US apologises for war in Afghanistan

1. I don't care about the 10 commandments.

2. So the link says there's a scandal about how money is being spent (article seems to be mostly about Iraq). So what ? This provides no evidence whatsoever, that "the main objective in invasion was to transfer wealth from US taxpayers to corporate coffers", as you pompously proclaimed.

3. Are you saying that to keep the Pakistan government from allowing their nukes to fall into the hands of terrorists is not one of the reasons for the US to be in Afghanistan militarily ?

If so, and if you have some evidence (of any kind) to substantiate that, let's hear it.

 

Jumping to conclusions doesn't help.

 

Note the subheading of the guardian link : "Read the November 2011 IAEA report warning that Iran appears to be on a structured path to building a nuclear weapon" http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/interactive/2011/nov/09/iran-nuclear-programme-iaea-report

Reading part C of the Annex of the report, it is clear to anyone above the level of an ape, that Iran is building a nuclear weapon. Nobody is jumping to that conclusion. We know it for certain. Especially, read C.12. "Fuzing, arming and firing system"

Additionally here's some simple arithmetic. IAEA report + Iran's nuclear attack threats = invasion. If I were President they would already have been invaded, and their nuclear facilities and weapons work would be on the TV news shows.

 

Sure it is. I see it being talked about every day. What have you been checking ? NPR ?

 

No, I will NOT debate you about John Hagee. He is your subtopic, not mine, and I don't give a rat's ass who he is. I only commented on your equation of him to an Islamic preacher, that's all.

 

Of course you don't, it's convenient to your argument to ignore that the 10 commandments are part of the basis of the moral code that Christian faith is based on, and that it derives from the old testament.

Actually, it is not merely a scandal, but there are widespread instances of abuse, waste and fraud. There was an enormous amount of money spent on the war and that money almost entirely went to multinational government contractors. It proves that money is a very legitimate motivating factor in the determination to wage military action and what military action is used.

I didn't say that, but I certainly don't believe a case was ever made to warrant invasion of Afghanistan to prevent such. The ISI is the CIA's (*)(*)(*)(*)(*). Therefore, Pakistan is the USA's (*)(*)(*)(*)(*). Hence why we were able to simply send in a hit squad to take out Bin Laden without even contacting the Pakistani government first.

In this case, if you are the one asserting that invading Afghanistan was legitimized by an imminent threat of Pakistani nuclear weapons falling into the hands of terrorists, it would be your responsibility to prove such.

 

There may be connections between war and war industry, and there probably are in all countries, but to sum up that "war is a racket" is ludicrous. It's like saying there is no other reason for war. How about 1400 years of Islamic warfare against non-Muslim societes ? Hitler's attempt at world domination. The Japanese imperialism of the far east, etc. These all had non-industrial motives, on both the offensive and defensive sides.

 

No, it doesn't. I didn't jump to any conclusions, though. I've spent a great amount of time studying the mechanisms of our current geo-political order and how things came to be the way they are.

 

1. Conveniece has nothing to do with it. I simply don't have evidence that Moses talked to a bush, or any of the rest of it. Nor do I believe in the fairy tales of Adam & Eve or Noah's Ark. My Chrisitianity comes from Jesus Christ, and nowhere else.

2. Sure, money is a motivating factor. It's a motivating factor in everything. What else is new ?

3. And I certainly DO believe a case was ever made to warrant invasion of Afghanistan to prevent such. Many times over. This isn't rocket science. Pakistan is one of the most fundamental Islamic countries in the world. They have over 100 nuclear warheads. Earlier in the thread, I posted links about the fallibility of the Pakistan government, and the precarious situation of the warheads relative to terrorist organizations, who have attacked their storage facilities repeatedly. So now we have to go back and dig up the sources all over again ? Once isn't enough ? This is probably the # 1 reason for a country's military to be where it is, on a foreign soil, in the entire history of the world.

4. I've already provided the info. Are you reading the thread ?

Try this on (for the second time) > "The prospect of turmoil in Pakistan sends shivers up the spines of those U.S. officials charged with keeping tabs on foreign nuclear weapons. Pakistan is thought to possess about 100 — the U.S. isn't sure of the total, and may not know where all of them are. Still, if Pakistan collapses, the U.S. military is primed to enter the country and secure as many of those weapons as it can, according to U.S. officials."

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1893685,00.html

"The leaked US cables on the Pakistani nuclear arsenal reveal a serious and growing threat of nuclear terrorism that has been deliberately played down by western governments, counter-proliferation experts said yesterday. They argued there were political and legal constraints on the assistance the US and others could offer Pakistan to help improve security, and that home-grown safety measures had not kept pace with the rapid growth of the country's nuclear complex and the spread of extremism."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/01/wikileaks-cables-pakistan-nuclear-threat

 

Hitler's war machine was financed by the same globalists that financed the Bolshevik revolution in Russia and FDR in the US.

It's all a big shell game.

Antony C. Sutton

Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution.

 

That doesn't change the fact that by your own judgement of Islam as being responsible for the actions of followers of Islam also applies to Christians and followers of the Christian religion.

I personally find it to be utterly silly to suggest that Adam and Eve and Noah's Ark are fairy tales while then professing faith in Jesus, which has as much factual evidence to support his existence as a fairy tale.

In this case, the obscene amount of money spent and the utter lack of over sight and the granting of no bid contracts lends itself to the notion that the money was THE motivating factor. Particularly in Iraq, where there was a clear orchestrated effort to push into war under the false pretenses of WMD and an imminent threat.

No, you did not provide evidence to support the claim that the basis for the invasion of Afghanistan was to prevent the transfer of Pakistani war heads to terrorists. What would Pakistan have to gain from such a transfer? Why was invasion of Afghanistan necessary to prevent such? How did the invasion of Afghanistan prevent such?

