Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Kosh on August 07, 2010, 05:44:09 pm
-
that someone called out Pakistan for supporting terrorists. (http://tribune.com.pk/story/32370/british-pm-in-india-sparks-terror-row-with-pakistan/)
NEW DEHLI: British Prime Minister David Cameron was mired in a diplomatic row with Islamabad on Thursday, over comments made on a trade-driven trip to India about the “export of terror” from Pakistan.
Pakistan’s ambassador to Britain accused Cameron of “damaging the prospects of regional peace” with his remarks on Wednesday in the southern Indian IT hub of Bangalore.
Asked about regional security issues, the prime minister responded with a warning to India’s arch-rival against becoming a haven for militant groups.
“We cannot tolerate in any sense the idea that this country (Pakistan) is allowed to look both ways and is able, in any way, to promote the export of terror, whether to India or whether to Afghanistan or anywhere else in the world,” he said.
The comments were gleefully splashed on the front page of every major newspaper in India, which has long accused Pakistan of harbouring and abetting groups such as Lashkar-e-Taiba.
“We should be very, very clear with Pakistan that we want to see a strong, stable and democratic Pakistan,” Cameron said.
“It should be a relationship based on a very clear message: that it is not right to have any relationship with groups that are promoting terror.”
Yes, finally a western leader has the nerve to call them out on it.
-
Given that the result was them cancelling an anti-terrorism summit, it was probably rather bad timing at the very least.
-
Score for America, we still subsidize those guys!
Yay! We directly and knowingly finance terrorism!
-
I am now convinced that David Cameron's foreign policy is based on pissing people off.
-
Quite similar to his domestic policy.
-
Given that the result was them cancelling an anti-terrorism summit, it was probably rather bad timing at the very least.
I'm not convinced that that would have had much effect if it was carried out.
I am now convinced that David Cameron's foreign policy is based on pissing people off.
Quite similar to his domestic policy.
That bad?
-
I am now convinced that David Cameron's foreign policy is based on pissing people off.
So we should just pretend that Pakistan doesn't sponsor terrorists?
-
I am now convinced that David Cameron's foreign policy is based on pissing people off.
So we should just pretend that Pakistan doesn't sponsor terrorists?
Hey, I didn't say that. All I said is that I don't like David Cameron.
-
Well, if Cameron is pissing people off, at least he's being honest. I'd rather have an offensive leader than a spineless one.
-
Or a liar, perhaps?
-
Someone needs to say it, it's obvious everyone suspects it, and whether it's truth or not, if Pakistan is not trusted by its allies then that needs to be addressed, not hidden under the carpet.
The only thing that annoys me about Cameron is the fact that, he's been a Thatcherite through and through, to the point where the Conservatives very nearly cancelled free school-milk for under 5's, first three cut targets for saving money are Education, Art and Health... That bought back some scary memories.
-
I thought Thatcher did a lot of good for the UK.
-
Someone needs to say it, it's obvious everyone suspects it, and whether it's truth or not, if Pakistan is not trusted by its allies then that needs to be addressed, not hidden under the carpet.
The only thing that annoys me about Cameron is the fact that, he's been a Thatcherite through and through, to the point where the Conservatives very nearly cancelled free school-milk for under 5's... That bought back some scary memories.
It's not much of a secret that the pakistani intelligence service (the ISI) has been training and equiping terrorists in the kashmir region as a means to asymmetricly push back against india. However it seems this strategy is starting to backfire with those militants starting to turn against the state, starting with the attack on sri lanka's cricket team last year. Now it seems every month there's at least one new bombing somewhere in pakistan. What's scary is pakistan's possesion of nuclear weapons.
-
I thought Thatcher did a lot of good for the UK.
She did a lot of good for certain sections of the UK, those above a certain wage or social level. Conservatives now would try and have you believe that Thatchers policies stopped us sinking even deeper into depression, but there's not any real evidence of that, all she really did is turn us into a nation that produces nothing tangible, a nation of sevices.
She might have loved Britain, but she despised the British, she was like a mixture of the worst aspects of Capitalism, money made right, and the 'great unwashed' existed only to help fund the higher 'classes', that's why it all ended it riots.
If anything, Thatcher created the huge social divide that exists in the UK these days, and is the source of far more problems than she fixed.
Edit: It should be noted that the move towards Devolution in Scotland was given a huge boost thanks to Thatcher using them as some kind of experimentation lab.
To quote Frankie Boyle on hearing that 4 million was being put aside for her funeral when she dies :
"For 4 million pounds you could buy everyone in Scotland a shovel and they'd dig a hole so deep you could hand her over to Satan personally". - It kinds of depend where in the UK you lived ;)
-
She did a lot of good for certain sections of the UK, those above a certain wage or social level. Conservatives now would try and have you believe that Thatchers policies stopped us sinking even deeper into depression, but there's not any real evidence of that, all she really did is turn us into a nation that produces nothing tangible, a nation of sevices.
To be fair kaynesianism by that point was failing, not just in the uk but also in the us and latin america.
-
Agreed, Labour was failing horribly by that point, seems to be a standard rule that 8 years is about maximum for any Political group to be in power before the facade starts crumbling and the rot sets in. But Thatcher is always made out (by the Conservatives) as one woman on a mission to fight corruption in Government that had formed over years of ineffective Labour Governance, but in truth, she was on a mission to help her rich and influential friends get as much of a leg-up as possible.
Some of the cuts made sense, coal was costing more to mine than to sell, others made none, British Steel was, at the time, considered some of the finest in the world, and she cut the industries head off, because importing lower-quality steel was cheaper, so while the quality of goods dropped, her buddies had more money in their pockets, and the UK lost one of its last Primary Industries. British Rail has just been a catalogue of ****-ups since privatisation, I wouldn't be surprised if the Taxpayer is actually paying more to subsidise the private companies running the Rail system than they used to pay the Government to actually run it, and yet those companies make, and keep massive profits.
Thatcher dealt with behind-the scenes corruption purely by moving it to centre stage and calling it policy.
-
Yeah, although it wasn't just about privitisation, a big part of what helped was deregulation. Overregulation more often then not strangles the economy in the long run with unneccesary beuracracy (I heard the government was also responsible for such things as determining how much the plumber could charge), and that's what was happening.
Actually I can cite a classic example of overregulation from the us. It used to be the airline industry was heavily regulated with prices set by the government (which made it very expensive to travel by air). Since the airlines couldn't compete on price, on their trans atlantic flights they started competing by offering bigger and better meals, so the agency responsible for regulation stepped in and started regulating the size of the sandwitches.
-
Score for America, we still subsidize those guys!
Yay! We directly and knowingly finance terrorism!
Want to know the best part? The US government (via Langley) has known since at least 1993 that elements Pakistan's intelligence agency, the ISI, has been financing and supporting Islamic terrorism, and furthermore that their political masters are at a minimum complacently aware of it, with some directly supporting it.
Yet Pakistan is our 'ally' in Afghanistan. With allies like Pakistan, who the hell needs the Taliban?
Those Wikileaks documents weren't a revelation to anyone familiar with the geopolitical history of the area - Pakistan's support of the Taliban has been the worst kept secret in recent history.
In short, good for Cameron; it's about time one of the political leaders said what their intelligence agencies are telling them.
-
And lets not forget that until 9/11 the ISI actually did directly support the taliban, not surprising since pakistan was one of the few countries that actually recognized it (along with our good friend saudi arabia, another sponser of islamic extremism and terrorism).
-
**** it. The second we get ethanol, hydrogen, electricity etc. working in this country, I vote for some serious regime changing in Saudi Arabia.
Same thing for Pakistan too, once we get around its nukes.
-
**** it. The second we get ethanol, hydrogen, electricity etc. working in this country, I vote for some serious regime changing in Saudi Arabia.
Same thing for Pakistan too, once we get around its nukes.
can we please save up some money and get out of debt first?
-
Why? We can just plunder it from the Saudi's as reperations for all the damage we've allowed them to do. :P
-
Cut off foreign aid.
-
I can't blame you for being angry certainly, nor can i really counter you as i know little of the situation and havent seen these documents, but take heed for a moment;
Is it really wise to punish the populations of entire countries for the actions of a minority of politicians and intelligence leaders? It would be like punishing the whole of the US for what the Washington Sniper or Charles Manson said or did (no offense intended by that, just a good example). A lot of the terrorist attacks target Saudi Arabia and Pakistan too; why would the terrorists attack their supporters if they were so in league with them?
And is forcing other countries into Democracy really the answer? Introducing democratic ideals and human rights yes, but that necessarilly mean Westminster-style goverment everywhere. I've lived in UK all my life (pure English born and bred) and i could tell you countless flaws in democratic systems. It would be no different to Iran marching into the US and forcing everyone to convert to extremist Sharia, or Japan punishing the US for "their evil acts" in WWII (not my opinion, merely an example of what someone might say). The reformation you seek is happening, but only the countries themselves can do it and only at their speed; all that hostile takeovers or cutting foreign aid would achieve is dirtying reputations and ultimately providing the terrorists with even more support.
Dont get me wrong; i can understand all your anger and its justified anger, but my worry would be that with such acts you might catch innocents in the firing line. We'd be no better than the terrorists if we did that, and we'd be giving them the upper hand too by acting like the "Imperialist dogs" they like to paint us as. Find me a definate terrorist and i'll gladly let the bullets fly, but i would argue being Pakistani/Saudi Arabian/Muslim etc doesen't automatically make you a mortal enemy of the world in need of punishment.
A of advice my dad told me once i'd like to close with; "never let a good think like the truth get in the way of a good story". The media should always be taken with a pinch of salt; they want a story, not to give the neutral truth, and ultimately these leaked documents were put up anonymously and havent necessarilly been verified. What's to say the Taliban or Al-Qaeda havent spread false information (which they have done in the past by giving erronous reports of civilian death numbers in air attacks, if i recall right)?
As i said at the start, you know more than me, and i'm not American to boot so maybe not my place to speak, but i've felt 'blinding fury' just like this in my life; its an easy and lethal trap to fall into. To beat the terrorists, we have to be a better person than them; hearts and minds. Only with that in place can the guns and the politicians and the bombs leave anything other than anger. Next time you meet someone from Pakistan or Saudi Arabia, ask them about what's happening; you might be suprised by the response. :)
-
Let's never forget that the west has done its own fair share of supporting terrorists in its own day. In fact there are few trouble spots where you can't find a government or two in the west who hasn't had a hand in making the situation worse.
-
Let's never forget that the west has done its own fair share of supporting terrorists in its own day. In fact there are few trouble spots where you can't find a government or two in the west who hasn't had a hand in making the situation worse.
not to mention the beautiful situation in Afghanistan when the west was supporting the taliban simply because it was batteling the Russians during the cold war
-
Let's never forget that the west has done its own fair share of supporting terrorists in its own day. In fact there are few trouble spots where you can't find a government or two in the west who hasn't had a hand in making the situation worse.
not to mention the beautiful situation in Afghanistan when the west was supporting the taliban simply because it was batteling the Russians during the cold war
That was a hell of a lot more intelligent, if rather short sighted than this.
Russia really did get a beating in Afghanistan thanks to the US weapons flowing in. Later some of these weapons would be used on us, but most weapons the Taliban use are actually of Russian origin.
Now we're getting our asses handed to us via our money that we gave to the Pakistanis, not years ago during the Russian occupation, but at the same time we're in Afghanistan.
-
Why? We can just plunder it from the Saudi's as reperations for all the damage we've allowed them to do. :P
They said Iraq would pay for itself too.
-
They said Iraq would pay for itself too.
