/6/2002]

http://www.historycommons.org/timeline.jsp?complete_911_t...

quote:
October 2001: US Military Downplays Importance of Targeting Bin Laden
Edit event

On October 8, 2001, Gen. Tommy Franks, Central Command commander in chief, says of the war in Afghanistan, We have not said that Osama bin Laden is a target of this effort. What we are about is the destruction of the al-Qaeda network, as well as the Taliban that provide harbor to bin Laden and al-Qaeda. [USA Today, 10/8/2001] Later in the month, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld makes similar comments, My attitude is that if [bin Laden] were gone tomorrow, the same problem would exist. Hes got a whole bunch of lieutenants who have been trained and theyve got bank accounts all over some 50 or 60 countries. Would you want to stop him? Sure. Do we want to stop the rest of his lieutenants? You bet. But I dont get up in the morning and say that is the end; the goal and the endpoint of this thing. I think that would be a big mistake. [USA Today, 10/24/2001] One military expert will later note, There appears to be a real disconnect between what the US military was engaged in trying to do during the battle for Tora Bora - which was to destroy al-Qaeda and the Taliban - and the earlier rhetoric of President Bush, which had focused on getting bin Laden. [Christian Science Monitor, 3/4/2002] Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Richard Myers will make a similar comment in April 2002 (see April 4, 2002). [Christian Science Monitor, 3/4/2002]


http://www.historycommons.org/timeline.jsp?complete_911_t...

quote:
October 12, 2001: President Bush Decides Against Attempting to Seal the Afghanistan-Pakistan Border to Prevent Al-Qaeda and Taliban from Escaping

There is no denying that closing that border was a hard job, but if the NSC did not believe that the best military in the world could close the border and trap bin Laden, why did it decide that the task could be safely allotted to the poorly armed and trained and generally anti-US Pakistani forces? [Scheuer, 2008]


http://www.historycommons.org/timeline.jsp?complete_911_t...

quote:
Late October-Early November 2001: Al-Qaeda Fighters and Bin Laden Said to Move into Jalalabad without Hindrance
Edit event

In late October, US intelligence reports begin noting that al-Qaeda fighters and leaders are moving into and around the Afghan city of Jalalabad. By early November, Osama bin Laden is said to be there. [Knight Ridder, 10/20/2002] Counterterrorism tsar Richard Clarke will later recall: We knew from day one the likely places that bin Laden would flee to. There had been lots of work done before 9/11 on where did he hang out, statistical analysis even. We knew Tora Bora was the place where he would be likely to go. People in CIA knew that; people in the counterterrorism community knew about it. We knew that what you should have done was to insert special forcesRangers, that sort of thingup into that area as soon as possible. [PBS Frontline, 6/20/2006] Knight Ridder Newspapers will later report: American intelligence analysts concluded that bin Laden and his retreating fighters were preparing to flee across the border. However, the US Central Command, which was running the war, made no move to block their escape. It was obvious from at least early November that this area was to be the base for an exodus into Pakistan, said one intelligence official, who spoke only on condition of anonymity. All of this was known, and frankly we were amazed that nothing was done to prepare for it. [Knight Ridder, 10/20/2002] The vast majority of al-Qaedas leaders and fighters will eventually escape into Pakistan. In 2006, Newsweek reporter and columnist Michael Hirsh will write that Bushs decision to ignore accurate intelligence about bin Ladens presence in Tora Bora in favor of realigning the USs war effort to focus on the gathering threat of Iraqs Saddam Hussein was a strategic blunder that ranks alongside Adolf Hitlers decision to invade the USSR in 1941.


It is my opinion that the boogeyman, Bin Laden, was more useful alive for Bush Jr. to use against terrified and ignorant americans while invading Afghanistan to capture energy resources and establish hegemony in the area. I don't think it is a violation of Godwin's law to compare war criminals Bush Jr. and Hitler.

Now, if Kony's environment had energy resources or strategic significance like Iran does, I am sure Obama would suddenly find him "threatening" too.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by GDR, posted 03-08-2012 10:28 AM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by jar, posted 03-08-2012 1:43 PM dronester has responded
 Message 15 by GDR, posted 03-08-2012 1:57 PM dronester has not yet responded

  
dronester
Member
Posts: 1136
From: usa
Joined: 11-19-2008


Message 16 of 36 (655195)
03-08-2012 2:44 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by jar
03-08-2012 1:43 PM


Re: "I really just don't spend that much time on him"
jar writes:

And the US has NOT captured and controlled oil fields in either Afghanistan or Iraq.

Then I guess all the american servicemen have died in vain just like all those ignorant but "patriotic" german troops who invaded Poland.

