Israel Approves More Illegal Settlements

puremagic

yosi wrote:

Afghanistan is in no way a strategic asset for the US. It is a dirt poor country with no strategic natural resources.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/14/world ... d=all&_r=0

By JAMES RISEN
Published: June 13, 2010

U.S. Identifies Vast Mineral Riches in Afghanistan

WASHINGTON — The United States has discovered nearly $1 trillion in untapped mineral deposits in Afghanistan, far beyond any previously known reserves and enough to fundamentally alter the Afghan economy and perhaps the Afghan war itself, according to senior American government officials.

The previously unknown deposits — including huge veins of iron, copper, cobalt, gold and critical industrial metals like lithium — are so big and include so many minerals that are essential to modern industry that Afghanistan could eventually be transformed into one of the most important mining centers in the world, the United States officials believe.

Drowned Out

The war in Afghanistan involves several factors that can’t be overlooked and the bulk of them DO have to do with energy resources. As was mentioned previously, the country holds up to 3 trillion dollars worth of untapped natural resources….that is the prize at the end of the rainbow. But will likely remain as such for decades to come as the ‘graveyard of empires’ will probably continue to be untamed…..

Probably the most important factor in the war is Afghanistan’s geographic location – it is essential as a pipeline partner to bring natural gas from Central asia (Turkmenistan in particular) to Pakistan, India, and China. These plans have been on the table for decades. The TAPI pipeline route excludes Russia and Iran from any control or influence over these natural gas reserves – a HUGE deal in geopolitics. So huge in fact that Zbigniew Brzezinski wrote a book about it (The Grand Chessboard)….Brzezinski is the founder of the Trilateral Commission and a key architect of US foreign policy since the Carter admin (when the last major conflict in Afghanistan occurred)....he has served as a FP consultant to the current admin. (as an aside, some say Zbig began grooming Obama when they were both at Columbia University)….

Zbig claims that Central Asia is the key to global dominance as it holds the majority of the worlds population and resources. So it follows that controlling resource distribution is the key to controlling Central Asia….and Afghanistan is the only viable route to controlling those resources without allowing other regional powers (read: Iran and Russia) access to them. Remember the much-hyped 1997 meeting between the Taliban and Unocal in the US, when Rummy met with them? That was to talk pipelines. This has been going on for decades. US companies were still in talks wih the Taliban right up until 9/11 (at which point it became more convenient to try to force the issue).

The TAPI project is valued at 8 billion and the work will be done privately. In other words, the massive international (but usually US/UK based) energy and engineering firms that wield such massive lobby power in US and world politics see an 8 billion dollar paycheque on the horizon – you think they have no interest in Afghanistan?……8 billion in pork will cause a bit of lobbying, no?

The poppy production mentioned earlier is not an insignificant factor. The Taliban had virtually put a stop to it. If you believe that the CIA is involved in the drug trade (which ample evidence proves), and you realize that Afghanistan, since the invasion, has become the source of the vast majority of the world’s poppy production, you have to assume the CIA used their influence to push for military involvement in Afghanistan. It’s an unaccountable source of income for the black ops employed the world over.

To try to frame Afghanistan as insignificant geopolitically is a serious misstep if you're looking prove or disprove reasons for war..

yosi

I'm sorry, but the U.S. went to war in Afghanistan because the regime there was harboring the terrorist network that had just spectacularly murdered 3,000 Americans. They stayed because, for lack of a better metaphor, having broke the country they felt it was their responsibility to put it back together, and they misguidedly thought that they could nurture a stable democratic state there. All this about natural resources seems like blatantly post hoc attempts to paint Afghanistan as a resource-driven imperial adventure (further belied by the fact that the US is winding down its military involvement in the country). As for the CIA and narcotics trafficking, that's nothing more than wild conspiracy theories, for which no proof whatsoever has been adduced. The argument you've given is basically 1) everyone knows that the CIA has been involved in the narcotics trade 2) Afghanistan has become a center of the narcotics trade after the US invasion 3) therefore the CIA MUST be involved, and not only that, but this was a secret nefarious reason for the invasion! There are no logical connections there, nevermind actual proof. The facts actually tell the opposite story - poppy production has largely been used and (forcibly, in many instances) encouraged by the Taliban and local warlords as a source of funding for anti-US military activity, and the US, rather than encouraging this production, has spent enormous sums trying to combat it (which is hardly indicative of a CIA plot to exploit Afghan poppy production).

mickeyrat

riotgrl wrote:

Jason P wrote:

catefrances wrote:

so now youre extending afghanistans strategic importance for the US to Russia, China and Pakistan? I don't need to check out a map.. Ive know where everything is for many years now.

so your pledge of allegiance and the fact that the words in god we trust printed on your money means nothing?

I'd consider it a key piece in the game of R.I.S.K. It's becoming less of a key piece as time goes on and technology advances. Scram Jets and carrier based drones will eliminate the need for foreign bases.

Using the term "god" in the pledge in public places can get you fired or suspended nowadays. Any sign of religion in public places will get you sued. Money gets a pass due to the amount of money it would take to redo the entire US currency circulation. My guess is that the “pass” has it’s days numbered.