Unlike Iraq Saudi Arabia actually has lots of money NOW.
Is it really wise to punish the populations of entire countries for the actions of a minority of politicians and intelligence leaders? It would be like punishing the whole of the US for what the Washington Sniper or Charles Manson said or did (no offense intended by that, just a good example). A lot of the terrorist attacks target Saudi Arabia and Pakistan too; why would the terrorists attack their supporters if they were so in league with them?
A lot of Saudi social attitudes is based on the government encouraging extremist Islam. They even have public lectures on how to beat their wives. They are taught to hate the west and everything it stands, so is it really any surprise that a lot of them do? It's no accident the overwhelming majority of 9/11 hijackers were Saudi.
And is forcing other countries into Democracy really the answer? Introducing democratic ideals and human rights yes, but that necessarilly mean Westminster-style goverment everywhere. I've lived in UK all my life (pure English born and bred) and i could tell you countless flaws in democratic systems. It would be no different to Iran marching into the US and forcing everyone to convert to extremist Sharia, or Japan punishing the US for "their evil acts" in WWII (not my opinion, merely an example of what someone might say). The reformation you seek is happening, but only the countries themselves can do it and only at their speed; all that hostile takeovers or cutting foreign aid would achieve is dirtying reputations and ultimately providing the terrorists with even more support.
This isn't about forcing democracy on anyone, it's about removing an obscenely corrupt absolute monarchy and forcing modernization. In so many ways socially and politically Saudi Arabia is stuck in time, it has far more in common with Dark Age era European kingdoms than anything we would recognize today, right down to literal witch hunts (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/babylonbeyond/2009/11/saudi-arabia-kingdom-steps-up-hunt-for-witches-and-black-magicians-.html), that's right, witch hunts. They only have the technology and money they do because we buy their oil.
And I'm not too sure how much the average Saudi would notice. They have very high unemployment and poverty rates, in fact the standard of living for the average Saudi has gone down in the last 20 years.
-
It's no accident the overwhelming majority of 9/11 hijackers were Saudi.
Demographic cart before the horse. The majority of 9/11 attackers were Saudi because Saudi Arabia is the place in the Middle East that sends the most of its population abroad for higher-level schooling. If it were based on simple largest recruiting base we'd be talking Egypt.
-
I'm not talking about introducing democracy to SA, necessarily...just getting rid of that damned oppressive monarchy.
-
It'd just be nice not to see muslims trying to do their version of the crusades today because of medieval they still are in there thinking.
Can't forget the ultra oppressive islamic revolution in iran (which favored the poor that are still poor).
This is just funny how pakistan supplied terrorists, then the terrorists eventually ***** slapped pakistan.
If indoctrination in this religion is so great in this area of the world, then that's perhaps the biggest collection of the most gullible sheeple i've ever seen.
Might as well take advantage of it. I'd send someone over there for recruiting, indoctrinating/brain washing, to have terrorists go after terrorists. I was thinking, at the next taliban get together, that one of them would sort of blow up in the whole group, because he was actually an undercover terrorist that goes after other terrorists. It's that old wisdom that people don't like to get a taste of the **** they give others.
-
And exactly who do you think they'd go after once one side won?
That's exactly the kind of idiocy that got us into this mess in the first place. :p
-
not to mention the beautiful situation in Afghanistan when the west was supporting the taliban simply because it was batteling the Russians during the cold war
Yeah that was definately one of those 'beauty of hindsight' moments. Was the same for us and Argentina before the Falklands; "here have this destroyer ... oh p*** we've just gone to war".
A lot of Saudi social attitudes is based on the government encouraging extremist Islam. They even have public lectures on how to beat their wives. They are taught to hate the west and everything it stands, so is it really any surprise that a lot of them do? It's no accident the overwhelming majority of 9/11 hijackers were Saudi.
It sounds like you've read a lot more into that aspect than i have. I've also heard that some families abandon female children because they prefer males; what the hell? :sigh:
This isn't about forcing democracy on anyone, it's about removing an obscenely corrupt absolute monarchy and forcing modernization. In so many ways socially and politically Saudi Arabia is stuck in time, it has far more in common with Dark Age era European kingdoms than anything we would recognize today, right down to literal witch hunts (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/babylonbeyond/2009/11/saudi-arabia-kingdom-steps-up-hunt-for-witches-and-black-magicians-.html), that's right, witch hunts. They only have the technology and money they do because we buy their oil.
And I'm not too sure how much the average Saudi would notice. They have very high unemployment and poverty rates, in fact the standard of living for the average Saudi has gone down in the last 20 years.
Actually i've heard a few good things coming out of their monarchy, though its likely the case of 'good apples, rotten apples, same tree'. King Abdullah (the monarch of SA) is known to be quite a believer in equality. He's already allowed the veil to be taken off in public inside hotels, and he's even offered to legalise female driving if his people wish it (sounds minor to us but to SA it would be at the same level as when we abolished black slavery). You might find some of this Dark Age belief is just keeping to old traditions and ideals that differ to ours, and a lot of them can be carried into modern life with the right mindset. A key is to show what is truly Muslim tradition and what was just put there by others (the full body veil for example isn't actually Muslim tradition if i recall right, it was an Afghan tradition someone adapted somewhere down the line). As for witchhunts, they happen certainly, but if you heard there was a peadophile or date rapist in your area, wouldnt you do one? Right or wrong regardless, same feelings, different target.
It'd just be nice not to see muslims trying to do their version of the crusades today because of medieval they still are in there thinking.
Don't disagree with you there. You'll be happy to hear a lot of Muslims (and not just those living in the west) share that thought, its just the minority are sadly a lot louder than the calmer lot. I hope projects like this one (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-10905070) change that.
Can't forget the ultra oppressive islamic revolution in iran (which favored the poor that are still poor).
Damn right. Can't deny even i've been yelling "commando raid Ahmadinejad's ass already", but better in the long run to let the hardliners show their true colors; the more people hate them, the more support for the liberators when the time does finally come.
If indoctrination in this religion is so great in this area of the world, then that's perhaps the biggest collection of the most gullible sheeple i've ever seen.
Heh heh, perhaps. I could imagine a Muslim though arguing that the west is gullible sheeple for loving only money (which can't go with you into heaven) and getting drunk (which can destroy you), much fun as getting drunk is :D; Capitalism and Materialism are almost religions in themselves when you look from the outside. A religion defines your outlook of life; what you think is important, what you think is wrong. For some, freedom and gathering money is not as valued as it is for the west, better, but not valued (that said, some Saudi Princes certainly go against that theory). Easy to follow what seems natural and right, especially if you've grown up believing it. Its a pity my dad was busy getting ready for work a minute ago, he's actually been to Saudi Arabia on buisness trips a few times (1-2 weeks a time) and i could've asked him for his opinion. He could give a better one than i can.
Might as well take advantage of it. I'd send someone over there for recruiting, indoctrinating/brain washing, to have terrorists go after terrorists. I was thinking, at the next taliban get together, that one of them would sort of blow up in the whole group, because he was actually an undercover terrorist that goes after other terrorists. It's that old wisdom that people don't like to get a taste of the **** they give others.
Okay, i confess, that made the evil side of me smirk. Would bet good money it happens already (Covert ops is Covert). Not the best solution as it causes collateral and tarnishes our rep in the long run (the better to convert them to peace) but certainly effective when all else fails.
-
Actually i've heard a few good things coming out of their monarchy, though its likely the case of 'good apples, rotten apples, same tree'. King Abdullah (the monarch of SA) is known to be quite a believer in equality. He's already allowed the veil to be taken off in public inside hotels, and he's even offered to legalise female driving if his people wish it (sounds minor to us but to SA it would be at the same level as when we abolished black slavery)
Women's driving = epic fail (http://saudijeans.org/2010/05/28/saudi-women-driving/)
You might find some of this Dark Age belief is just keeping to old traditions and ideals that differ to ours, and a lot of them can be carried into modern life with the right mindset. A key is to show what is truly Muslim tradition and what was just put there by others (the full body veil for example isn't actually Muslim tradition if i recall right, it was an Afghan tradition someone adapted somewhere down the line).
The "old ideals" as you put it actually is comparable to how ours used to be 1000 years ago. That they still hold onto such backwardness is telling.
As for witchhunts, they happen certainly, but if you heard there was a peadophile or date rapist in your area, wouldnt you do one? Right or wrong regardless, same feelings, different target.
I'm talking about hunting for literal witches, like what they used to do in Europe and early colonial America 300+ years ago. Unlike them most of us have moved on from such fairy tale beliefs.
It'd just be nice not to see muslims trying to do their version of the crusades today because of medieval they still are in there thinking.
Right on.
-
And exactly who do you think they'd go after once one side won?
That's exactly the kind of idiocy that got us into this mess in the first place. :p
Depends on which side won, or who even knows who won. Terrorist groups use the media to claim that they did something; they like PR, it makes them more well known and infamous. If this group of terrorists terrorizing terrorists never reported anything, and stayed on the down low, then maybe it'd get the izlamic terrorist groups to become suspicious of each other.
Of course taking advantage of something like this would be purely evil, never be easy, and would most likely end with a new terrorist group in power.
I think the idiocy that got my country into this middle east debacle was mostly the bush family. WMD's in iraq sure was an excuse if i ever heard one = were there only for the oil. And the discovery of all of those minerals in afghanistan was probably due to forknowledge with a prior much more dastardly excuse to get my country there too.
America sort of does consume most of the worlds oil and other resources. Aside from that, reminds me of what was said about keeping a country in a perpetual state of war to be able to sway public opinion and favor in 1984.
-
I think the idiocy that got my country into this middle east debacle was mostly the bush family. WMD's in iraq sure was an excuse if i ever heard one = were there only for the oil. And the discovery of all of those minerals in afghanistan was probably due to forknowledge with a prior much more dastardly excuse to get my country there too.
I think you attribute far too much of those motivations to malice.
WMD's in iraq sure was an excuse if i ever heard one = were there only for the oil.
I (http://www.nysun.com/editorials/iraqs-yellowcake/81328/) wonder (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25546334/) how (http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/07/07/iraq.uranium/) many (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellowcake) people (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200499,00.html) have (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/13/AR2005081300530.html) actually (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weapon_of_mass_destruction#Definitions_of_the_term) done their research on this?
And the discovery of all of those minerals in afghanistan was probably due to forknowledge with a prior much more dastardly excuse to get my country there too.
Really? The USGS survey was from 2007. SIX YEARS after the invasion started. Before then, Afghanistan, for all intents and purposes, was a spot of land with **** for resources, a ****ty spot on the map that everyone loved to try and conquer, and a ****ty place to live.
Seriously, the conspiracy theories that ten minutes of research debunks.
America sort of does consume most of the worlds oil and other resources. Aside from that, reminds me of what was said about keeping a country in a perpetual state of war to be able to sway public opinion and favor in 1984.
China?
Aside from that, can you name one war in the last... twenty years, excluding Iraq and Afghanistan, that the U.S. was involved in that wasn't in the form of U.N. peacekeeping? Hell if you can name more than just a few in almost 70 years, I'd be surprised, and most of those would be stuff like Panama and Grenada, where we were on the ground for a matter of days before leaving.
Korea? U.N. peacekeeping (seriously)
Persian Gulf War? U.N. mandated action
Somalia? U.N. peacekeeping
Intervention in Bosnia and Herzegovina? U.N. peacekeeping
-
I was more or less going after 9/11 for motive for war by americans in the middle east. 9/11 was a concocted super fake reason for my country to be over there that was carried out by my country with the taliban and alquaida being the scapegoats. So, dont be surprised if it raises my doubts about when that mineral field was found.
