Paladin77

It all started with the Shah of Iran.

It all started with the Shah of Iran.

President James Carter is the reason we are at war

September 10–September 11, 1976: Croatian Freedom Fighters hijack a TWA airliner, diverting it to , , and then to , demanding a manifesto be printed. One police officer was killed and three injured during an attempt to defuse a bomb that contained their communiques in a train station locker. Zvonko Busic who served 32 years in prison for the attack was released and returned to to a heroes welcome in July 2008.

This was the kind of crap we had to deal with before the flood gates opened.

When the stopped supporting we lost a valued ally in the region. When President Carter allowed his people to engineer the fall of the Shah of Iran to please his humanitarian base of nuts, we opened up a can of worms that is still messing with us today.

While a Muslim himself, the Shah gradually lost support from the Shi'a clergy of , particularly due to his strong policy of Modernization and recognition of . Yes, this evil dictator did the unthinkable. He allowed women to have the same rights as men, as written in the Quran, he recognized as a state and said they deserved to live. American and international human rights groups said that he had 100 thousand political prisoners over his 39 year dictatorship. These sweet innocent political prisoners did minor things to get arrested like try to kill the Shah, his family, overthrow the country and install a theocracy and with the help of President James Carter the terrorist took power.

From the Shah of Iran on The role of the : I did not know it then – perhaps I did not want to know – but it is clear to me now that the Americans wanted me out. Clearly this is what the human rights advocates in the State Department wanted... What was I to make of the Administration's sudden decision to call former Under Secretary of State George Ball to the White House as an adviser on Iran?... Ball was among those Americans who wanted to abandon me and ultimately my country.

November 4, 1979 Iran Hostage Crisis takes place. Iranian Muslim students take over the American Embassy, taking 52 diplomats hostage for 444 days. (Ended January 20, 1981) This was the thanks we received from the grateful nation of after we helped free them from the Shah’s brutal dictatorship. further thanked us by forming and funding a small diplomatic and peace loving organization called Hezbollah. Their stated goals are to bring about love peace and harmony throughout the world, by the destruction of , the , the , and to do this all they want is world wide Islamic rule.

December 1979 a rumor was started that the president of was going to switch sides and kick the Soviets out. Soviet forces invaded and assassinated the president and installed another leader. It has been suggested that President Carter and his administration started the rumor in order to get the soviets to take the news off of the hostage crisis he was dealing with. It is just a suggestion and I have no proof that this was true. Either way this was the start of the Islamic terrorist group the base. Also known as Al Qaeda.

June 3, 1980 a bomb destroys most of the exhibits in the Statue of Liberty story room. No one is arrested, but Croatian separatists are suspected. Notice that Muslim groups are attacking us.

October 6, 1981, Muhammad Anwar Al Sadat was assassinated during the annual 6th October victory parade in . A fatwa approving the assassination had been obtained from Omar Abdel-Rahman, a cleric later convicted in the for his role in the 1993 bombing. In doing this Islamic terrorist successfully destroyed the only two Muslim leaders that recognized and stopped the war on . Providing an object lesson to all other Muslim leaders.

August 11, 1982 a bomb explodes on Pan Am Flight 830, enroute from to , killing one teenager and injuring 15 passengers.

April 18, 1983 United States Embassy bombing takes place. A stolen van carrying 2,000 pounds of explosives slammed into the U.S. Embassy in killing 63 people including 18 Americans. Hezbollah Islamic terrorists responsible, you know that peace loving organization from .

October 23, 1983 Marine Barracks Bombing occurs. A truck carrying 2500 pounds of explosives crashed through the gates of a US Marine barracks in killing 241 American servicemen and wounding 81. Hezbollah responsible. 58 French troops from the multinational force are also killed in a separate attack. Hezbollah also responsible, and did you know that they were started and funded by .

November 9, 1983: U.S. Senate bombing. A time bomb consisting of several sticks of dynamite explodes at the United States Senate in response to the invasion of . No one was injured, a group known as the Armed Resistance Unit claims responsibility.

April 14, 1985 — military aircraft, acting on President Ronald Reagan's orders to “pre-empt and discourage” Libyan terrorism, struck the North African nation Monday night.

June 14, 1985 TWA Flight 847 skyjacking, Hezbollah, terrorists take passengers of an Athens-Rome flight hostage, murdering US Navy Seaman, Robert Stethem. Just another peaceful demonstration by our friends in .

October 7 – October 10: Achille Lauro cruise ship hijacking by Palestinian Liberation Front, a group started and funded by the , during which passenger Leon Klinghoffer, a 69 year-old wheelchair-bound Jewish American citizen, is shot dead and thrown overboard.

April 5, 1986 discotheque bombing. A Berlin discotheque frequented by US servicemen was bombed, killing 3 people--A Turkish woman and two US servicemen--and injuring 230 including over 50 US servicemen. was held responsible for this act. At this point the president let loose the dogs of war. If the DIA will get off their butts and allow me to tell the story you will find that we were very busy from that time on.

October 11 1986 – President Reagan walks out of the summit with Grobachev, refusing to give up the strategic defense initiative missile defense in exchange for more worthless communist promises. Grobachev himself has cited this as the moment that won the cold war.

June 12, 1987 Berlin Germany- President Reagan gives his “tear down this wall” speech at the gate. He said that communism will rot from within and with a little help he was right.

April 12, 1988 Japanese Red Army terrorist Yu Kikumura was arrested at a rest stop on the turnpike in possession of pipe bombs on his way to . For those that don’t remember the Red Army they were also funded by the .

December 21, 1988 a bomb blows up Pan Am flight 103 in flight over . is responsible and they paid for it in more than one way.

February, 1989 Soviets complete their humiliating pullout from , leaving one million dead after ten years of fighting.

August 2, 1990 Saddam Hussein invades .

February 27, 1991 the United States Military and its Allies crush Saddam Hussein’s vaunted “million man army” in 100 hours.

December 21, 1991 the collapses just as President Reagan said it would.