 

Post # 509 will give you a little more of those mechanisms, highly worth studying.

 

1. You talk very confidently. Does that talk about factual evidence of the existence of Jesus, include knowing who some of the main authors are who support the contention of his existence ? If you know who they are, state them here now, as well as your reasoned rebuttal of their contentions. Otherwise, you're talking poppycock.

2. Whatever the motivating factor to be in Afganistan, militarily, was 9 years ago, I can assure one and all that there is one, and one only, important motivating factor for every American alive right now. That is to have the US military in place to move in to Pakistan immediately, with the minimum delay possible, in the event of Pakistan's nukes falling into the hands of Islamic looneytune terrorists.

3. What Pakistan has to gain has nothing to do with it. Why do you even ask such a strange question ? Also, I notice you're talking in the past tense. I'm talking present tense. Do you think military contracts money is the prime reason for the US military to be in Afghanistan NOW ?

 

Yeah ? And how about all those wars before the industrial revolution, when there practically was no industry, period ?
And how about all the Islamic crazies and their ceaseless wars. Military contracts ? LOL.

I'll refrain from debating you any further. You're off the deep end.

 

You can't debate the truth.

 

I just did. You lost.

 

Sorry mate, you are leaping to conclusions in a poor attempt at validation. It doesn't work.
You can provide all the websites you like but until you can provide a direct quote from the IAEA which unequivocally states that Iran is developing a nuclear weapon, I'll reserve judgement. That's how the law and the rules of evidence work. You don't convict simply because you think something underhand is happening.

 

'Appears to be' isn't evidence. It isn't even close to a guess. If Iran is building a nuclear weapon then why isn't the IAEA saying so? Hmm? Could it be because they don't have the evidence?

 

Here's a working link to the IAEA report of 9th November 2011 - I don't know how you could draw your conclusions with the link that you used - http://nationalpostnews.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/iaea_iran_8nov2011.pdf

You say that this report states that Iran DOES have a program to develop a nuclear device. I say you are seriously misinformed. Either that, or you are guilty of deceit. Here are some excerpts from that November report:

That's wishy-washy word-wobbling ... concerns ... possible .... dimensions .... The same wobble-words are repeated on various occasions. They are NOTHING like what you claimed, Protection. Not even close. So let's jump to the Conclusions (K); that is where we will find the evidence or at least the conclusion that "Iran has a programme to develop a nuclear device", not so, Protectionist?

Ah, here it is. The "invisible laptop" evidence again. Based on direct evidence that it has NOT seen, the IAEA concludes:

What the hell does that mean, if they never saw it? Overall? WTF is that? What part is underall? Anyway, given this massive weakness, let us continue to see what the IAEA concludes from evaluation of the overall:

Now before we get all gung-ho, let us examine that. Is it the same as "Iran has developed a nuclear explosive device"? If so, why not use fewer words. I put it to you Protection, that it does not mean anything of the sort. Is it even the same as "Iran has a program to develop a nuclear device"? Again, if that is what the IAEA believes, why not say so? I will tell you why. Because their evidence to substantiate such a conclusion sucks, and they know it.

What is that odd bit in this critical IAEA statement about "activities relevant to". If Iran developed them, why not say so. The reason can be found, not only in the fact that the evidence comes from an invisible laptop, but ALSO in the Annex where over and over again the IAEA admits that many of these activities have relevance, not only to producing a nuclear device, but also for a range of industrial applications.

Finally, is Iran "has carried out activities ..." (note the tense of the verb "to have") the same as "is in the process of carrying out activities ..."? If so, why not say so? I'll tell you; because Iran would haul the IAEA before they ICJ if they tried to publish that.

Want some more wobble-words from the report? "Iran may have planned and undertaken preparatory experimentation which would be useful"; "The alleged studies documentation contains extensive information regarding work which is alleged to have been conducted by Iran during the period 2002 to 2003" (all the 'alleged's' are needed because the laptop remains invisible).

In fact all this 'scary' stuff that gets discovered every year dates back to 2002/2003 and the infamous laptop = 'information from a member state'.

So Protection, where does the IAEA report state that Iran HAS a programme to develop a nuclear device." You claim it is there. Now you show us without using wobble-words. Cough up ... it is a serious accusation with a major contribution to war drum beating. You had better deliver, or your credibility will go straight down the large smelly pipe. So, was your claim a blatant untruth, or were you just repeating what some Red Kneck had told you?

Instead of reading this endless rehash of precisely the same stuff for the past 5 years, why not read Iran's very reasonable response to the IAEA report of 2010, which is to all intents and purposes identical to the 2011 one?
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=17975

 

No, you didn't. You ran away, afraid to even consider the truth.

In fact, several times throughout this thread you failed to accept truth in order to maintain your own prejudiced views. The Christian religion, like the Islamic faith, is what it is regardless of what you believe.

No one in the Bush administration ever suggested, prior to the invasion of Afghanistan, that the nukes in Pakistan was a determining factor for invasion. In fact, that is one of the most absurd reasonings for invading Afghanistan ever proposed.

Have fun living in your false dichotomy where everything is good guys and bad guys, black and white, right and wrong, and all you have to do is listen to the news to figure everything out.

 

What the report says is that is so troubling for Iranian apologists like yourself is that now the IAEA is finding everything the western "imperialists" have been saying to be credible overall...and we know what theyre saying dont we?

 

You can't wait for Iran to become a nuclear power because you can't wait to bomb them. Right? So far all you have is 'if', 'maybe', 'possibly'. None of which is evidence. Is it? But never mind-all that matters is that they're Muslims and therefore guilty by default. Right? Is that a fair summary of your position?

 

Exceeds post limit, thread is now closed.