9/11, a pretty bad conspiracy.
-
9/11 was a concocted super fake reason
Wat.
Explain.
-
9/11 was heavy on the imagery concerning the twin towers. 2 planes did not take down the super structures which can and did indeed handle planes crashing into the side of them. The twin towers falling was your normal basic controlled demolition for starters.
-
Have you never seen the camcorder footage of planes hitting the tower? Go watch the documentary "102 Minutes that Changed America."
There's no use arguing with someone who bases their entire point on a conspiracy theory.
-
I can't believe there actually are people who still think that. :eek:
You know, a few years ago I discussed the subject on an Italian forum. I read scandalous posts, and forced myself to reply as I never did before. It took several hours to do that, but it was definitely worth the effort.
If you happen to speak Italian, or think you can use a proper translator, try to understand this. Especially the part about controlled demolitions, which provides reliable info on the matter:
Un sondaggio condotto a Luglio da Scripps News Service dimostrò che, a 5 anni dall'11 Settembre 2001, un americano su 3 non crede che 19 dirottatori abbiano potuto mettere in ginocchio la più grande potenza mondiale. Un po' per eccesso di fiducia nella tecnologia: la convinzione che i mezzi militari funzionino alla perfezione, come dicono gli "esperti" del Pentagono. e un po' anche per (inconscio?) razzismo: gli arabi non possono aver portato a termine un attentato simile. In molti, insomma, credono che sia stato un complotto.
A metà del '300, però, il filosofo Inglese Guglielmo di Occam disse che, quando un fatto può essere spiegato in diversi modi, le spiegazione più convincente è quella che richiede il minor numero di ipotesi successive.
Il principio è detto del "rasoio di Occam". Insomma, non è necessario trovare spiegazioni metafisiche e fenomeni fisici, "non occorre rendere complesso ciò che all'evidenza è semplice". Applicando questa regola alle tesi più diffuse dei "complottisti", abbiamo ottenuto alcune risposte, quelle che seguono. Sperando che risultino abbastanza semplici e convincenti pure per i nostri lettori.
Le spiegazioni ufficiali date adal governo degli Stati Uniti ai fatti dell'11 Settembre 2001 hanno ricevuto una serie di obiezioni. Ecco le principali.
Secondo Leslie Robertson, uno dei due progettisti del World Trade Center, le 2 torri erano state costruite per resistere a un incidente con un Boeing 707, l'aereo più grande a quei tempi in uso. Perché allora, dicono i sostenitori del complotto, le torri sono crollate dopo l'impatto?
I Boeing 767 (peso: 81 tonnellate) che colpirono le due torri sono del 20% più pesanti dei 707 (62 t) e avevano entrambi appena fatto il pieno. Leslie Robertson stesso spiegò, infatti: << non avevamo previsto un incendio alimentato dal carburante>>
Secondo gli autori del film Inganno globale, le cariche esplosive sono l'unica spiegazione possibile del crollo delle 2 torri. Anche i vigili del fuoco affermarono di aver udito esplosioni. E poi ci sono gli sbuffi dalle finestre che precedettero il crollo.
La prima a crollare fu la torre 2 (torre sud), colpita per seconda, più in basso. Un Boeing 767 ha un'apertura alare di 47,57 m e ogni lato delle due torri era lungo 63 m: l'impatto distrusse quindi gran parte delle putrelle perimetrali di un lato. Quando ai 48 profilati d'acciaio a T e a H del nocciolo dell'edificio, D. Shyam Sunder, direttore del Building and Fiire Research laboratory dell'Institute of Standards and Technology di Gaithersburg, Maryland, ha calcolato che almeno 10 profilati di 4 piano fossero stati più o meno danneggiati. Il Boeing 767, infatti, è altro 15,85 metri, e ogni piano delle due torri era alto circa 3,79 metri.
<<Se non si fossero incendiati i 37.800 litri di carburante, la torre sud avrebbe probabilmente retto>> spiega Danilo Coppe, esplosivista dell'Istituto ricerche esplosivistiche di parma, che ha oltre 500 demolizioni controllate al suo attivo. <<Per far cedere l'acciaio basta "snervarlo", risultato che si ottiene a 450°C: una temperature sicuramente superata nell'incendio. Inoltre l'acciaio trasmette il calore molto bene. Quindi se nel centro dell'incendio c'erano 1,500 °C, ce ne saranno stati 1,000 al piano di sotto e 850 a quello ancora inferiore. Insomma, lese le strutture portanti di 4 piani, sono state "ammorbidite" le altre. Su questo punto indebolito gravava però la massa dei piani superiori. Sopra al 77° piano c'erano ancora 33 piani, cioè un grattacielo più alto del Pirelli di Milano>>. Non c'è da stupirsi allora che dopo circa 50 minuti di surriscaldamento, i 4 piani indeboliti dall'impatto abbiano ceduto di schianto, sotto il peso dei piani superiori. Ma le strutture sottostanti, capaci di sopportare il grattacielo fermo, non erano in grando di reggere l'energia cinetica di quello stesso edificio.
Per capire il concetto basta immaginare la differenza di "peso" fra un mattone appoggiato sulla testa e uno che arriva sulla testa cadendo da 4 piani. Edurardo Kausel, docente di ingegneria ambientale e civile al Massachussets Institute of Technology di Cambridge (Usa), ha stimato l'energia generata dal collasso di ogni torre. Con una massa di circa 500 mila tonnellate e un'altezza di circa 411 metri, si arriva a un'energia potenziale totale di 1i 10^19 (10 seguito da 19 zeri) erg, cioè circa l'1% dell'energia rilasciata da una piccola bomba atomica. Una volta messo in moto questo meccanismo, anche strutture intatte come quelle dei piani inferiorio non erano in grando di reggere. Ecco perchè il grattacielo si è consumato "come un cerino". Perché non si può trattare di una esplosione controllata? <<Le demolizioni controllate funzionano meglio quando di massimizza l'effetto della forza di gravità, concentrando le cariche nei piani inferiori della struttura>> spiega Brent Blanchard che lavora per la Protec, una delle maggiori aziende di demolizioni al mondo: 1,000 demolizioni in più di 30 Paesi. <<Se si guardano bene i video e le foto del crollo della torre 1 e della torre 2, si vede che l'edificio ha iniziato a cadere esattamente nel punto in cui sono entrati gli aerei. I piani inferiori sono rimasti intatti finché non sono stati coinvolti nel collasso di quelli superiori. Nelle demolizioni controllate avviene il contrario: gli edifici si consumano dal basso>>.
<<L'ipotesi degli esplosivi>> continua Blanchard <<regge solo se si ipotizza che siano stati piazzati in anticipo esattamente nei piani colpiti dagli aerei (cosa ono agevole da prevedere) e che le cariche abbiano resistito sia all'impatto del Boeing, sia al calore dell'incendio>>. Quanto agli sbuffi di "fumo" dalle finestre, gli edifici abitati sono composti al 70% di aria e solo al 30% di strutture e contenuti. Quando un piano collassa, l'aria viene espulsa orizzontalmente dalle finestre, dove incontra meno resistenza. Nel caso della torre 1 e 2, è documentato che abbiano ceduto le putrelle centrali prima di quelle peimetrali, con un anticipo di circa 3 piani. {c'è un'apposita immagine, molto esauriente. n.d.r. Mobius}
L'aria e la certa degli uffici, espulse dalle finestre apparentemente intatta, causavano l'effetto della "deflagrazione". Quanto ai rumori molto forti, possono sembrare esplosioni, ma i sismografi del Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory della Columbia University di Palisades (New York), che hanno registrato il crollo della torre 1, della torre 2 e della torre 7, non hanno registrato vibrazioni indipendenti. Inoltre le leggi della fisica dicono che detonazioni sufficienti a demolire colonne di acciaio sarebbero state individuate dai sismografi.
Un caso a parte è quello della torre 7, un grattacielo di 47 piani che crollò alle 17:20 di quello stesso giorno. Secondo il film Inganno globale, era usctita indenne dall'attentato e crollò lo stesso. Perché? Perché come gli altri fu fatta crollare con l'esplosivo.
Secondo la ricostruzione ufficiale la vicenda ha una diversa spiegazione. Il crollo della torre 1 aveva infatti investito lo spigolo sud-orientale della torre 7 scavando una voragine che dal 18° piano andava fino alle fondamenta. La facciata lesionata, quella sud, era rivolta verso le torri: un'area alla quale era impedito a tutti l'accesso, ed è quindi visibile solo in 2 foto, mentre tutti hanno visto la facciata nord, intatta, che rendeva apparentemente inspiegabile il crollo. Dopo la caduta della torre 1, le fiamme divamparono per 7 ore, alimentate da una fuga di carburante sotto pressione. <<Voragine e fiamme spiegano ampiamente il crollo dal basso della torre 7>> dice Coppe.
Successivamente al crollo della torre 7, durante un documentario della tv PBS, Larry Silverstein, proprietario dello stabile, parlò di "pull it". Secondo Inganno globale, "pull" è un termine tecnico che significa demolizione controllata e quindi Silverstein avrebbe ammesso di aver autorizzato la demolizione.
Gli esperti di demolizioni controllate escludono che il termine "pull" sia usato in questi casi. Il solo contesto in cui viene usato è per edifici di pochi piani, quando vengono letteralmente "tirati" (to pull, appunto) con lunghe funi legate a bulldozer; mentre assai più frequentemente il termine "pull" viene usato per indicare l'evacuzione degli edifici. Dara McQuillan, portavoce di Silverstein, precisò il giorno successivo che intendeva "dare ordine ai pompieri di uscire dall'edificio divenuto troppo pericoloso".
Altro caso controverso quello dell'aereo contro il Pentagono. il buco del muro dell'edificio è largo 19 m, l'apertura alare del Boeing è di 38 m. Com'è possibile? Thierry Meyssan in L'incredibile menzogna e in Pentagate sostiene che il buco è compatibile con un missile Tomahawk{missile cruise. Potete trovare una dettagliata descrizione in Inglese (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BGM-109_Tomahawk) e in Italiano (http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/BGM-109_Tomahawk) }, o con un piccolo aereo telecomandato senza pilota.
Nella dirittura d'arrivo sul bersaglio, il "velivolo" ha abbattuto 5 pali della luce: 2 con l'ala destra e 3 con l'ala sinistra {anche qui c'è un disegno, n.d.r. Mobius}. L'apertura alare del Boeing 757-223 è di 38,05 metri, quella di un Tomahawk è di 2,7 metri: incompatibile quindi con i danni ai pali di entrambi i lati.
Il volo 77 colpì il Pentagono alle 9:38 di mattina, quando i suoi 20 mila dipendenti erano al lavoro e l'autostrada che corre lì vicino era piena di traffico. I testimoni oculari quindi sono stati decine di migliaia e tutti asseriscono di aver visto un Boeing dell'America Airlines volare ad "altezza frumento" (cioè raso terra) prima di schiantarsi contro la parete del Pentagono. Charles Spinney, ufficiale dell'aviazione che ha lasciato il Pentagono dopo aver rivelato per anni le stravaganze finanziarie del ministero della Difesa, ha affermato che <<le foto dell'aereo che colpisce il Pentagono esistono. Sono state prese dalle telecamere dell'eliporto (con la H nel disegno, ndr) {Non so come postarlo, questo disegno XD, ndr Mobius}. l'autista del veicolo dal quale ero uscito in quel momento ha visto l'impatto con tale precisione cha ha persino distinto i volti terrorizzati dei passeggeri ai finestrini>>. Di quei 58 passeggeri e dei 6 membri dell'equipaggio, decollati alle 8.20 sul volo 77, dall'aeroporto Dulles di Washington, oltre che dei 125 dipendenti del Department of Defense (che ha sede nel Pentagono) vittime dell'impatto, i medici legali hanno effettuato il testi del Dna, confrontamdolo con quelli dei parenti per identificare i resti carbonizzati delle vittime e restituirle alle famiglie.