August, 1992 President George H. Bush deploys the military to to prevent a humanitarian disaster and mass starvation. One of his orders was never to take a side or perform police actions. Only make sure the food goes to the people.

November 4, 1992 Governor Bill Clinton wins the Electoral College and the presidency with 43% of the popular vote.

February 26, 1993 when a car bomb was detonated below Tower One of the in . The attack was planned by a group of conspirators including Ramzi Yousef, Mahmud Abouhalima, Mohammad Salameh, Nidal Ayyad, Abdul Rahman Yasin and Ahmad Ajaj. They received financing from Khaled Shaikh Mohammed, Yousef's uncle. In March 1994, four men were convicted of carrying out the bombing. Though it was known by intelligence officials that they belonged to the group Al-Qaeda nothing was done to hunt down the group or its leader. People were arrested and convicted so the case was closed.

April 19, 1993 the administration assaults the Branch Davidian compound in and burn 76 people including 21 children to death. President Clinton blames it all on Attorney Genera, Janet Reno.

May 28, 1993 President Clinton passes the largest tax increase in world history.

June, 1993 President Clinton expands his mission to feed the hungry into nation building and police action but does not properly arm and equip the troops.

June, 1993 Failed New York City landmark bomb plot. When allowed the FBI can do some great work.

October, 1993 Al-Qaeda linked terrorist attack troops in . 18 soldiers die in the “Black Hawk Down” scenario. But take out thousands of Somali terrorists. President Clinton responds by pulling out US troops. Bin Laden later said this event convinced him that the American soldier is a paper tiger and inspired the 9/11 attacks.

April, 1994 the Rwandan genocide begins. Despite systematic rape campaigns and ethnic murders, President Clinton and his administration do nothing to stop the slaughter.

October 21, 1994, the and signed the "Agreed Framework", whereby agreed to freeze its plutonium production program in exchange for fuel, economic cooperation, and the construction of two modern nuclear power plants powered by light-water reactors. Eventually, 's existing nuclear facilities were to be dismantled, and the spent reactor fuel taken out of the country.

December 11, 1994 a small bomb explodes on board Philippine Airlines Flight 434, killing a Japanese businessman. Authorities found out that Ramzi Yousef planted the bomb to test it for his planned terrorist attack to blow up a dozen planes over the in one day. This plan was later changed to the attacks of 9/11.

October 17, 1995 President Clinton says, “Probably there are people in this room still mad at me at the budge because you think I raised your taxes too much. It might surprise you to know that I think I raised them too much, too.”

In conjunction with several other Islamic militant leaders, bin Laden issued two fatwa in 1996 and then again in 1998 that Muslims should force the and its allies to withdraw their military forces from the , by attacking American military and civilian targets.

February, 1996 ’s religious leader Hassan Turabi, writes President Clinton offering to turn over Bin Laden. (Think about this not in hindsight but in actuality. A man with a paramilitary organization publically states that he is going to attack US interests abroad, and soon after the chief mullah of the country this man is living in is offering him to you.)  President Clinton refuses, fearing the has no legal reason to take custody of him. (Bin Laden is now linked to two terrorist attacks on Americans)

In May 1996, the Sudanese capitulated to pressure and asked Bin Laden to leave, despite their feeling that he could be monitored better in than elsewhere.

June 25, 1996 Terrorists bomb the military’s barracks in . This has now been linked to Bin Laden. President Clinton does nothing at the time.

August, 1996 Hassan Turabi again offers to turn over Bin Laden. President Clinton does not accept the offer again. (Bin Laden is now linked to four terrorist attacks on Americans)

November 5, 1996 President Clinton wins reelection but falls short of winning half the votes cast.

April, 1997 President Omar Hassan Ahmed Bashir of Sudan “offered the arrest, and extradition of Bin Laden and detailed intelligence data about the global networks constructed in Egypt’s Islamic Jihad, Iran’s Hezbollah, and the Palestinian Hamas,” According to regional expert Mansor Ijaz. President Clinton ignores him. (Bin Laden is now linked to three and one suspected terrorist attacks on Americans and just maybe Sudan knows something we don’t know, and being or wanting to be a friend to us is trying to help us.)

February, 1998 ’s intelligence chief, Gutbi al-Mahdi wrote directly to the FBI to offer Bin Laden. (Bin Laden is now linked to three terrorist attacks on Americans and just maybe knows something we don’t know and maybe they want to be our friend.)

Bin Laden left for Afghanistan, taking with him Ayman Zawahiri, considered by the U.S. to be the chief planner of the Sept. 11 attacks; Mamdouh Mahmud Salim, who traveled frequently to Germany to obtain electronic equipment for Al Qaeda; Wadih El-Hage, Bin Laden's personal secretary and roving emissary, now serving a life sentence in the U.S. for his role in the 1998 U.S. embassy bombings in Tanzania and Kenya; and Fazul Abdullah Mohammed and Saif Adel, also accused of carrying out the embassy attacks.

August 7, 1998 hundreds of people were killed in simultaneous car bomb explosions at the embassies in the East African capital cities of , and . The attacks, linked to local members of the al Qaeda terrorist network headed by Osama bin Laden, brought bin Laden and al Qaeda to international attention for the first time as far as the news media are concerned. Bin Laden was then indicted in federal court for his alleged involvement in the 1998 embassy bombings in , and , and is on the US Federal Bureau of Investigation's Ten Most Wanted Fugitives list.

August 20, 1998 someone in the administration discovered that Osama Bin Laden might be in the . With great decisiveness the President ordered the immediate bombing of the Al-Shifa pharmaceutical plant. The plant had no connections to Bin Laden and the had been trying to give Bin Laden to us for years. Oh by the way, in a totally unrelated story, Monica Lewinsky testified in front of the grand jury the next day. Who needed as a friend anyway?

August 21, 1998 President Clinton in another bold decisive move ordered missile strikes against Al Qaeda terrorist training camps in . A little too late since Bin Laden and his troops had moved to and were now moving to after he was kicked out of . The camps were mostly empty but they did get 34 people not members of AQ, But as a presidential hopeful suggested doing the same thing may I remind all that Pakistan screamed its outrage at the US violation of its airspace, wonder if they will get mad when President Obama invades their country? Is that not an act of war from a man that wants peace?