Where does that happen that you can't say the pledge as it is currently written? We say the pledge and sing the national anthem at school every day and have a 'moment of silence'. No one is getting fired, suspended, or sued. Although, I really think the role of religion is far more subtle in that it informs most Americans value system and beliefs about our nation as a whole. Most people believe that we were founded as a Christian nation and that most, if not all, our founding fathers were religious fundamentalists in the same vein that people are today. I think it is that belief about our origins and our puritan 'work ethic', amongst other characteristics, that still brands us as a religious nation regardless of whether people attend church on a regular basis.

Pledge of alligence was altered to add the words "under god" by Ike, I think, in the 50's.

mickeyrat

Fuck em. They can go it alone. Sick and tired of being whipping post becasue of their bullshit security actions.

Drowned Out

yosi wrote:

I'm sorry, but the U.S. went to war in Afghanistan because the regime there was harboring the terrorist network that had just spectacularly murdered 3,000 Americans.

Except that the plans to invade were ready to go well before 9/11.
So you are willing to completely overlook the fact that one of America’s leading foreign policy planners wrote a book detailing the need to control resource flow from the Caspian region, and identified Afghanistan as the key to that plan, years before 9/11? You discount the fact that American businesses (with direct ties to the invading admin) were in negotiations with the Taliban over routes and royalties for said pipeline, right up until July 2001? I don’t see any mention of these business dealings in the article Bronx Bomber posted. I wonder why that is? Reading the official line on all of this, it would seem the US business community, the government, and the military are all completely separate entities, with no awareness of what the other is doing, and no revolving doors between the three sectors….right? :roll:

yosi wrote:

They stayed because, for lack of a better metaphor, having broke the country they felt it was their responsibility to put it back together, and they misguidedly thought that they could nurture a stable democratic state there. All this about natural resources seems like blatantly post hoc attempts to paint Afghanistan as a resource-driven imperial adventure (further belied by the fact that the US is winding down its military involvement in the country).

You paint america as surprised by the consequences of the invasion. I think the only consequence anyone cared about was the ouster of the regime and hopefully the assassination of bin laden. Remember all the chatter about 'exit strategy' a decade ago? Everyone knew there was no plan and no one in power gave a shit. So why are we now presented with all of these humanitarian, 'nurturing' excuses for war? women's rights? ....ok. The US wants strong, stable democracies in 'hostile' territory? Since when? Now THAT is some post hoc revisionism....almost as blatant as the grocery list of evolving reasons for invading Iraq. You cannot pretend that Bin Laden is the only US interest in Afghanistan. You just cant.

yosi wrote:

As for the CIA and narcotics trafficking, that's nothing more than wild conspiracy theories, for which no proof whatsoever has been adduced.

Right because whistle-blowing on the CIA is usually such a successful venture. Throw the negative connotation of 'conspiracy theory' at it all you like....if you actually believe that the CIA has never been involved in the drug trade, then have I got a bridge for you.....Do you honestly think there is nothing more to learn about the CIA's history with the trade? Air America? Iran/Contra? The drug violence in Mexico? Panama? Venezuela? The Clinton/Mena airport scandal? The CIA plane that crashed with 4 tons of coke on it a few years back? This is all conspiracy and because nothing was ever proven in court, it was all on the up n up, huh?

yosi wrote:

The argument you've given is basically 1) everyone knows that the CIA has been involved in the narcotics trade 2) Afghanistan has become a center of the narcotics trade after the US invasion 3) therefore the CIA MUST be involved, and not only that, but this was a secret nefarious reason for the invasion! There are no logical connections there, never mind actual proof.

Again, you want me to come up with proof of the CIA breaking the law...
1) yes, most people do accept this as fact. I can find you many quotes from CIA and DEA officials if you'd like
2)actually it became a center of the narcotics trade during the Soviet invasion, then again after the US one.
3)no logical connections between the CIA, with it's long history of drug trafficking allegations, and the country with the highest opiate production in the world? How can you say there is no connection to make, even absent proof? You don't think the biggest poppy producing nation in the world creates any corruption within american policy makers and enforcers?

yosi wrote:

The facts actually tell the opposite story - poppy production has largely been used and (forcibly, in many instances) encouraged by the Taliban and local warlords as a source of funding for anti-US military activity, and the US, rather than encouraging this production, has spent enormous sums trying to combat it (which is hardly indicative of a CIA plot to exploit Afghan poppy production).

Which facts are those? Not sure where you're getting your information from, but it is openly admitted US military policy to win 'hearts and minds' of afghan farmers by allowing poppy cultivation. The Taliban had virtually eliminated poppy production before the invasion. Theyre hoping for a record crop this year.



Anyway....sorry for contributing to the sidetracking of your thread Byrnzie (to be fair, you did too ).....