Inoltre, fra i frammenti ritrovati nel buco nel Pentagono erano chiaramente riconoscibili le ruote, un pezzo del carrello di atterraggio e parte della fusoliera{il "tronco" dell'aereo...praticamente tutto quello che rimane se si escludono le ali e i timoni, ndr Mobius}. La documentazione sul Pentagono è limitata per motivi di sicurezza: non bisogna dimenticare che è la sede del ministero della Difesa{Già, ho proprio detto questo in precedenza, ndr Mobius}. Quanto all'assenza di rottami dell'aereo, Jacques Rolland, ex generale dell'aeronautica, ex pilota da caccia ed esperto della corte d'Appello di Parigi per incidenti aeronautici, ha spiegato che ci sono due tipi di crash aerei. Il primo è quando l'aereo impatta contro il suolo con un'angolazione minore di 45°. In questo caso si può dire che l'aereo precipita "piatto": più l'angolazione è bassa più i rottami sono numerosi e schizzano in una vasta area. Il secondo tipo è quando l'angolazione di impatto è fra 45° e 90°, come avviene in picchiata o negli avvitamenti. In questo caso il velivolo si chiude "a cannocchiale" su se stesso, nel cratere che ha creato e che sarà più o meno ampio a seconda della consistenza del terreno{anche in questo caso ci sono immagini molto chiare, ndr Mobius}. Nell'impatto sul terreno morbido il volo 93, che i dirottatori fecero cadere in picchiata su Shanksville, in Pennsylvania, creò un cratere di 35 metri. Reso verticale (la parete del Pentagono) quello che nell'esempio era il terreno orizzontale, il risultato non cambia. Il muro del Pentagono, più resistente, ha ceduto solo per 19 metri. Quanto alle ali, hanno una struttura a spina di pesce fatta di longheroni, che per motivi aerodinamici non è fissata alla carlinga ad angolo retto, ma verso la coda{Avete capito? Io spero di sì XD, ndr Mobius}. Il rivestimento esterno è in genere di 1-3 mm di lega di alluminio: resiste poco al calore. Distrutti nell'urto i longheroni che reggono le ali, queste si sono raccolte lungo l'asse dell'aereo: le loro ceneri sono nel cratere. Al momento della collisione, infatti, le ali contenevano ancora mezzo pieno, circa 20 mila litri di cherosene. Quanto al foro, quello che all'esterno appare come una breccia di 19 metri dall'interno è un tunnel che ha sfondato ben 3 dei 5 anelli concentrici in cemento armato rinforzato di cui è fatto il Pentagono. Nelle foto circolate, quelle prese dal satellite, si vede solo il danno al primo anello, di cui ha ceduto il tesso. Negli altri anelli il tetto ha resistito e il danno non è visibile.
meno facile spiegare l'abilità del pilota improvvisato, capace di mantenere il velicolo "ad altezza frumento".
<<Inizialmente avevo perplessità sulla capacità del pilota di mantenere il velivolo a pochi da terra>> spiega Leonardo lecce, docente di strutture aeronautiche dell'Università Federico II di Napoli. <<Ma in un recente viaggio all'Office national d'études et de recherches aérospatiales di Tolosa, centro d'addestramento avanzato per piloti, dirigenti e responsabili mi hanno assicurato che sui velicoli moderni come il Boeing 757-223, ciò è fattibile anche per un pilota non espertissimo>>. {Nella trasmissione televisiva che ho seguito sono stati addirittura tirati in ballo i simulatori per computer tramite i quali il futuro kamikaze ha potuto "addrestrarsi da solo", ndr Mobius}
Forse la perplessità più diffusa riguarda il volo United Airlines 93, quello in cui i passeggeri si ribellarono e da cui partirono, secondo un recente film, telefonate verso i parenti. Fu abbattuto da aerei Usa?
I dubbi sono durati due anni, finché la commissione si è accorta che gli ufficiali del Norad (North American Aerospace Command) {Comando Aerospaziale Americano, ndr Mobius} e della Faa (Federal Aviation Administration) {Amministrazione dell'Aviazione Federale, ndr Mobius} avevano mentito sostenendo sotto giuramento di aver reagito rapidamente e che dopo i due primi dirottamenti si erano levati in volo i jet pronti ad abbattere il volo UA93 se avesse minacciato Washington. Falso, tanto che alcuni commissari volevano deferire i falsi testimoni alla giustizia {come la mettiamo ora, mateee? XD, ndr Mobius}. <<Che figura avrebbe fatto il governo, se avesse ammesso che a un'ora e 25 minuti dal primo attacco non era ancora in grado di fermare il quarto aereo dirottato?>> ha detto John Azzarello, membro della commissione a spiegazione delle false testimonianze.
Le registrazioni audio del quartier generale del nord-est del Norad hanno infatto dimostrato senza ombra di dubbio che i militari non ebbero mai sotto controllo gli aerei dirottati: seppero del volo AA11 solo 9 minuti prima del suo impatto contro la torre nord; del volo UA175 contemporaneamente all'impatto contro la torre sud, del volo AA77 con 4 minuti di anticipo rispetto all'impatto nel Pentagono e del volo UA93 alle 10:07, quando si era già schiantato al suolo da 2 minuti. Se non altro per questo motivo, non possono averlo abbattuto.
I caccia dovevano intercettare gli aerei dirottati, come fecero con quello del campione di golf Payne Stewart. Secondo un portavoce del Norad, da quando la Faa segnala un dirottamento, <<il Norad ci mette pochi minuti per raggiungere qualsiasi punto degli Stati Uniti>>. Nel sito web dell'US Air Forces {Forze Aeree degli Stati Uniti, ndr Mobius}, si sostiene che un F-15 (http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-15) {F-15 Eagle...<pignolo mode off> XD, ndr Mobius} <<può salire a 8,840 metri in soli 2 minuti e 5 secondi e può volare a 3mila km/h {o.O manco fosse un SR-71 o il celeberrimo Aurora(che tra l'altro forse non esiste!!!)..., ndr Mobius}. Quindi, se fossero state seguite procedure normali, il volo 11 avrebbe dovuto essere intercettato alle 8:24, e comunque non dopo le 8:30, 18 minuti prima di andare a sbattere nella torre>>.
Nel 1999 alcuni jet in ricognizione rintracciarono l'aereo del campione di golf Payne Stewart che non rispondeva alla torre di controllo. In quel caso però il transponder dell'aereo, cioè l'apparecchio che comunica costantemente agli uomini radar nome del velivolo, posizione, velocità, altitudine, rotta e destinazione, era acceso, e quindi era facile localizzarlo. Ciò nonostante i jet ci misero un'ora. Ma se il transponder è spento (e la prima cosa che fecero i dirottatori fu spegnere i transponder) l'apparecchio diventa un anonimo puntino sul monitor. Quanto al tempismo del Norad, nel gennaio 2002 Charles Bishop, un giovane pilota di 15 anni, colpì un grattacielo di Tampa col suo Cessna (http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cessna) . Anche in questo caso l'allarme giunse al Norad 15 minuti dopo la collisione e i jet arrivarono sul luogo dell'incidente 45 minuti dopo.
-
Aside from that, can you name one war in the last... twenty years, excluding Iraq and Afghanistan, that the U.S. was involved in that wasn't in the form of U.N. peacekeeping? Hell if you can name more than just a few in almost 70 years, I'd be surprised, and most of those would be stuff like Panama and Grenada, where we were on the ground for a matter of days before leaving.
Korea? U.N. peacekeeping (seriously)
Persian Gulf War? U.N. mandated action
Somalia? U.N. peacekeeping
Intervention in Bosnia and Herzegovina? U.N. peacekeeping
To be fair the US has done a lot of questionable off the books activities like this one (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_ajax)
-
Yeah, but that has absolutely no bearing on S-99s comment:
Aside from that, reminds me of what was said about keeping a country in a perpetual state of war to be able to sway public opinion and favor in 1984.
@Mobius: Is there a way for that to be English? I can't speak Italian, and I don't trust any translator I could find on the internet to get it right.
-
Nope, sorry. But I could use my awful English to describe what that part is about.
Basically, there's a lot of evidence proving that controlled demolitions have absolutely nothing to do with 9/11. Post-impact temperatures, the role played by very inflammable fuel, the towers' internal structures and many other parameters point straight to the terrorist attack as the sole cause. It was also proved that no explosives could have ever been used due to high temperatures. Also explained is the tower 7 accident (which certain people still tend to consider a proof of controlled demolition).
Occam's Razor is mentioned right at the beginning of that old post of mine, and for a good reason. :drevil:
-
9/11 was heavy on the imagery concerning the twin towers. 2 planes did not take down the super structures which can and did indeed handle planes crashing into the side of them. The twin towers falling was your normal basic controlled demolition for starters.
sorry, but all the respect I had for you in these silly political debates is now gone.
unless of course your pulling a Battuta.
Also, kudos to Scotty, everyone says there were no WMDs in Iraq, but they found all sorts of nasty chemical stuff and yellow cake.
-
9/11 was heavy on the imagery concerning the twin towers. 2 planes did not take down the super structures which can and did indeed handle planes crashing into the side of them. The twin towers falling was your normal basic controlled demolition for starters.
sorry, but all the respect I had for you in these silly political debates is now gone.
unless of course your pulling a Battuta.
eat your tasty poeslaw
-
sorry, but all the respect I had for you in these silly political debates is now gone.
unless of course your pulling a Battuta.
Also, kudos to Scotty, everyone says there were no WMDs in Iraq, but they found all sorts of nasty chemical stuff and yellow cake.
That's the thing about iraq back then. There was a lot of other types of weapons found, but not nukes and other big boomies like were suspected that bush kept on mentioning. I don't like the term WMD, because it's too open ended of a term (how clever of the bush administration, to use a term that will eventually be confusing). One of the many excuses of going into iraq was for liberating it's people, get rid of saddam, and prove that there was nukes hidden away over there (need i mention oil). There was no nukes/WMD's in iraq; no one could even provide evidence that there was any before america went to iraq at the UN summit. What proof was presented at the UN summit was that saddam had lots of nasty chemical weapons which had been public knowledge since the 90's.
Why i think 9/11 is fishy...
Looking at the footage of the twin towers falling looks and acts just like your standard building demolition where demolitionists get the building to implode to minimize collateral damage to structures and people around it so the old building sits as a nice big pile almost exactly where it stood. Planes crashing into them would only suffice for very strong imagery that would make people scared and believe without a doubt that planes brought down the buildings and would make naysayers be unbelieved. 9/11 is fishy, and i am sticking with my doubts about the whole thing.
-
Nope, sorry. But I could use my awful English to describe what that part is about.
Basically, there's a lot of evidence proving that controlled demolitions have absolutely nothing to do with 9/11. Post-impact temperatures, the role played by very inflammable fuel, the towers' internal structures and many other parameters point straight to the terrorist attack as the sole cause. It was also proved that no explosives could have ever been used due to high temperatures. Also explained is the tower 7 accident (which certain people still tend to consider a proof of controlled demolition).
Occam's Razor is mentioned right at the beginning of that old post of mine, and for a good reason. :drevil:
Yeah, my Dad is a Doctor in Civil Engineering who specialises in steel support structures. He shoots down every conspiracy theorist about the collapse of the towers.