After the missile attacks Osama bin Laden pledged to attack the again. Ayman al-Zawahiri made a phone call to a Newsweek reporter, stating that "The war has only just begun; the Americans should now await the answer."

December 16, 1998 President Clinton attacks . In a totally unrelated story the House leaders delay the impeachment debate until the dust settles from the preemptive war started by the President.

December 14, 1999 Ahmed Ressam is arrested. His plan to blow up international airport on New Year’s Eve. Look up the “Millennium bomber.” Though the administration tried to claim credit for stopping this terrorist attack it was later discovered that a customs agent busted him when he tried to cross the border from into the .

October 12, 2000 Al-Qaeda terrorist detonate a dinghy packed with explosives into the USS Cole, killing 17 Sailors. President Clinton did almost nothing. The investigation said AQ was to blame but no action was taken. Where is a Lewinsky testimony when you need one?

December, 2000 President Clinton receives Intel about Osama Bin Laden’s location. Military advisors urge a strike. The President refuses.

September 11. 2001 terrorist hijack four airliners. They fly two of them into ’s world trade towers, another hits the pentagon. Passengers aboard the fourth jet give their lives to stop the hijackers. President Bush tells Vice President Cheney, “We’re at war, Dick. We’re going to find out who did this and kick their ass.” The democrats in congress asked, he had 8 months on the job why didn’t he stop this from happening? They seem to ignore the seven years of attacks from the same terror group prior to Mr. Bush taking office.

September 12, 2001 Saddam Hussein is the only world leader to praise Bin Laden and the attacks. Even who we don’t have diplomatic relations with was offering help and Intel.

September 14, 2001

Mr. DASCHLE (for himself and Mr. LOTT) introduced the following joint resolution; which was read twice, considered, read the third time, and passed (This was written by Senator Daschel)

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

September 18, 2001 the first in a series of anthrax mail attacks targets government and the media.

October 7, 2001 after being criticized by the democrats for not having attacked anyone yet, President Bush authorizes the invasion of and the destruction of Al-Qaeda’s safe havens. Liberals claim we can’t win. Why in the world did they scream we should bomb people if they don’t think we can win?

November 12, 2001 the ruling Taliban is driven out of the capitol city of . Wait, it can’t work and we will lose is what we are told yet in over a month we took the capitol city?

December 9, 2001 the Taliban collapses baffling liberals around the world who said it could not be done. After all the Soviets fought for ten years and lost badly and we did it in 2 months. The war is not over but the enemy is in retreat and is forced to fight only in summer months and in small pockets of the country.

January 29, 2002 President Bush identified , , and as an “Axis of Evil” and pledges to deny them WMD. We were told that the president should not have done that, it will make these people angry at us and they might attack us. has been attacking us since 1979, has been messing with us for 50 years, is the new kid on the block with only 11 years of messing with us.

October 2, 2002 Congressional resolution in part states:

Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary;

November 8, 2002 the United Nations Resolution 1441 demands Saddam disarm or face “grave consequences”

3. Decides that, in order to begin to comply with its disarmament obligations, in addition to submitting the required biannual declarations, the Government of Iraq shall provide to UNMOVIC, the IAEA, and the Council, not later than 30 days from the date of this resolution, a currently accurate, full, and complete declaration of all aspects of its programmes to develop chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, and other delivery systems such as unmanned aerial vehicles and dispersal systems designed for use on aircraft, including any holdings and precise locations of such weapons, components, sub-components, stocks of agents, and related material and equipment, the locations and work of its research, development and production facilities, as well as all other chemical, biological, and nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to weapon production or material;

March 19, 2003 the US and dozens of allied nations restart the war that had been on hold since 1991 while we waited for Iraq to comply with the deal it signed. We were told that we should not have gone in there and we should not have gone in alone. The war was illegal. Congress approved it, the UN approved it, and more than a dozen nations joined us in the fighting. To the political enemies of the president this is going it alone. We were told to expect ten thousand dead troops the first day of battle and it would take years to take .

April 9, 2003 falls to US troops. Less than 30 days, good job troops!

December 13, 2003 Saddam Hussein is pulled out of a rat hole by members of the 4th ID so much for fighting to the death to keep from being humiliated by being captured.

October 8, 2006 Thanks to President Clinton giving North Korea a nuclear power plant, the beloved leader, Kim Jong Il detonates a nuclear bomb while his people starve and he demands we supply him with more food or else.

January 10, 2007 President George W. Bush orders a troop surge in to quell the violence. Democrats declare the policy and our troops doomed to fail that same week.

If you notice since 2001 we stopped being attacked by any and all organized terrorists on our own soil, the only terror organizations out there fighting at all are , , and the PLO or whatever name they are running under now. If you recall, President Bush said that , , and were an axis of evil. Now we have Iran and North Korea as an axis of evil, Iran is not helping terrorists anymore, Iran is sort of bogged down and can’t seem to make any good hits either in Israel or the US and North Korea is starting to conform to international requests to play nice.

Every time we as a nation try to be nice to our enemies before we defeat them we are attacked. The terrorists that we are dealing with were started and funded by the under the KGB chief Yuri Andropov, as a way to counter the success of freedom and the decline of communism around the world. This was done because of the arrogance of the soviets who believed that they could control what they created. Once the monster was out of the cage they rapidly lost control and the advanced training they provided the terrorists was passed on to others completely out of their control to the point that now Russia is battling the terrorists tactics they once taught. No one is safe until the enemy is fought and defeated. Only one country is doing this successfully and that is the .

166,574 views 134 replies
Reply #101 Top

[quote]I am not convinced how finding an alternative for oil will have any impact on the problem of terrorists trying to kill Jews and Christians (and, of course, Muslims)[/quote

If you look at conflicts around the world past and present you will see many instances where the underlying factor is oil and natural gas. A lot of alliances have atleast in part to do with access or protection of the flow of the actual resources and other alliances have to do with the routing of pipelines. Some terrorism is totally religious in nature, some is obviously not, and some that looks to be religious in nature isnt or was born out of various countries foreign policy in regards to protecting the flow or access to natural resources.