1. (it's the pipeline that goes through Afghanistan that delivers the natural gas that america wants to control. December 4, 1997 (BEFORE 9/11). Taleban in Texas for talks on gas pipeline http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/west_asia/37021.stm)

2. . . . a central component of the Persian Gulf resources that the State Department, in 1945, described as "a stupendous source of strategic power, and one of the greatest material prizes in world history", namely the region's vast reserves of crude oil. Middle Eastern oil was regarded in Washington as "probably the richest economic prize in the world in the field of foreign investment", in what President Eisenhower described as the most "strategically important area in the world".
http://www.chomsky.info/articles/20021203.htm

3. Read the mission statement for the now discredited Project for the New American Century. Bush Jr.'s cabinet comprised most of these members. Since 1998 (BEFORE 9/11) they strongly pushed for an Iraqi invasion to secure Iraqi's energy resources and to exert America's lone superpower status.

4. Read about the Hydrocarbon Act. Except for three scant lines, the entire 33-page hydrocarbon law creates a structure to facilitate the privatization of Iraqs oil. Simply put, the resolution demands the privatization of Iraqi oil by blocking over a billion dollars in reconstruction funds if the Iraqis refuse to comply. Its passage sends a strong message that the United States is not in Iraq to help the Iraqi people or defend democracy, but that this war is solely about oil.

Kucinich: Congress Endorses Blackmail of Iraq 
http://kucinich.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?Docume...

5. When American troops illegally and immorally invaded Iraq, the troops didn't guard the hospitals, police precincts, or museums of priceless, ancient antiquities. But, what did they guard successfully? Answer: The Ministry of OIL Building.

5. Dick Chaney's secret meetings with Oil Companies.
America faces a major energy supply crisis over the next two decades, Secretary of Energy Spencer Abraham told a National Energy Summit on March 19, 2001. The failure to meet this challenge will threaten our nations economic prosperity, compromise our national security, and literally alter the way we lead our lives.

The Washington Post reported on November 15, 2005 that it had obtained documents detailing how executives from major oil corporations, including Exxon-Mobil Corp., Conoco, Royal Dutch Shell Oil Corp., and the American subsidiary of British Petroleum met with Energy Task Force participants while they were developing national energy policy. Vice President Cheney was reported to have met personally with the Chief Executive Officer of BP (formerly British Petroleum) during the time of the Energy Task Force's activities.

On July 18, 2007, the Washington Post reported the names of those involved in the Task Force, . . . Among those in the meetings were James J. Rouse, then vice president of Exxon Mobil and a major donor to the Bush inauguration; Kenneth L. Lay, then head of Enron Corp. . . . Red Cavaney, president of the American Petroleum Institute; and Eli Bebout, an old friend of Cheney's from Wyoming who serves in the state Senate and owns an oil and drilling company.[12]

Most of the activities of the Energy Task Force have not been disclosed to the public, even though Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests (since 19 April 2001) have sought to gain access to its materials.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Task_Force

I'm off-topic, you can have the last word.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by jar, posted 03-08-2012 1:43 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by jar, posted 03-08-2012 2:52 PM dronester has not yet responded

  
dronester
Member
Posts: 1136
From: usa
Joined: 11-19-2008


(1)
Message 25 of 36 (655651)
03-12-2012 1:01 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Artemis Entreri
03-12-2012 8:41 AM


The WHOLE continent is rife with corruption?
Jon writes:

The whole continent is rife with corruption. But I guess that's the nature of the colonial legacy. And since it's our fault, I suppose it's our job to fix the shit too.

AE writes:

not OUR fault. It the Europeans and the UKians fault.

Referring to the WHOLE continent, not just Uganda . . .

quote:
Along with Ethiopia, Liberia is one of the two modern countries in Sub-Saharan Africa without roots in the European colonization of Africa. Beginning in 1820, the region was colonized by freed American slaves with the help of the American Colonization Society, a private organization that believed ex-slaves would have greater freedom and equality in Africa.

The country began to modernize in the 1940s following investment by the United States during World War II

Today, Liberia is recovering from the lingering effects of the civil war and related economic dislocation, with about 85% of the population living below the international poverty line.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberia

My point is only that America is an African colonizer too.

Edited by dronester, : clarity


This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Artemis Entreri, posted 03-12-2012 8:41 AM Artemis Entreri has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Artemis Entreri, posted 03-13-2012 12:24 PM dronester has not yet responded

  
dronester
Member
Posts: 1136
From: usa
Joined: 11-19-2008


Message 31 of 36 (655754)
03-13-2012 11:17 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by Blue Jay
03-13-2012 10:40 AM


Re: C'mon!
Alas, the saying 'A poor man shames us all' is NOT an american expression.

(Actually, the republican version is "A poor man shames his self for being lazy. And I wish he, his family, and his race, was dead.")


This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Blue Jay, posted 03-13-2012 10:40 AM Blue Jay has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Rahvin, posted 03-13-2012 12:23 PM dronester has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2014 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2014