With similar points, I mean.
And before s-99 claims "The government got to him mang!", I'm from Scotland, the US government has nothing whatsoever to do with us. (Except for attempts to interfere with and vilify issues of domestic policy, but that's another story.)
-
sorry, but all the respect I had for you in these silly political debates is now gone.
unless of course your pulling a Battuta.
Also, kudos to Scotty, everyone says there were no WMDs in Iraq, but they found all sorts of nasty chemical stuff and yellow cake.
That's the thing about iraq back then. There was a lot of other types of weapons found, but not nukes and other big boomies like were suspected that bush kept on mentioning. I don't like the term WMD, because it's too open ended of a term (how clever of the bush administration, to use a term that will eventually be confusing). One of the many excuses of going into iraq was for liberating it's people, get rid of saddam, and prove that there was nukes hidden away over there (need i mention oil). There was no nukes/WMD's in iraq; no one could even provide evidence that there was any before america went to iraq at the UN summit. What proof was presented at the UN summit was that saddam had lots of nasty chemical weapons which had been public knowledge since the 90's.
Why i think 9/11 is fishy...
Looking at the footage of the twin towers falling looks and acts just like your standard building demolition where demolitionists get the building to implode to minimize collateral damage to structures and people around it so the old building sits as a nice big pile almost exactly where it stood. Planes crashing into them would only suffice for very strong imagery that would make people scared and believe without a doubt that planes brought down the buildings and would make naysayers be unbelieved. 9/11 is fishy, and i am sticking with my doubts about the whole thing.
1) Yellowcake is used in making nukes. Read the links I posted.
2) WMD is used because "big boomies" isn't all that specific or encompassing. "It kills a buncha people" fits for a definition. They found stuff like that.
There was no nukes/WMD's in iraq
3) READ THE ****ING LINKS
Looking at the footage of the twin towers falling looks and acts just like your standard building demolition where demolitionists get the building to implode to minimize collateral damage to structures and people around it so the old building sits as a nice big pile almost exactly where it stood.
Wat.
I take it that you haven't seen the footage of the other buildings severely damaged by their collapse then. Or the rolling clouds of ash that blotted out the sun for hours near ground zero.
You're honestly telling me that you think that this:
(http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0S020muWWNMOwoArVWjzbkF/SIG=126o816et/EXP=1281665838/**http%3a//www.realnews247.com/9-11_towers_burning.jpg)
looks like a controlled demolition?
How much would it cost to get some of what you're smoking?
-
1) Yellowcake is used in making nukes. Read the links I posted.
It's a long ****ing way from nukes regardless.
-
It's also significantly closer than critics would have people believe.
Also:
The uranium issue is not a trivial one, because Iraq, sitting on vast oil reserves, has no peaceful need for nuclear power.
And, semi-related (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200499,00.html)
-
There is absolutely no point in arguing with someone who believes the bull**** conspiracy theories - their suspension of belief is absolute.
The whole "weapons of mass destruction" is a funny little beast. Anyone who thinks Iraq was toting nuclear weapons needs to put down the crack pipe - they did not have the capability to build the weapons required to fight nuclear war, notwithstanding the presence of uranium compounds. A "dirty bomb" is another matter entirely. Any half-assed competent undergraduate physics student could build a dirty bomb though, so that point is somewhat moot.
The real issue in Iraq was, of course, chemical warfare. It's pretty well documented that Hussein mounted multiple chemical attacks on the Kurdish population, so chemical warfare capacity was definitely there. The other issue is biological - while rudimentary labs were found, nothing I've read has me remotely convinced that Iraq was capable of mounting a biological attack on anyone, save perhaps their own populace.
The sticky issue is not that Iraq had some so-called "weapons of mass destruction;" the issue is that the WMDs that everyone believed American leadership were referring to were of the nuclear variety. Very frightening, high profile, nasty beasts. They weren't. But that doesn't negate the fact that Iraq had so-called CBRNE threats - or at least, the C, R, E, and possibly B. So while the Bush regime isn't guilty of outright lies over the invasion of Iraq - and let's be clear here, the initial cause for war was because Iraq was viewed as an unstable regime supplying "WMDs" to terrorist organizations, not any sort of nonsense liberation campaign... that came later - they are at least guilty of misleading the US population and most of the UN General Assembly as to the exact nature of the threat.
Regardless, any rudimentary student of history can see that the WMD issue was a flimsy excuse to justify a questionable military operation designed primarily as a geopolitical tool to deal with the dual threats posed by Iran and Afghanistan. Military strategists were after a solid base, and at first glance Iraq was an attractive choice. Unpopular leader, local instability, a fairly forgiving tolerance for Western culture among the general populace, not to mention Iraq's physical location - conveniently located between the Saudis and the Iranians. Said strategists made three serious miscalculations:
1. That people must want to support democracy from within, and that it cannot be imposed by a foreign power (there are so many examples of this in 20th century history it's ridiculous).
2. Failure to anticipate how Iraq would become a draw for insurgent forces from Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan, all with the motive of bloodying the American nose
3. That Iraq consisted of three very different peoples with very different beliefs and that armed conflict presented the serious possibility of civil war between them...
...which is exactly what happened.
The blunder was to mount a military operation in Iraq with a goal of regional stability. Iraq is and has always been a ****show - as far as geopolitically stable countries go, it's right at the bottom of the list - mainly because Iraq's borders were drawn by what it's neighbours didn't include, rather than what Iraq itself wanted to include.
The real gem, and the endgame, is Iran. It's arguably what should have been the focus following the invasion of Afghanistan in 2001. Iran has a very pro-Western, progressive population which is held to barely a simmer by an oppressive government. While the Iranians would respond poorly to foreign military intervention, if given appropriate encouragement, funding, intelligence, and logistical support, Iran's totalitarian government would have been gone within the decade. It's still quite doable. The purpose of the invasion of Iraq was about nothing so mundane as WMDs or oil - it's about regional stability, and a democratic, progressive Iraq would have resulted in a pro-democractic turnover in Iran. The pesky trouble is Iraq - it just wasn't happening, and the strategists should have forseen it. Knocking Iran off the rogue states' list would have been a major intelligence coup for the Bush administration, but the strategy wasn't implemented properly.
The other major issue is Afghanistan. Troop levels in Afghanistan are ****ing absurd - for the interested folks, compare the numbers of NATO forces in Afghanistan today to the numbers of Allied forces in post-WWII Germany. THAT's how you mount a successful hearts-and-minds counterinsurgency. Afghanistan at this point is a write-off - it'll take a 3-5 decade military occupation with significantly boosted troop levels to effectively stabilize Afghanistan, and that's only if we deal with Pakistan's support for the Taliban, Al-Qaeda, and the myriad of other religiously-based terrorist organizations roaming about that part of the world. No NATO country is prepared to make that kind of time commitment. Of course, Afghanistan was never really the prize anyway - a military response to 9/11 was demanded, the logistical support originated in Afghanistan, and it made an easy target. The trouble was, with the shift to invade Iraq in order to "bring freedom," NATO couldn't very well abandon Afghanistan back to the warlords. Welcome to August 2010 - Iraq is a mess that is ready to collapse, Afghanistan is going to get worse than it was just as soon as NATO withdraws, and Iran is no closer to ending it's rogue state status despite significant internal turmoil. We found the WMDs, though.
Of course, because most of them don't study history, the conspiracy loons have had a proverbial field day with the last decade because none of them can see past their noses (also known as their obsession with oil and hidden/mythical power hierarchies) and grasp the actual military/intelligence strategy that has played out for the better part of ten years and is still ongoing. Newsflash: this is not a conflict of economics, it's a conflict of ideology, and Western secular nations are losing it badly.
But I digress.
I really have to quit doing this; I'm never going to earn a custom title by actually trying to make sense in GD =)
-
Good post, would read again. :yes:
-
1) Yellowcake is used in making nukes. Read the links I posted.
2) WMD is used because "big boomies" isn't all that specific or encompassing. "It kills a buncha people" fits for a definition. They found stuff like that.
That's fine, but there was still no nukes in iraq. And it still wasn't very well explained to the public what exactly would qualify to be a WMD aside from a nuke. Why i mentioned that WMD was a term that was left pretty open ended.
[/quote]
There was no nukes/WMD's in iraq[/quote]
I take it that you haven't seen the footage of the other buildings severely damaged by their collapse then. Or the rolling clouds of ash that blotted out the sun for hours near ground zero.
I saw all of that. When a building goes down, there's going to be a lot of stuff in the air. A lot of that was more dust from the materials used in the buildings after the twin towers went down than it was ash. Something you're not quite taking into account is that the twin towers were some of the world's tallest buildings. They are monstrous behemoths, expect a bigger cloud of dust compared to a 20 story apartment building going down, and to think that there's not going to be any collateral damage from even a controlled demolition of the twin towers is ludicrous. When the twin towers went down, a lot of stuff got ****ed up.
You're honestly telling me that you think that this:
(http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0S020muWWNMOwoArVWjzbkF/SIG=126o816et/EXP=1281665838/**http%3a//www.realnews247.com/9-11_towers_burning.jpg)
looks like a controlled demolition?
I don't think that picture looks like controlled demolition. A picture of the buildings actually falling to the ground is what looks like controlled demolition.
Why do i find this theory profound? It's not popular, and surely a lot more was happening behind the scenes regardless of whether or not it is this theory or something different. Most people will treat popular information as though it is irrefutable without any kind of second guess or critical thinking.
This theory does have it's flaws a plenty, but i'm still exploring it for the real stuff that it does point out. One thing that it really does show off is how much too big the american government has become. Another is that there is a lot of control of the flow of information and taking advantage of what people don't know. After that, american government is in the deep pockets of big businesses over here which has created a lot of corruption and conflicts of interest within.
-
I don't think that picture looks like controlled demolition. A picture of the buildings actually falling to the ground is what looks like controlled demolition.
Ok. Bull**** like this really makes me furious because it makes a mockery of real engineering and failure analysis. So, understand that I have written and deleted this post no less than three times. What you are getting below is nowhere near as pissed off as I actually feel.
The physical remains of the structural members do not indicate brittle failure as you would see from explosive demolition. Period. They were in a fire. They got hot. Those members in the fire had yield strengths that dropped somewhere around 50% because of high temperature. This is a well understood phenomenon, and I have personally seen it in action. While that was still enough strength to hold the load up, the temperature was not uniform. Those hotter members deformed more under load than those in cooler areas away from the fire. This is caused by increase in visco-plastic creep at higher temperatures. Again, a well known phenomenon. The fact that some members were deflecting more than others caused distortion of the overall structure. This distortion lead to non-uniform load distribution and local buckling. Once a member buckles, its effective load capacity is completely shafted. There was enough redundancy in the design that some columns could buckle without the entire structure failing. But when enough of the columns had buckled, the load could not be maintained anymore and the whole floor collapsed, with all the other floors up above it. The load of the upper floors impacting the one below was over 30 times higher than the static load it had been designed to handle. From there, it was dynamic overload all the way down to bottom.
There's nothing mystical about this. Certainly nothing that required [total vocabulary failure] conspiracy theories to explain. You feel the federal government has exceeded its bounds? Fine. You feel our government has gotten too big. Fine. Argue that. Leave the engineering to the engineers. Or if you must present some alternate "theory," you are going to have to go into a helluvalot more detail than "I think" before me and mine will be anything more than annoyed.