In any case I dont know how much impact it will have either, but I do know it will alleviate a source of future conflict as well as help solve other problems.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Reply #102 Top

In any case I dont know how much impact it will have either, but I do know it will alleviate a source of future conflict as well as help solve other problems.

how? I fail to see your logic here, please explain.

Reply #103 Top

$30/barrel is what caused it in the 80's...This is 2008

Not quite.  As late as 2002, oil was trading at those levels.  And gas was less than $1/gallon in 1999.  And barely more than that until after 2002. (http://www.wtrg.com/prices.htm)

 

Reply #104 Top

If you look at conflicts around the world past and present you will see many instances where the underlying factor is oil and natural gas. 

That seems odd to me because I am looking at conflicts around the world past and present and don't see the relevance of oil. In fact failed countries with or without oil seem to have civil wars and other countries are engaged in wars that relate to oil and wars that do not relate to oil.

Saddam Hussein didn't gas Kurds because of oil. And he didn't invade Iran because of oil. Arab nationalists did not scream "Death to the Jews!" since the 1930s because of oil (Israel doesn't have oil). And the Wahabis did not drive the Hashemites out of Mecca because of oil (there is no oil in the Hedjaz).

The conflict in Yugoslavia has nothing to with oil. And neither did the civil wars in Liberia and southern Sudan (and now Darfur). Afghanistan has no oil. India and Pakistan are not fighting about oil. North-Korea has no oil, is in fact famous for not having any oil at all.

Rwuanda was not about oil. Yet it was the greatest conflict of modern times.

If you want to find a common denominator, look for pan-nationalism and religious fundamentalism. That's usually what the conflicts have in common.

You have to look one step further than the obvious. Most people who think they are clever talk about oil and think they have found out some sort of great conspiracy that other people don't understand. It doesn't occur to them that those other people might simply know more.

For example, the city of Kirkuk in northern Iraq is sitting on an oil field. But the reason Kurds and Arabs are bickering over it is not the oil but the forced Arabisation under Saddam. Kirkus used to be a Kurdish city and is still majority Kurdish. The Nazis (Arab such, the Baath party) cleansed the city of Kurds and settled Arabs from the south in the province. Kirkus is now under Kurdish rule but outside the official Kurdish region (but this will likely change soon).

The first look makes you think it's about oil. And that first look is often all people need to take to tell themselves that they have gained a deep understanding of the issue. Don't fall for the trap. Oil is not that important.

 

Reply #105 Top

If you look at conflicts around the world past and present you will see many instances where the underlying factor is oil and natural gas.

 

Please point them out for me. I don’t see what you see. WWI was not over oil, WWII was not over oil, Korea was not over oil, Vietnam is not over oil, the gulf war was over oil, Saddam was trying to take over all the major oil fields in the area and he was stopped. The war on terror was not over oil so we have one war that was about oil. Show me where I am incorrect.

Reply #106 Top

Wait what am I asking? This is the guy that does not debate, he just points out where I am wrong with no proof. Sorry I did not mean to ask you any tough questions, you are free to post your democrat talking points without challenge because you are correct and the rest of us are wrong even when we don’t know what you are talking about. Don’t bother to explain your views because we are all too stupid to understand you. I would not want you to have to hurt your head trying to think.

Reply #107 Top

The war on terror was not over oil

Are you sure? Our foreign policy in the miiddle east is why Al Queda attacks us. And our foreign policy in that area is mainly about protecting the flow of oil to fuel economies.

Reply #108 Top

Are you sure? Our foreign policy in the miiddle east is why Al Queda attacks us. And our foreign policy in that area is mainly about protecting the flow of oil to fuel economies.

 

Very sure, are you, if so why are you sure?

Al Qaeda in the words of its leader stated from the beginning that his attacks on us were to rid the holy land of infidels. He also stated that he offered to fight the Iraqi army and was turned down by Kuwait and the Saudi’s belittling him. Yes, Iraq attacked Kuwait for the oil but not because of us but because he owed money to many nations like Germany, France, and Russia for the Iran Iraq war. It is true that our policy for the area is to maintain the free flow of oil. The war on terror is not about oil it is about the bruised ego of a nut job that wants to be seen as the leader of the Arab people, much like Saddam did. So in a convoluted way it is about oil but not for the terrorists. The attacks of 9/11 were about continuing the war declared seven years earlier that we ignored. After the attacks we began to pay attention to the things he said prior to the attacks like he wanted to destroy all the oil fields to make us leave. AQ does not seek the oil for money he seeks to destroy it so they can go back to herding goats and camels. We want the oil to fuel our economy. We support the dictators because they provide the oil. Once the oil is gone we have no stake in that part of the world other than the protection of Israel and with no oil there is no reason to support the dictators so we would not stop Israel from wiping out its enemies with our help. The same thing will happen when we find an oil substitute.

 

But the war on terror is because a group of idiots attacked and killed Americans on our soil. Allowing this to happen will have grave consequences to America so we have to fight this war or be seen as weak by nations and attacked by them.

Reply #109 Top

Very sure, are you, if so why are you sure?

You simply have to trace things back to the Carter Era and see what happened back then. You can even go back further to the start of Aramco and APOC but the nationalization of Iranian and Saudi oil resources are truly defining periods when it comes to foreign policy changes made in the region.

Reply #110 Top

Are you sure?

Yes.

 

Our foreign policy in the miiddle east is why Al Queda attacks us.

Says who?

Al-Qaeda attacks primarily Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan. Before 2001 Al-Qaeda spent most of its resources on subjugating Afghanistan, fighting Iran in the process. (Iran was supporting the anti-Taliban rebels in Afghanistan.) Al-Qaeda are Wahabi fanatics. They hate primarily Shiites, and then Jews, any Sunnis who don't follow Wahabiism, the Saudi-Arabian "royal" family (and for good reason!), and anything that indicates that (their version of) Islam is not the answer to everything.