Drowned Out

yosi wrote:

The West Bank, on the other hand, has immense strategic importance to Israel: it constitutes the high ground directly above the coastal plain, which is only 9 miles wide at its narrowest, where the majority of Israel's population is situated, and which is home to most of the economic drivers of the country; the West Bank also contains strategic water resources, and the jordan river valley acts as a strategic buffer against invasion from the east. Not saying that any of this justifies the occupation (which I'm vehemently against), but you're just flat wrong on the question of strategic significance.

I thought the occupation was about security against palestinians? All of this sounds like another one of those resource-driven imperial adventures/conspiracy theories. Glad to hear you're against the occupation, anyway.

The story in the OP is another obvious case of true intentions showing. Israel has no interest in peace, nor a two-state solution.

Byrnzie

......

Byrnzie

yosi wrote:

I'm sorry, but the U.S. went to war in Afghanistan because the regime there was harboring the terrorist network that had just spectacularly murdered 3,000 Americans.

If you believe that, then you'll believe anything.

Do also you believe that the U.S went into Iraq because the Iraqi's had Weapons of Mass Destruction that could hit London within 45 minutes?

yosi wrote:

All this about natural resources seems like blatantly post hoc attempts to paint Afghanistan as a resource-driven imperial adventure

Of course, because Afghanistan has never been of any strategic importance for the imperial powers, right? Which is why that country has been the target of outside interference for at least the past 200 years.

PhillyCrownOfThorns

Byrnzie wrote:

RustyShackelford wrote:

I will never understand the hate towards Israel on this forum.

You think people should be ok with Apartheid and ethnic cleansing then?

Anyway, there's a difference between opposing and criticising a countries governments policies, and hating a country. But then I'm sure you know that already, right?

Have you ever been to the region? Israel,te West Bank, or gaza?

Byrnzie

PhillyCrownOfThorns wrote:

Byrnzie wrote:

RustyShackelford wrote:

I will never understand the hate towards Israel on this forum.

You think people should be ok with Apartheid and ethnic cleansing then?

Anyway, there's a difference between opposing and criticising a countries governments policies, and hating a country. But then I'm sure you know that already, right?

Have you ever been to the region? Israel,te West Bank, or gaza?

No, and I never visited Apartheid South Africa either. Did you?

PhillyCrownOfThorns

No, and I never visited Apartheid South Africa either. Did you?[/quote]

Been to Israel/west bank in 91, South africa in 96, and Israel again in 06 and 12. I think you would gain perspective if you traveled to those areas.

Byrnzie

PhillyCrownOfThorns wrote:

I think you would gain perspective if you traveled to those areas.

In what way?

Did you visit a settlement in the West Bank, or did you travel to the Palestinian side?

yosi

This is great. The hubris of thinking that you know all there is to know about the situation, so that actually being there and experiencing life in Israel/Palestine yourself wouldn't teach you anything. You really are a piece of work B.

VivaPalestina

Pic and explaination of life under Apartheid and ethnic cleansing

http://angryarab.net/2013/05/23/demolit ... jerusalem/

Bentleyspop

VivaPalestina wrote:

Pic and explaination of life under Apartheid and ethnic cleansing

http://angryarab.net/2013/05/23/demolit ... jerusalem/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2v-ShaFpiVE

Byrnzie

yosi wrote:

This is great. The hubris of thinking that you know all there is to know about the situation, so that actually being there and experiencing life in Israel/Palestine yourself wouldn't teach you anything. You really are a piece of work B.

You really need to climb down off of that smug high-horse and quit the personal insults.

And I didn't say that visiting Israel and Palestine wouldn't teach me anything. I responded to a poster who appeared to say that visiting Israel and an occupied area of the West Bank would help me gain perspective. How does visiting one side of the equation help one gain perspective?

PhillyCrownOfThorns

VivaPalestina wrote:

Pic and explaination of life under Apartheid and ethnic cleansing

http://angryarab.net/2013/05/23/demolit ... jerusalem/

That is your explanation from a pic (that could be taken anywhere), depicting a situation explained by many causes (feel free to create any other caption), pulled by a third party of Facebook and later rehashed on a blog.

Sweet!

PhillyCrownOfThorns

Byrnzie wrote:

yosi wrote:

This is great. The hubris of thinking that you know all there is to know about the situation, so that actually being there and experiencing life in Israel/Palestine yourself wouldn't teach you anything. You really are a piece of work B.

You really need to climb down off of that smug high-horse and quit the personal insults.

And I didn't say that visiting Israel and Palestine wouldn't teach me anything. I responded to a poster who appeared to say that visiting Israel and an occupied area of the West Bank would help me gain perspective. How does visiting one side of the equation help one gain perspective?

Thanks. And I appreciate your honesty. I can't tell you how it's going to change your experience. From my life experience, first hand knowledge builds opinion and perspective. Our senses are pretty amazing...

That being said, you are undeniably the most vocal poster on this subject. I find it interesting that you have gained your experience from cyber-stine.

Byrnzie

PhillyCrownOfThorns wrote:

That being said, you are undeniably the most vocal poster on this subject. I find it interesting that you have gained your experience from cyber-stine.

That, and reading books, and watching documentaries, and talking with people, attending demonstrations, and corresponding on the subject with my local MP in England.