I recommend the following articles:
http://eagar.mit.edu/EagarPapers/Eagar185.pdf (http://eagar.mit.edu/EagarPapers/Eagar185.pdf)
http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/466.pdf (http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/466.pdf)
http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/476%20WTC%20collapse.pdf (http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/476%20WTC%20collapse.pdf) <-- I especially recommend this one, because it refutes in detail your theory of controlled demolition.
-
That's fine, but there was still no nukes in iraq. And it still wasn't very well explained to the public what exactly would qualify to be a WMD aside from a nuke. Why i mentioned that WMD was a term that was left pretty open ended.
There were the nuclear materials. Over 550 metric tons of the stuff. Stuff that Iraq had absolutely zero conceivable peaceful use for. The easiest thing to make with that, as MP-Ryan said, is a dirty bomb, which is still a WMD (an R instead of an N)
On top of that, over 500 chemical weapons found in three years.
And biological labs for biological warfare.
Okay, now let's go over something that you apparently refuse to believe and/or accept. "Weapons of Mass Destruction" are weapons that kill lots of people. Usually, you'll hear of NBC threats. Ryan went into a lot more detail upthread, which you also ignored, but I'll stick to basics. Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical weapon. We found two and a half out of three of those.
Honestly, if the public is too stupid to only think WMDs == nukes, it's hardly the government's fault.
-
Didn't we sell Sadaam most of the WMD's that he supposedly had?
-
There were the nuclear materials. Over 550 metric tons of the stuff. Stuff that Iraq had absolutely zero conceivable peaceful use for.
Stuff that we knew they had but didn't care that much about because they had no facilities to refine it and weaponise it.
As for no peaceful use, what do you think nuclear power stations run on? You can question why Iraq want nuclear power but it's pretty hard to claim that they couldn't possibly want it.
Bear in mind the question also arises of when did Saddam get hold of that material. Cause if he had it sitting around for years doing nothing it's pretty hard to claim he was using it for WMDs.
As for the 9/11 stuff. Maybe I'm showing my ignorance here but every time I've seen a controlled demolitions it starts with a large explosion at the base. Where was that explosion in 9/11? For that matter, where was the sound of that explosion. Those things are bloody loud (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79sJ1bMR6VQ)!
-
On top of that, over 500 chemical weapons found in three years.
Source?
Bear in mind the question also arises of when did Saddam get hold of that material.
In the 80's Iraq did conduct research into it, but their facility was destroyed by the Israeli's.
-
On top of that, over 500 chemical weapons found in three years.
Source?
The same articles I've been asking people to read for more than a page now.
Here are several (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200499,00.html) more in case (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/13/AR2005081300530.html) you don't feel (http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/8/13/224902.shtml) like scrolling up.
-
Didn't we sell Sadaam most of the WMD's that he supposedly had?
Considering the United States, by law, cannot sell anything that even looks like a WMD...no.
Besides, it was well within Saddam's ability to produce most of the chemical weapons he had. Stuff like mustard gas and sarin/GB doesn't take complex technology. Most non-persistant chemical agents date to during or immediately after the First World War.
-
sarin/GB doesn't take complex technology
i can't speak for sarin but this fellow certainly does
-
On top of that, over 500 chemical weapons found in three years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction#Iraq_Survey_Group
Beginning in 2003, the ISG had uncovered remnants of Iraq's 1980s-era WMD programs. On June 21, 2006 Rick Santorum claimed that "we have found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, chemical weapons", citing a declassified June 6 letter to Pete Hoekstra saying that since the 2003 invasion, a total of "approximately 500 weapons munitions which contain degraded mustard or sarin nerve agent" had been found scattered throughout the country.
The Washington Post reported that "the U.S. military announced in 2004 in Iraq that several crates of the old shells had been uncovered and that they contained a blister agent that was no longer active." It said the shells "had been buried near the Iranian border, and then long forgotten, by Iraqi troops during their eight-year war with Iran, which ended in 1988."
Seriously? 20 year old WMDs that have degraded is the best you can do?
-
I don't get why Sadam didn't just flat out give the UN inspectors total access to everything, he would have totally embarrassed the US and would probably still be alive and in power, instead he decided to play that stupid cat and mouse game which just pissed us off and gave legitimacy to Bush's claims.
-
I don't get why Sadam didn't just flat out give the UN inspectors total access to everything, he would have totally embarrassed the US and would probably still be alive and in power, instead he decided to play that stupid cat and mouse game which just pissed us off and gave legitimacy to Bush's claims.
He was a strongman; he couldn't bow to anyone or his rule is delegitimized. Saddam was, and with good justification, paranoid. He went to great lengths to ensure he wouldn't be killed by his own military.
-
True but he maybe could have combined the two into a show of strength by claiming to those in Iraq that he'd scared the West into giving him stuff even though they said they hated him. North Koreans have gotten away with crazier claims so if Saddam couldn't that just meant he wasn't trying hard enough. :p
-
True but he maybe could have combined the two into a show of strength by claiming to those in Iraq that he'd scared the West into giving him stuff even though they said they hated him. North Koreans have gotten away with crazier claims so if Saddam couldn't that just meant he wasn't trying hard enough. :p
Bush wanted his head, plain and simple, and there was nothing he could have done to prevent that.
I find it highly suspicious that, of the few files that were released from the super secret energy task force back in 2000-2001, one of them happens to be oil maps about iraq, (http://www.marketwatch.com/story/iraq-oil-map-among-us-energy-task-force-files) then we inexplicably invade them on trumped up charges of supporting al-qaeda and having weapons of mass destruction? This smells of an oil war.
-
This smells of an oil war.
No, it doesn't. Not one little bit. Geopolitical stability allowing for oil exploration is a nice added bonus, of course. Before you go claiming oil war, take a look at the actual oil import data for the United States, and then take a look at the actual current estimated production capacity remaining in the United States and Canada. [Hint, hint.] North America is doing its best to tap out oil supplies in strategically shaky countries before we touch our own. Last time someone from our outfit talked to some of the corporate execs in Northern Alberta, we heard that they estimate another 50-100 years of extraction business in the oil sands alone, with a production capacity there that could rival the Saudis (at current market prices; nevermind if the price goes up and permits a drive for better recovery percentages). In 2006, it was estimated that there were 170 billion barrels of [economically-feasible] recoverable oil in the Athabascan oil sands alone. This does not account for recent exploration data in the north, or the provinces of Saskatchewan and Newfoundland.
Oil war, my ass. The US did not commit an amount approaching nearly $1 trillion dollars to finance a war in Iraq over oil, of all things.
http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php?topic=70756.msg1401669#msg1401669
-
did you mean to type "50-100"?
-
did you mean to type "50-100"?
Indeed I did. Fixed.
-
This smells of an oil war.
No, it doesn't. Not one little bit. Geopolitical stability allowing for oil exploration is a nice added bonus, of course. Before you go claiming oil war, take a look at the actual oil import data for the United States, and then take a look at the actual current estimated production capacity remaining in the United States and Canada. [Hint, hint.] North America is doing its best to tap out oil supplies in strategically shaky countries before we touch our own. Last time someone from our outfit talked to some of the corporate execs in Northern Alberta, we heard that they estimate another 50-100 years of extraction business in the oil sands alone, with a production capacity there that could rival the Saudis (at current market prices; nevermind if the price goes up and permits a drive for better recovery percentages). In 2006, it was estimated that there were 170 billion barrels of [economically-feasible] recoverable oil in the Athabascan oil sands alone. This does not account for recent exploration data in the north, or the provinces of Saskatchewan and Newfoundland.
Oil war, my ass. The US did not commit an amount approaching nearly $1 trillion dollars to finance a war in Iraq over oil, of all things.
http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php?topic=70756.msg1401669#msg1401669
It's that way now, but oil demand is going up globally at an alarming rate, hence why we no longer have $10 a barrel oil. Also US oil production has been on the decline for decades. From the late 19th century all the way until the 1960's when production started declining the US essentially was the Saudi Arabia of oil and the center of world oil production. Now much of its reserves are gone with many of the great reserves in texas and pennsylvania sucked dry.
Thanks to decades of sanctions and mismanagement, Iraq's oil fields are still mostly unexploited, with reserves far far exceeding anything Canada has to offer. 9/11 gave an opportunity to remove an unfriendly government and install a puppet government to put those oil fields essentially under our control. Sure we've got 50-100 years worth of tar sands, but lets also take into account that none of it becomes economically viable unless the prices are high, unlike the lakes of Iraqi oil which is very easy to get at. The price of oil for now is settling at between $70-$80 barrel. That price alone should indicate where we are on the supply and demand curve, especially compared with the $10 a barrel we used to pay just one decade ago. So, did the task force see this price rise coming? Probably, though since the details of that meeting are inexplicably highly classified we may never know for sure.
-
sorry, but all the respect I had for you in these silly political debates is now gone.
Didn't know anybody here had respect for me.
There were the nuclear materials. Over 550 metric tons of the stuff. Stuff that Iraq had absolutely zero conceivable peaceful use for. The easiest thing to make with that, as MP-Ryan said, is a dirty bomb, which is still a WMD (an R instead of an N)
On top of that, over 500 chemical weapons found in three years.
And biological labs for biological warfare.
Okay, now let's go over something that you apparently refuse to believe and/or accept. "Weapons of Mass Destruction" are weapons that kill lots of people. Usually, you'll hear of NBC threats. Ryan went into a lot more detail upthread, which you also ignored, but I'll stick to basics. Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical weapon. We found two and a half out of three of those.
Honestly, if the public is too stupid to only think WMDs == nukes, it's hardly the government's fault.
Materials for nukes is not nukes, it is materials for nukes. What you're trying to say is that if you had all of the ingredients for making cookies that you already have cookies. Materials for a nuke need to be put together to make a nuke; similar to mixing ingredients together for cookies and then baking actually equals cookies. That's all i am trying to say about iraq having nukes; having materials for nukes is actually different than having nukes.
This is not about a term i can't accept or refuse to believe (of course WMD's kill lots of people). Again i don't really like the term weapons of mass destruction. The word destruction reminds people of big boomies and not quite something like chemical weapons which don't kill people via big explosion. Weapons of mass death would be more descriptive and make more sense for the array of NBC weapons and others of the like that are also included in the term.
It was more the media and bush's fault. Bush referred to nukes as WMD's all the time, so did the media (i don't think bush ever bothered to clarify in a presidential address or on the radio or some other outlet what kinds of weapons WMD covers). This backed by a stupid public will make people confused about what kinds of weapons that are under the WMD umbrella. Which means iraq 2 war the public is seriously confused since no actual nukes were found but all of this other nasty stuff sure was that not many really knew were also WMD's.
I am in no way denying the fact that lots of chemical weapons were found and biolabs. This was something that was known (the fact that saddam had at least chemical weapons and suspected bio weapons since the 90's) for a while. Saddam was obviously a fan of these kinds of weapons given how many he had and attacked the kurdish with.
Why'd you remove the picture of the twin towers (or did an admin? just curious)? Aside from that, dropping the topic of the twin towers sounds good since great points were made, and it was fun challenging them, but ultimately i was defeated on that topic. I already gave my reasons for exploring such a theory, and everyones defense of the fact were written with such intensity that it seemed like some people burst a blood vessel.
-
Materials for nukes is not nukes, it is materials for nukes. What you're trying to say is that if you had all of the ingredients for making cookies that you already have cookies. Materials for a nuke need to be put together to make a nuke; similar to mixing ingredients together for cookies and then baking actually equals cookies. That's all i am trying to say about iraq having nukes; having materials for nukes is actually different than having nukes.
Radioactive material + conventional explosives = radioactive material scattered across a large area. You don't need a nuclear explosion to kill people with radioactive substances.