Wahabi ideology has NOTHING to do with "our foreign policy". But American foreign policy has a lot to do with protecting people from Al-Qaeda, including Iraq, Afghanistan, Israel, and even Saudi-Arabia.

Perhaps you don't know much about Al-Qaeda, fundamentalist Islam, and the interactions between religious and tribal groups in the middle east? Is that not possible?

 

And our foreign policy in that area is mainly about protecting the flow of oil to fuel economies.

Most Muslim fundamentalists are most angry about American support for Israel, or so they say. Israel doesn't even have oil. And supporting Israel makes getting oil from Arab states more difficult, if anything. (In fact it doesn't have much of an influence any more.)

Perhaps the liberation of Kuwait was about oil. But American help in Israel or Lebanon has nothing to do with oil.

 

The idiotic statement about conflicts being about oil is all the more ridiculous considering that we all grew up during or shortly after the Cold War, which was totally and absolutely about ideology and not oil. The idea that people who scream "Death to the Jews!" are fighting over oil rather than ideology is complete and utter rubbish.

Forget about oil. It's not as valuable as you think. It's certainly less valuable than lives. So the next time you hear about American soldiers fighting against people who blow up mosques, perhaps think about what happened. It might just occur to you that Al-Qaeda blows up mosques not because of oil or American foreign policy but because Al-Qaeda hates the people in the mosque.

 

Reply #111 Top

It should be noted that Wahabiism started taking power in Arabia before the US even had a foreign policy, i.e. before WW1.

The original (i.e. actually legitimate) rulers of Mecca and Medina are the Hashemites.

Now this is a difficulty for the lefties: did America cause that problem by supporting the Saudis (i.e. the Wahabis) or by supporting the Hashemites?

You never know with the left, whether America is to blame because it is an anti-Islamic entity fighting Islamic freedom fighters or whether it is a corrupt oil-hungry entity supporting Islamic fundamentalists.

 

Reply #112 Top

 Yes, this evil dictator did the unthinkable. He allowed women to have the same rights as men, as written in the Quran, he recognized Israel as a state and said they deserved to live.

...as in the Quran.

The Quran doesn't know "Palestine". It only knows "Israel".

And the Biblical story of Moses the prophet telling the children of Israel that G-d commands them to live in the holy land is also in the Quran.

The Shah was a Muslim. Khomeini and especially those following him are not.

 

Reply #113 Top

You simply have to trace things back to the Carter Era and see what happened back then. You can even go back further to the start of Aramco and APOC but the nationalization of Iranian and Saudi oil resources are truly defining periods when it comes to foreign policy changes made in the region.

 

You simply have to trace things back and you will see that you are spouting liberal and communist talking points rather than the facts as they occurred.  But more to the point none of what you wrote tells me why you are so sure. You do have an opinion and I would like to read it, as well as your reasoning. Instead you just jump from topic to topic and spout unrelated things and expect me to connect the dots as you did.

Reply #114 Top

 Instead you just jump from topic to topic and spout unrelated things and expect me to connect the dots

That's a rather typical form of liberal discussion, I'm afraid.

It usually goes:

 

Conservative: X, because fact 1, fact 2, fact 3. (Stage 0)

Liberal: Y. (Stage 1)

C: Why Y?

L: Remember Carter/Reagan/Bush? (Stage 2)

C: Yes. But why Y?

L: Nicaragua! (Stage 3)

C: Why Y?

L: Why am I even discussing this with you bigot? Good bye you racist scum. (Stage 4)

 

 

 

Reply #115 Top

Says who?

But American foreign policy has a lot to do with protecting people from Al-Qaeda, including Iraq, Afghanistan, Israel, and even Saudi-Arabia.

US foreign policy would not be such if the middle east was not as rich in oil as it is. American foreign policy certainly has a lot to do with more than just commercial interests but it is definately something that affects the scale of involvement. Israel is a whole different ball game but there is no way to gauge what Al Queda would be doing against the US if that was our only interest there since Al Queda only came on the scene after the Soviets retreated from Afghanistan.  It was born out of that conflict in which the CIA was actually helping them fight the soviets.

It was the First Gulf War that really got things going against the US since Bin Laden was pissed that the Saudis got help from US troops to hold back Iraqi troops instead of using his mujahedeen group. That was the start of his enmity towards the US.  It is well documented including the public statements he made about his disagreement on this issue which caused him to lose his citizenship and get thrown out of Saudi Arabia.

Reply #116 Top

US foreign policy would not be such if the middle east was not as rich in oil as it is.

Perhaps. But you still fail to explain why that makes the conflict about oil.

(Also, you don't mean the First but the Second Gulf War. The first was between Iraq and Iran and lasted 8 years.)

It's like Dyno says, you keep jumping around. Everybody here knows the history. (At least we do.) That's not the point. You don't have to explain what US foreign policy was in the last few decades but how you believe it caused or affected Al-Qaeda and their terror attacks.

I told you that Wahabi fundamentalists were already taking over Arabia (and Islam) before WW1, before the US really had any involvement anywhere in the world except the Americas. And minorities like Jews and Kurds and others were oppressed and murdered in the Arab world before WW2, also before America's foreign policy reached much of the middle east.

And as you say yourself, American foreign policy regarding Afghanistan in the 1980s was beneficial to the Wahabis.

So can you please explain how American foreign policy caused Wahabis to take over Mecca and replace a somewhat tolerant Islamic faith with their fundamentalist (and anti-Quranic) ideology?

Sunnis and Shiites have been fighting each other for a thousand years. I think it is folly to assume that American foreign policy has anything to do with their war. Similarly, Arabs screamed "Death to the Jews" long before America saw Israel as an ally (and before Israel even existed again).

 

Reply #117 Top

But you still fail to explain why that makes the conflict about oil.

That is because I didn't say that it is ALL about oil. I would bet though that if the persian gulf didnt have an abundance of oil that the US wouldnt be there and the situation in the region would be much different from what it is today.



Sunnis and Shiites have been fighting each other for a thousand years. I think it is folly to assume that American foreign policy has anything to do with their war. Similarly, Arabs screamed "Death to the Jews" long before America saw Israel as an ally (and before Israel even existed again).

Im talking about US involvement in the region so why do you even bother bringing up the history that transpired before the US even existed?

Reply #118 Top

WWII was not over oil,

Half of it was - Japan went to war with us to secure and ensure oil supplies for its aggression.

Reply #119 Top

-sigh- Sorry Leauki, I know you hate my guts but I gotta jump in on this one again-

Perhaps. But you still fail to explain why that makes the conflict about oil.

If you look at the major players in the Bush Administration you'll see all of them belong to a group called PNAC- project for a new American century. If you google it you'll find some pretty interesting stuff on what they believe. In essence, they proposed pursuing American global hegemony.

The Iraq war had nothing to do with liberating Iraq, WMD or terrorism. That's all Tom Clancy stuff for the beer and football loving masses. It actually had everything to do with China and Russia, and a little bit to do with punishing a non-compliant leader.

whaa???

The non-compliant leader part goes back to the fact that after Saddam took power the U.S wanted to do with Iraq what they did with Saudi Arabia in the 60's and 70's- namely, massive economic development in which major American firms and businesses move in, build cities and infrastructure and oil partnerships with U.S companies in major oilfields. All paid for with Iraqi petrodollars. Saddam refused this. He wanted to keep much of Iraq nationalized and out of the hands of foreigners. Going back in time, it was for this same sin that the U.S sent Kermit Roosevelt to Iran to assist in the CIA's efforts to overthrow Prime Minister Mossadegh.

Anywho. Back to China. The PNAC have an obsession with China as the next big enemy the U.S will have to eventually square off with in some crazy future WW3. Part of their plainly stated plan for dealing with a future conflict with China is to first deny them as much critical resources as they can. This means denying them

A) Oil from as much of the middleast as possible.

B) Routes through the middleast for pipelines and transportation of resources back to China.

C) It's always nice to have a major source of oil in your back pocket, geopolitically speaking.

The importance of major energy resources can't be understated. As Dr. Guy correctly pointed out, Japan went to war because they needed oil which they presently didn't have within their own borders.

During WW2, the Germans made a disastrous move in order to try and get the oil of the Caucasus- this was the battle of Stalingrad, if you remember, they sent an entire army group south to take the caucasus while sending another army group east at the same time to take Stalingrad on the Volga. We all know how that ended.

What was SUPPOSED to happen was this:

U.S invades Iraq and wipes the floor with Iraqi army- check

After a couple of months situation is calmed down and the U.S then moves on to take out Iran if they already haven't been sufficiently cowed- not so check.

Once Iraq and Iran are both in the U.S camp (one way or another) In conjunction with bases in Afghanistan the U.S has not only cut off major potential sources and easy transit routes for oil to China, but they also have nice cushy well stocked bases from which they can carry out military operations against China if they so choose (in conjunction of course with existing U.S military facilities in the Pacific, like the mega-base on Okinawa, S. Korea, etc)

Unfortunately, the plan fell apart after step 1 which was supposed to be a stepping stone in a plan to secure geo-political hegemony in the middleast in order to be on a better footing to confront China (and possibly Russia) militarily in the future.

Reply #120 Top

It should be noted that Wahabiism started taking power in Arabia before the US even had a foreign policy, i.e. before WW1.

Absolutely correct. The British can be thanked for that. It was the British who mostly invented and fostered the Wahabi offshoot as a means of controlling much of the local populace!

Reply #121 Top

 

What was SUPPOSED to happen was this:

U.S invades Iraq and wipes the floor with Iraqi army- check

After a couple of months situation is calmed down and the U.S then moves on to take out Iran if they already haven't been sufficiently cowed- not so check.

 

This makes no sense in any way shape or form. We can not logically invade Iran because we would create more enemies there than we have now. 70% of the population wants to ally with America. This was a survey done in Iran by a university professor who when he published the results lost his job because the 30% that don’t want to ally with America are in the leadership. If we invade we turn the 70% friendly to 5% friendly. War is not the answer in this case. I explained this to you before and you still love to spout this untruth. No sane military planner would suggest what you espouse. No diplomat that knows the region would espouse this idiocy.

 

Our problem with Iran today is the leadership, no one under age 40 supports them in Iran. There is even talk inside the country of wanting the Shah to come back and take over, (the son not the dead father) because even though they did not live under the Shah no matter how brutal he was life was better than it is now. Iran is an oil rich nation that has rolling blackouts and gas shortages.

 

To top it off the president of Iran is in hot water with the religious leadership, he has already had his wings clipped twice and they are thinking of dumping him altogether.

 

As long as they don’t get hold of a nuclear weapon we can wait them out and the people will take over. This was the stated strategy and policy of our president and our nation, he has not changed this in the last 5 years.

 

Please tell me how we are trying to cow Iran or take them out?

Also tell me why we want to do this?

Once Iraq and Iran are both in the U.S camp (one way or another) In conjunction with bases in Afghanistan the U.S has not only cut off major potential sources and easy transit routes for oil to China, but they also have nice cushy well stocked bases from which they can carry out military operations against China if they so choose (in conjunction of course with existing U.S military facilities in the Pacific, like the mega-base on Okinawa, S. Korea, etc)

I don’t know what drugs you are using but you need to find a better supplier. There is no mega base on Okinawa. The only mega base in the area was Subic Bay Republic of the Philippines. When that closed down decades ago, everything was transferred to our bases on Guam and Hawaii. There has never been a mega base in South Korea. In Korea we have a regiment of fighter planes, and less than a division of army troops and sometimes as much as a battalion of marines that visit from Okinawa. On Okinawa you have the third MEF roughly 60k marine’s one air wing of fighter bombers, a US coast guard station and a fighter base at Kadena air base. So when we supposedly attack China with 80k troops against China’s three million man army I would venture a guess that we might have a hard time especially since they have nukes and with Mr. Clintons help they are now able to use their ICBM’s to nuke us. You are insane if you believe that we are planning to invade or attack China. I don’t have a map with me but if I remember correctly the only way to attack China from Iraq or Iran would be to go through Russia the long way. Russia might have something to say about that so we would have to go to war with and defeat Russia before we could begin to attack China.