-
Additionally, it's more akin to having the parts available to build a machine that does no good and only burns gas. At a time when a gas shortage is in widespread effect.
There was absolutely zero peaceful reason for Iraq to have that material, because, unlike the above example, they did have oil. Lots and lots of oil, with no peaceful need for nuclear power.
-
Materials for nukes is not nukes, it is materials for nukes. What you're trying to say is that if you had all of the ingredients for making cookies that you already have cookies. Materials for a nuke need to be put together to make a nuke; similar to mixing ingredients together for cookies and then baking actually equals cookies. That's all i am trying to say about iraq having nukes; having materials for nukes is actually different than having nukes.
Radioactive material + conventional explosives = radioactive material scattered across a large area. You don't need a nuclear explosion to kill people with radioactive substances.
Uranium is VERY weakly radioactive. It's safe to handle. You couldn't make a dirty bomb out of it.
-
Materials for nukes is not nukes, it is materials for nukes. What you're trying to say is that if you had all of the ingredients for making cookies that you already have cookies. Materials for a nuke need to be put together to make a nuke; similar to mixing ingredients together for cookies and then baking actually equals cookies. That's all i am trying to say about iraq having nukes; having materials for nukes is actually different than having nukes.
Radioactive material + conventional explosives = radioactive material scattered across a large area. You don't need a nuclear explosion to kill people with radioactive substances.
By that logic, we should invade Australia since they have one third of the world's uranium supply. I mean, what are they doing with all that uranium? Feeding it to the kangaroos?
Additionally, it's more akin to having the parts available to build a machine that does no good and only burns gas. At a time when a gas shortage is in widespread effect.
There was absolutely zero peaceful reason for Iraq to have that material, because, unlike the above example, they did have oil. Lots and lots of oil, with no peaceful need for nuclear power.
So does the United States it seems, and they have nuclear power plants too. Not to mention, nuclear power plants are more efficient than oil based ones.
-
Materials for nukes is not nukes, it is materials for nukes. What you're trying to say is that if you had all of the ingredients for making cookies that you already have cookies. Materials for a nuke need to be put together to make a nuke; similar to mixing ingredients together for cookies and then baking actually equals cookies. That's all i am trying to say about iraq having nukes; having materials for nukes is actually different than having nukes.
Radioactive material + conventional explosives = radioactive material scattered across a large area. You don't need a nuclear explosion to kill people with radioactive substances.
Despite what our beloved homeland security department and fox news has said, a dirty bomb is not really that dangerous.
So does the United States it seems, and they have nuclear power plants too. Not to mention, nuclear power plants are more efficient than oil based ones.
Indeed, of the commercially available power sources nuclear fission is hands down the most efficient we've ever created, being millions of times more energy dense than any fossil fuel.
-
Radioactive material + conventional explosives = radioactive material scattered across a large area. You don't need a nuclear explosion to kill people with radioactive substances.
[Uranium is VERY weakly radioactive. It's safe to handle. You couldn't make a dirty bomb out of it.
This isn't even related to the topic of "we say iraq had nukes, S-99 is wrong for contradicting". A dirty bomb isn't even a nuclear use for uranium. Spardason21, a dirty bomb is only really affective for killing people with the explosion (there wouldn't be enough radiation dispersed to really amount to anybody getting sick), and more for the psychological impact.
There was absolutely zero peaceful reason for Iraq to have that material, because, unlike the above example, they did have oil. Lots and lots of oil, with no peaceful need for nuclear power.
...no **** holmes.
Additionally, it's more akin to having the parts available to build a machine that does no good and only burns gas. At a time when a gas shortage is in widespread effect.
Again, i stand by my logic that parts for nukes is not equal to a nuke; you were wrong. And using parts for a nuke to make a completely different explosive that wont even result in a nuclear explosion does not even somehow in the slightest make you somehow, earlier in the matter, right. Using parts for a nuke for a completely different purpose is called not the topic you were bickering about (which was "we say iraq had nukes, S-99 is wrong for contradicting""). You're understanding of my logic being "oh yeah, well the parts can be used for something else" is a separate matter from my conclusion entirely.
Despite what our beloved homeland security department and fox news has said, a dirty bomb is not really that dangerous.
Correct. A dirty bomb does not qualify as even close to being classified as a wmd. A dirty bomb is one of those "has more bark than it's bite" kind of weapons.
How many people need to go down the road of "he's wrong simply because he angered us"? Humans agreeing with each other is wierd to say the least. I already admitted defeat on the conspiracy matter and have dropped that entirely from discussion.
-
Radioactive material + conventional explosives = radioactive material scattered across a large area. You don't need a nuclear explosion to kill people with radioactive substances.
In which case why bother with Uranium at all? There are far better things to use for a dirty bomb. IIRC you'd be better off making a dirty bomb out of granite than uranium. :p
There was absolutely zero peaceful reason for Iraq to have that material, because, unlike the above example, they did have oil. Lots and lots of oil, with no peaceful need for nuclear power.
Really? So why did the US keep supporting Saddam after he built a nuclear reactor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osirak) in the 70's then? They even went as far as condemning it when the Israelis attacked it.
-
a 40 MW reactor is NOT an energy-producing reactor. that article you linked to even explicitly states that Hussein said it was the first step in making a bomb.
that said, i disagree with the "no need for peaceful nuclear power" sentiment. it should be the other way around. when nuclear power is available, there is no need for fossil.
-
I never said it was energy producing. Nor did I say that Saddam didn't talk **** about it. Just pointing out that there were sufficient uses for Iraqi nuclear material that you were able to get America to condemn Israel over destroying it.
If that doesn't prove a peaceful application does exist the only other explanation is that American governments wanted Saddam to have the bomb in the 80s.
-
maybe we did, i really don't know. but my point was, that reactor did NOT exist for peaceful reasons, as i thought you were saying.
i'm not trying to take a side in this, i just feel the need to point things like that out. on either side.
-
It's that way now, but oil demand is going up globally at an alarming rate, hence why we no longer have $10 a barrel oil. Also US oil production has been on the decline for decades. From the late 19th century all the way until the 1960's when production started declining the US essentially was the Saudi Arabia of oil and the center of world oil production. Now much of its reserves are gone with many of the great reserves in texas and pennsylvania sucked dry.
Thanks to decades of sanctions and mismanagement, Iraq's oil fields are still mostly unexploited, with reserves far far exceeding anything Canada has to offer. 9/11 gave an opportunity to remove an unfriendly government and install a puppet government to put those oil fields essentially under our control. Sure we've got 50-100 years worth of tar sands, but lets also take into account that none of it becomes economically viable unless the prices are high, unlike the lakes of Iraqi oil which is very easy to get at. The price of oil for now is settling at between $70-$80 barrel. That price alone should indicate where we are on the supply and demand curve, especially compared with the $10 a barrel we used to pay just one decade ago. So, did the task force see this price rise coming? Probably, though since the details of that meeting are inexplicably highly classified we may never know for sure.
First off, apologies for the delay - I was camping all weekend.
Second, you're missing the big picture.
The United States, as of February 2010, spent $700+ billion dollars on the Iraq war. One does not spend $700 billion dollars and then abandon ship if one's goals are economic. especially considering the available oil supplies in other countries, even well into the next hundred years.
One does, however, commit that kind of money if one's goal is strategic. As I said before, the endgame was/is/will be Iran. Economics is a sideline. Sure, friendly access to the oil supplies in Iraq would be great - but that is not going to happen so long as the current Iranian regime holds power. Iran is the regional powerhouse. If Iran can be brought politically into line and reduced to a stable nation, you end the major support behind ideo-religious terrorism, stabilize the region as a whole (encouraging economic development opportunities for Western nations), and open up natural resource markets across the entire Middle East to significant Western influence and development, simultaneously edging out China (who is Iran's largest customer).
Why do you think that the West consistently backed the dictatorship in Iran before the revolution, began backing Iraq following the Iranian revolution (despite actively sabotaging Iraqi intelligence), and has consistently done it's damndest to be a thorn in Iran's side? Iran is the key to the entire Middle East - economically and strategically. It's also the key to stopping the spread of Chinese influence throughout the region and reducing Chinese strategic reach - which, don't kid yourself, is #1 on the long-term list of priorities for US Presidents. Anyone with half a brain can see the writing on the wall - the United States is slowly being replaced as the world's pre-eminent military and economic superpower. Controlling the Middle East is the most effective means of slowing Chinese influence expansion.
Anyone who thinks the Iraq war is about oil is seriously shortsighted. Oil was a convenient economic byproduct of the strategy in play. Unfortunately, the strategy did not work.
There's this popular myth among those in opposition of the Iraq war that control of the oil supply leads to control of the world, in essence. It's patently false. Political and/or ideological control of nations leads to control of strategic assets, of which oil is but one. Major world powers, China and the US among them, recognize this. Predictions of resource wars are far overblown - if you control ideologies and political structures, war is entirely unnecessary. And don't kid yourself - the only people who don't seem to realize this are the conspiracy theorists (who I've always considered a bunch of shortsighted loons anyway).
For the last time, the Iraq war was not about oil, no matter how hard you try not to look beyond the trees.
-
It's that way now, but oil demand is going up globally at an alarming rate, hence why we no longer have $10 a barrel oil. Also US oil production has been on the decline for decades. From the late 19th century all the way until the 1960's when production started declining the US essentially was the Saudi Arabia of oil and the center of world oil production. Now much of its reserves are gone with many of the great reserves in texas and pennsylvania sucked dry.
Thanks to decades of sanctions and mismanagement, Iraq's oil fields are still mostly unexploited, with reserves far far exceeding anything Canada has to offer. 9/11 gave an opportunity to remove an unfriendly government and install a puppet government to put those oil fields essentially under our control. Sure we've got 50-100 years worth of tar sands, but lets also take into account that none of it becomes economically viable unless the prices are high, unlike the lakes of Iraqi oil which is very easy to get at. The price of oil for now is settling at between $70-$80 barrel. That price alone should indicate where we are on the supply and demand curve, especially compared with the $10 a barrel we used to pay just one decade ago. So, did the task force see this price rise coming? Probably, though since the details of that meeting are inexplicably highly classified we may never know for sure.
First off, apologies for the delay - I was camping all weekend.
Second, you're missing the big picture.
The United States, as of February 2010, spent $700+ billion dollars on the Iraq war. One does not spend $700 billion dollars and then abandon ship if one's goals are economic. especially considering the available oil supplies in other countries, even well into the next hundred years.
One does, however, commit that kind of money if one's goal is strategic. As I said before, the endgame was/is/will be Iran. Economics is a sideline. Sure, friendly access to the oil supplies in Iraq would be great - but that is not going to happen so long as the current Iranian regime holds power. Iran is the regional powerhouse. If Iran can be brought politically into line and reduced to a stable nation, you end the major support behind ideo-religious terrorism, stabilize the region as a whole (encouraging economic development opportunities for Western nations), and open up natural resource markets across the entire Middle East to significant Western influence and development, simultaneously edging out China (who is Iran's largest customer).
Why do you think that the West consistently backed the dictatorship in Iran before the revolution, began backing Iraq following the Iranian revolution (despite actively sabotaging Iraqi intelligence), and has consistently done it's damndest to be a thorn in Iran's side? Iran is the key to the entire Middle East - economically and strategically. It's also the key to stopping the spread of Chinese influence throughout the region and reducing Chinese strategic reach - which, don't kid yourself, is #1 on the long-term list of priorities for US Presidents. Anyone with half a brain can see the writing on the wall - the United States is slowly being replaced as the world's pre-eminent military and economic superpower. Controlling the Middle East is the most effective means of slowing Chinese influence expansion.
Anyone who thinks the Iraq war is about oil is seriously shortsighted. Oil was a convenient economic byproduct of the strategy in play. Unfortunately, the strategy did not work.
There's this popular myth among those in opposition of the Iraq war that control of the oil supply leads to control of the world, in essence. It's patently false. Political and/or ideological control of nations leads to control of strategic assets, of which oil is but one. Major world powers, China and the US among them, recognize this. Predictions of resource wars are far overblown - if you control ideologies and political structures, war is entirely unnecessary. And don't kid yourself - the only people who don't seem to realize this are the conspiracy theorists (who I've always considered a bunch of shortsighted loons anyway).
For the last time, the Iraq war was not about oil, no matter how hard you try not to look beyond the trees.
that is, by far, the most interesting view on the Iraq war ive heard.
-
He got his Custom Title for a reason, you know. ;)
But yeah, it certainly does give me a bit to think about. I mean, I've been watching this war as it progressed for the past seven years and cannot help but ask myself why the US is spending so much money on this. The amount they've spent could have been put to better use propping up their own economy. :p
-
i guarandamntee you if the war had never happened, the money would still not be going to anything worthwhile.
-
First off, apologies for the delay - I was camping all weekend.
Perfectly fine. Hope you enjoyed it.
The United States, as of February 2010, spent $700+ billion dollars on the Iraq war. One does not spend $700 billion dollars and then abandon ship if one's goals are economic. especially considering the available oil supplies in other countries, even well into the next hundred years.
I addressed this in my previous post.
And by the way, the US is only leaving Iraq because we were kicked out. There was never an exit strategy and in fact they were building 14 huge permenant bases until recently. Have you seen the new US embassy in Baghdad? It's bigger than the Vatican.
One does, however, commit that kind of money if one's goal is strategic. As I said before, the endgame was/is/will be Iran. Economics is a sideline. Sure, friendly access to the oil supplies in Iraq would be great - but that is not going to happen so long as the current Iranian regime holds power. Iran is the regional powerhouse. If Iran can be brought politically into line and reduced to a stable nation, you end the major support behind ideo-religious terrorism, stabilize the region as a whole (encouraging economic development opportunities for Western nations), and open up natural resource markets across the entire Middle East to significant Western influence and development, simultaneously edging out China (who is Iran's largest customer).
Why do you think that the West consistently backed the dictatorship in Iran before the revolution, began backing Iraq following the Iranian revolution (despite actively sabotaging Iraqi intelligence), and has consistently done it's damndest to be a thorn in Iran's side? Iran is the key to the entire Middle East - economically and strategically. It's also the key to stopping the spread of Chinese influence throughout the region and reducing Chinese strategic reach - which, don't kid yourself, is #1 on the long-term list of priorities for US Presidents. Anyone with half a brain can see the writing on the wall - the United States is slowly being replaced as the world's pre-eminent military and economic superpower. Controlling the Middle East is the most effective means of slowing Chinese influence expansion.
And why do we even care about that? Because the mid east is the major center for oil production. Case in point, Somalia holds a fairly important position since anything going through the suez passes very close to it, but it's been in total anarchy for 20 years. As a result it's become a haven for pirates constantly hitting commercial shipping causing huge losses. Do we go in there and impose some kind of government? No, all we do is send some ships. Now if somalia had oil, we wouldn't have left so easily.
-
So it's about oil because oil is what gives those nations their main revenue. MP-Ryan's point is that it isn't about oil because the US politicians want the money the oil will make them. If Iraq had the same GDP from something the US had no interest in the war would still have happened.
This war was never about money and it was never about controlling oil supplies. That was just a nice bonus.
-
Well if Iran was the most important factor in this then why not invade them from the outset instead of knocking off one of their biggest enemies?
EDIT: I'm also going to point out that the US did in fact have a chance to make amends with Iran (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/17/AR2006061700727.html) but walked away from it. If we were really out there trying to curb chinese influence, how does this help?
Just after the lightning takeover of Baghdad by U.S. forces three years ago, an unusual two-page document spewed out of a fax machine at the Near East bureau of the State Department. It was a proposal from Iran for a broad dialogue with the United States, and the fax suggested everything was on the table -- including full cooperation on nuclear programs, acceptance of Israel and the termination of Iranian support for Palestinian militant groups.
But top Bush administration officials, convinced the Iranian government was on the verge of collapse, belittled the initiative. Instead, they formally complained to the Swiss ambassador who had sent the fax with a cover letter certifying it as a genuine proposal supported by key power centers in Iran, former administration officials said.
-
I think they were still riding high on the 'defenders of the free world' buzz at that stage, they didn't realise the scope of the job they had taken on, or, if they did, they chose to ignore the fact that the time.
I think the decisions to invade Iraq were manifold, as MPRyan states, it was mostly about getting a foot in the door of the Middle East, but the timing also needs to be taken into account. Afghanistan was famous for a while because of an alleged 'oil pipeline' that was to be built through it, but people confuse advantages with reasons. When the planes hit the towers on 9/11, there was no doubt that someone's arse was going to get kicked for it. Conspiracy theories aside, I'm pretty sure that, given a choice, the Coalition wouldn't have picked Afghanistan, based on the model of decades of failed Russian occupation, anyone who had a moderate knowledge of the history of the area would have known this would be a long-run war, though, I'm not certain Bush fell into this category, but his generals certainly did for reasons stated earlier.
Iraq confused me for a while, it was suddenly like opening a second bank account when the first one was already overdrawn, but then, as MPRyan also stated, it's about ideaology, though, it should be clarified, not about religion, the people who are terrified that 'Islam is taking over the West' are just as deluded that those who think the West is trying to destroy Islam, neither are true, and an attempt to enforce either ideaology would result in the same effect, you think Iraq is bad, just try enforcing Saudi-type laws in the US or Europe, and you'll see that Iraq is perfectly normal for a country in its position.
-
Well if Iran was the most important factor in this then why not invade them from the outset instead of knocking off one of their biggest enemies?
Because Iran has their finger on the button that will make the Straits of Hormuz untransitable for at least a few months and thereby make the rest of the world Very Upset. This is A Bad Thing.
It is a universal Bad Thing, however. Whoever is considered responsible for pushing the button is an instant pariah everywhere.
For that matter, Iran is actually the most Western of the nations in the Middle East, with a successful home-grown educational and healthcare system and a functional system for direct transition to a democractic government; remove the Guardians of the Faith, add a second party and prevent the in-power people from jiggering with it and you have something pretty close to a Western democracy. Coming in and destroying these things via external force is counterproductive. You may note that while they undoubtedly provide fiancial and basing support to various people who like to stage bombings, the number of Iranian-born terrorists or homegrown Iranian terrorist groups that threaten Europe and North America is very low.
EDIT: I'm also going to point out that the US did in fact have a chance to make amends with Iran (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/17/AR2006061700727.html) but walked away from it. If we were really out there trying to curb chinese influence, how does this help?
Because for Iran to even make such an offer is, frankly, either a fake or they were on the verge of collapse. For a generation they have touted the US as The Great Satan and blamed it for all their problems. If they abandon the party line now, it has either become hollow to their ears of their underlings and they fear the groundswell, or they will provoke the groundswell by so doing. Iran is, ultimately, in the same posistion governmentally as the late-stage Soviet Union, but economic collapse is not a viable endgame scenario. Now we really find out what happens with an semi-authoritarian government.
-
For that matter, Iran is actually the most Western of the nations in the Middle East, with a successful home-grown educational and healthcare system and a functional system for direct transition to a democractic government; remove the Guardians of the Faith, add a second party and prevent the in-power people from jiggering with it and you have something pretty close to a Western democracy. Coming in and destroying these things via external force is counterproductive. You may note that while they undoubtedly provide fiancial and basing support to various people who like to stage bombings, the number of Iranian-born terrorists or homegrown Iranian terrorist groups that threaten Europe and North America is very low.
Nail. Head.
This is what I was trying to convey earlier (page 2?) and again on this page. Invading Iran would have just pulled together an insurgency there. But Iran is right on the tipping point of a democratic upheaval and change of governance. The tiniest push will send it over, but that push can't come by force. Iraq was the next best thing - if the Iranian populace were to see a functioning democratic state in Iraq, that would be the push required... actually, it would be more like a shove. Regardless, that strategy didn't work because of all the reasons I've laid out previously, and the best course of action, as it was in 2003, is to leave Iraq the hell alone and provide financing, logistical support, and intelligence to the Iranian populace who can effect change from within. They are a remarkable people, and fed up entirely with the religious nuts running the show.
MP-Ryan's point is that it isn't about oil because the US politicians want the money the oil will make them.
Hrmm. I'm hoping that sentence is just suffering from a lack of expression and that's not what was taken from the post.
Money and oil are fantastic bonuses, but what the West as a whole really wants is a Middle East than isn't ready to implode on any given day and simultaneously open to exploitation and stabilization by China, which stands to gain a huge sphere of influence with the status quo, or, worse, if China can successfully negotiate a tenuous peace. The Chinese are viewed as business partners without any real ideological conflict, which makes them particularly able to interact with the Middle East as a whole. For the United States' strategic goals into the next century, that is a massive problem.
Stabilize Iran, and that problem gets delayed by decades. And the icing on the cake is the as-yet untapped petroleum and mineral deposits throughout Iran, Iraq, and the former Soviet territories to the north and east.
EDIT: I'm also going to point out that the US did in fact have a chance to make amends with Iran but walked away from it. If we were really out there trying to curb chinese influence, how does this help?
Because making amends with Iran doesn't help even remotely - you're dealing with the same lunatic fringe running the show. Iran made that offer because they saw the strategy in Iraq plain as day - and unlike the majority of the populace in NATO countries, they know full well the writing is on the wall. Without it's police forces and military, Iran would have boiled over years ago - and the leadership was absolutely terrified of that happening in 2003. Specifically, rather, they were terrified of the Coalition throwing some military support behind the moderates and getting strung up by their fundamentalist necks. Didn't happen, of course, because the Coalition failed to support the democratic movement in Iran because they were too busy causing and then getting stuck in the middle of an Iraqi civil war, which was rather distracting.
The United States in particular is - and rightly so - dead set on a democratic coup or takeover in Iran. It IS only a matter of time. Negotiating with the loons undermines the moderates who are counting on at least morale support from the West - and it makes it rather difficult to explain if you suddenly start funneling large amounts of money, logistical help, and intelligence with the specific intent of destabilizing Iran's current government. I'd bet a significant chunk of money that Ahmadinejad and his cronies weren't all that far off the mark in principle when they started accusing the West of meddling in the last election, just the extent.
At any rate, saying the conflict in the Middle East is about oil is something akin to saying that World War 2 was about Germany's need for more land (lebensraum). There is so much more going on. No conflict, military or otherwise, is ever about just one simple thing. Humanity is remarkably good at working out their differences over tangible issues - it's the ideological ones that cause wars.
-
MP-Ryan's point is that it isn't about oil because the US politicians want the money the oil will make them.
Hrmm. I'm hoping that sentence is just suffering from a lack of expression and that's not what was taken from the post.
There's a tendency to claim that the war in Iraq was about oil with oil simply being viewed as money in liquid form. In other words people often like to claim that the war in Iraq was just so the US could make money off of it.
Which is obviously nonsense. Any profit the US made was a bonus. Oil is important but not in that way. No need for me to repeat why since you've pretty much explained it.
-
try enforcing Saudi-type laws in the US or Europe
its more likely than you think (http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/24/ireland-outlaws-blasphemy/)