 

You really need to stop reading those crazy wacko websites.

 

Reply #122 Top

This makes no sense in any way shape or form. We can not logically invade Iran because we would create more enemies there than we have now.

I agree with you on this 100%! However, it's no secret that Washington has been very unhappy with Iran for a long time. Yes, they'd love for a popular uprising to take over and then they wouldn't have to use military force. Will it happen? I can't say.

Please show me the statistics you state that 70% of the population wants to be allies with America.

Furthermore, if there isn't a popular uprising in Iran or regime change, and the U.S doesn't partake of military action against Iran, there's a good chance Israel will. Several prominent lawmakers in Israel have publicly stated that direct confrontation with Iran is not a matter of if but when. Again, going back on my earlier statements, and in conjunction with Seymour Hirsch's article here http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/07/07/080707fa_fact_hersh 

about the U.S current activities in Iran. Let's take a stroll down a couple years past-

back in 2006 Israel and Hezbollah got into a scrap. The plan was to wait for Hezbollah to commit a particularly nasty crime (which they did) then use that as justification for a full out assault intended to wipe them out.

The campaign was supposed to remove the threat immediately to the north of Israel and at the same time be a proving grounds for the ability to wipe out sophisticated command and control networks located underground.

Once this was succesful, and without having to worry about massive retaliation from an enemy right on their border, Israel and possibly the U.S could launch a joint operation very similar to the 2006 summer campaign, but on a much larger scale, that would take out Iran's nuclear capability and the bulk of their conventional forces. The thought was that with nuclear facilities gone and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard in tatters that the people would then gladly rise up and regime change would occur.

Well, the 2006 war backfired miserably and failed to destroy Hezbollah. So, instead of direct action against Iran things have gone to a more covert level, but still going on nonetheless. I've provided links to all of these articles in the past, and would be more than happy to do so again if you'd like.

I don’t know what drugs you are using but you need to find a better supplier. There is no mega base on Okinawa.

Hmm, 60,000 marines doesn't qualify as a mega-base? Furthermore, why does the U.S need 60,000 marines in Okinawa? What purpose do they serve? Japan has an extensive armed forces of it's own. Besides, the number of troops stationed there isn't the most important thing. What is important is the stockpiling of materiel and supplies there. Rumsfeld's vision for the new American military is to have equipment, supplies and munitions stockpiled ahead of time in key bases around the globe, so that when necessary all that needs to be transported in theatre are the troops themselves, equipment is shipped ahead of time.

No, I never stated that the U.S plans to attack China with 80,000 troops. However, the strategic bases and supply points exist in the vicinity should the U.S ever decide to ramp up in short order for action against China. Again, it's all about geo-political positioning and posturing.

In controlling Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and most of the countries ending with "an", the U.S could essentially cut off most major sources and easy transportation routes for oil to China. This is of course counting on Russia and China not teaming up, which historically is very rare even when both were staunchly communist. With the easiest land-access routes and sources removed, China would have to rely massively on shipping then, which is where things like the bases on Diego Garcia, Okinawa, S. Korea and the like could come into play.

But seriously Paladin, don't take my word for it- look it up yourself. Here, go to this link http://www.newamericancentury.org/index.html

You'll see among the signers of the statements of principal most of the people responsible for debacle in Iraq; Rumsfeld, Wolfowityz, Cheney.

The organization un-officially came to an end in 2006-2007 primarily because they were getting too much publicity and mockery in the public sphere, although very little media attention was granted which is odd considering the heavy-hitting names that signed onto it.

Here's more info-

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

And this little tidbit-

According to its critics, the PNAC promotes American "hegemony" and "Full-spectrum" dominance in its own publications featured on its website.[26][27][28][29]

Reply #123 Top

I agree with you on this 100%! However, it's no secret that Washington has been very unhappy with Iran for a long time. Yes, they'd love for a popular uprising to take over and then they wouldn't have to use military force. Will it happen? I can't say.

 

You can’t be serious! We paid them back for the taking of the hostages by having Israel supply them with faulty weapons systems that got their people killed, remember Iran Contra? We used Iranian money that paid for the faulty weapons to support the Contra’s when the Congress cut off funding and even Israel made a profit. We supported Iraq in that same war selling him WMD, which is the reason we knew he still had some after the Gulf War because Germany sold the stuff to make nuclear weapons along with France and Russia we sold biological weapons starter kits, and who is this Washington guy you talk about? If you mean the government then you are incorrect. The pay back was done and now they are starting something different after 9/11. we slow the shipments of refined gasoline to Iran causing gas shortages and rolling blackouts to foster more discontent why do we need to invade again?

 

Please show me the statistics you state that 70% of the population wants to be allies with America.

 

I guess you are too busy reading wacko websites to notice news stories in the press. Google it. Wait I tried and it is gone now, I guess it is too old and too minor a piece to keep around.

 

 

 

Seymour Hirsch's article here

 

Wait you are quoting an opinion piece as your source of factual information?

 

In controlling Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and most of the countries ending with "an", the U.S could essentially cut off most major sources and easy transportation routes for oil to China. This is of course counting on Russia and China not teaming up, which historically is very rare even when both were staunchly communist. With the easiest land-access routes and sources removed, China would have to rely massively on shipping then, which is where things like the bases on Diego Garcia, Okinawa, S. Korea and the like could come into play.

 

I am very glad you can read that the purpose of strategic military bases around the world are for the purpose of prosecution of war. To use that 100 year old strategy as a clue that we want to attack anyone is wrong.

 

You'll see among the signers of the statements of principal most of the people responsible for debacle in Iraq; Rumsfeld, Wolfowityz, Cheney.

 

Sorry I can’t get that far into the article. what debacle are you talking about?

 

Hmm, 60,000 marines doesn't qualify as a mega-base? Furthermore, why does the U.S need 60,000 marines in Okinawa? What purpose do they serve? Japan has an extensive armed forces of it's own. Besides, the number of troops stationed there isn't the most important thing. What is important is the stockpiling of materiel and supplies there. Rumsfeld's vision for the new American military is to have equipment, supplies and munitions stockpiled ahead of time in key bases around the globe, so that when necessary all that needs to be transported in theatre are the troops themselves, equipment is shipped ahead of time.

 

By your silly standards then yes we have three mega bases for marines one in California, one in north Carolina, , and one in Okinawa, homes of the first second and third marine divisions but since there are only three active division in the world no, they are not mega bases. This is why people who have no understanding of the military and how it works should not try to tell people about the military. Since I was a marine and stationed at each of these bases I can attest that they are not mega bases. First Marine Expeditionary Force is responsible for being first in any war that starts west of the Mississippi to the center of Tehran. Second Marine Expeditionary Force is responsible for being first in any war that starts east of the Mississippi to the center of Tehran. Third Marine Expeditionary Force is responsible for supporting functions such as back up and support of the first two and the defense of Japan. The peace treaty signed at the end of WWII forbids Japan from having anything larger than a self defense force, they are prohibited from any military action outside the borders of Japan and we are tasked with their defense. If you look it up you will see the name is the Japanese self defense force. Their entire military is smaller than what we have stationed in Japan. While the Fourth Marine Expeditionary Force is responsible for being the reserve force to fill in when one of the others is occupied. Their mega base is in New Orleans Louisiana. Each has about 60k Marines well, a little more now that they are ramping up. Now you go to the Army which has larger numbers of troops but they don’t go outside the US very much except in Germany and Korea which we are in the process of closing down but maybe not. Wait this explains why you think we are stretched militarily. You have no idea how our forces are arranged or the numbers we have. Anyway the army has bases with a hundred thousand troops on them that might be thought of as a mega base but not really.

 

Wow you really are ignorant of the military and you rely on idiot websites for your information. You think that Rumsfeld came up with this idea of prepositioning supplies. So the whole time that President Reagan was building up the military and setting up the maritime prepositioning ships with all that stuff you wrote about, wait you may be right, since Secretary Rumsfeld was the only person to serve as SecDef for two different administrations. It might have been his idea 30 years ago when it started. As far as the stockpile of material all that is kept on the bases is enough stuff to fight for 180 days. The rest comes from other places depending on where the war is. this is how we did the Gulf War and it worked well for the most part.

Reply #124 Top

Wait you are quoting an opinion piece as your source of factual information?

Because its the facts in it that are important. The fact that the pentagon was pushing back at the bush admin because the administration was pushing for war in Iran.

You think that Rumsfeld came up with this idea of prepositioning supplies. So the whole time that President Reagan was building up the military and setting up the maritime prepositioning ships

It really doesnt matter whose idea it was, but you might want to go back to the Carter Administration to see how it applies to the Persian Gulf. It is the Carter Doctrine and the creation of the RDF that is important in this context. The Regan Administration was responsible for expanding the concept of the RDF.

Skip the BS and go read the 1980 Carter State of the Union Address if you still dont understand what US foreign policy in the persian gulf is all about.

 

Reply #125 Top

It really doesnt matter whose idea it was, but you might want to go back to the Carter Administration to see how it applies to the Persian Gulf. It is the Carter Doctrine and the creation of the RDF that is important in this context. The Regan Administration was responsible for expanding the concept of the RDF.

I think you mean the RDJTF Rapid Deployment Joint Task Force, the forerunner to USSOCOM? Yeah I was part of that stupid group for a while till the Marines wisely pulled out of it. SOCOM started a year before I left active service but the Marines opted out of that as well. I heard they are in it now but not my thing anymore. Mr. Reagan did not expand on it he threw it out the window and started over hence we now have USSOCOM. I also helped write the first draft of the new thing in the Marines called F.A. S. T. Company well I guess it is not new now since I left the Corps 20 years ago. The Fleet Anti-terror Security Team was our answer to terrorism and no they don’t run around kicking in doors although they do make buildings fall down a lot when they come knocking. I digress and I apologize nostalgia took over.

 

Okay I read the state of the union address, I don’t see what you are talking about please explain it to me. All I see is a feckless president trying to explain why he ran the country into the dirt, could not rescue the hostages and destroyed the economy. What doctrine are you referring to? Not going to the Olympics as a way to stop the Soviets invasion of Afghanistan? I am lost here give me some help.

 

Are you talking about this passage?

 

“Let our position be absolutely clear: An attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force.”

This specific line was lifted from President Trumans Doctrine

 

So how is restating what Presidents

 

Eisenhower, The Eisenhower Doctrine, given by President Dwight D. Eisenhower in a message to the United States Congress on January 5, 1957 stated the United States would use armed forces upon request in response to imminent or actual aggression to the Middle East. Furthermore, countries that took stances opposed to Communism would be given aid in various forms.

Kennedy, “Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.” He also called upon the public to assist in “a struggle against the common enemies of man: tyranny, poverty, disease, and war itself.” It is in this address that one begins to see the Cold War, us-versus-them mentality that came to dominate the Kennedy administration.

 

Johnson, The Johnson Doctrine, enunciated by U.S. President Lyndon B. Johnson after the United States' intervention in the Dominican Republic in 1965, declared that domestic revolution in the Western Hemisphere would no longer be a local matter when "the object is the establishment of a Communist dictatorship".

Nixon, The doctrine was also applied by the Nixon administration in the Persian Gulf region, with military aid to Iran and Saudi Arabia, so that these U.S. allies could undertake the responsibility of ensuring peace and stability in the region. application of the Nixon Doctrine "opened the floodgates" of U.S. military aid to allies in the Persian Gulf, and helped set the stage for the Carter Doctrine and for the subsequent direct U.S. military involvement of the Gulf War and the Iraq War.

 

They have all said the same thing how is this a new doctrine? It is simple mess with us or our interests and we will go to war.

 

The Bush Doctrine

In an address to the United States Congress after the attacks, President Bush declared that the U.S. would "make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them," a statement that was followed by the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan.