Go Back   I-Mockery Forum > I-Mockery Discussion Forums > Philosophy, Politics, and News > US withdrawing afghanistan the day after today
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Thread: US withdrawing afghanistan the day after today Reply to Thread
Title:
Message
Image Verification
Please enter the six letters or digits that appear in the image opposite.


Additional Options
Miscellaneous Options

Topic Review (Newest First)
Dec 11th, 2009 04:16 PM
El Blanco Just say Muslim countries. It's not like you've ever shown the ability to distinguish between them.

And I can't believe I missed this before

Quote:
there has been a ten fold increase in terrorist activities in the middle east since we've increased military presence there since october of 2001? Probably not.
Source?
Dec 9th, 2009 04:00 AM
Evil Robot I bet you love anal, and holding in your shits until conditions are perfect.
Dec 8th, 2009 06:03 AM
Geggy
Quote:
Originally Posted by El Blanco View Post
And Afghanistan isn't in the Middle East.
if you want to be anal, the greater middle east
Dec 8th, 2009 06:03 AM
Geggy good to see you laughing again. is the menopause over or are you in the eye of the storm?
Dec 8th, 2009 01:14 AM
Ant10708
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhiteRat View Post
NOBODY DIED WHEN CLINTON LIED!
I missed this post before
Dec 7th, 2009 09:17 AM
El Blanco And Afghanistan isn't in the Middle East.
Dec 7th, 2009 02:56 AM
Supafly345 Completely opposite of rufusing to hand over bin Laden would be handing him over. Or did I translate your hard to read run-on sentance wrong.
Dec 7th, 2009 01:06 AM
Geggy Obama lied when he said that Taliban refused to hand over Osama bin Laden when it is completely opposite that the bush administartion refused to negotiate with the Talibans that they would offer to hand over Osama to the US if they were shown any evidence of his involvement in the 9/11 attacks in return for the US to stop the bombing campaign. The US troops had Osama bin Laden surrounded in Tora Bora in december of 2001, but Donald Rumsfeld ordered them to allow bin Laden and his buddies to escape.. Recently robert gates has admitted they havent had any real solid intelligence on bin Laden's whereabouts in years but why were we told that he is in pakistan by hillary clitty and leon panetta?

Because considering that he was the face of america's public enemy number one, they need him to stay alive and clear to show the americans that the US needs to continue their presence in the middle east to further acheive their real goals. Do you think it's total incompetence and a failure in their strategy in part of the US government that there has been a ten fold increase in terrorist activities in the middle east since we've increased military presence there since october of 2001? Probably not.
Nov 26th, 2009 09:38 AM
Ant10708 I WILL SPAM THIS BOARD BECAUSE ITS ACCEPTABLE AS SHOWN BY GEGGY

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp...Ui6NK_AoPKzcBw what do you guys think? turkey time? more like we were behind 9/11 time!
Nov 18th, 2009 06:17 PM
Evil Robot You know for a while there I thought Geggy was an intelligent person and I respected his opinions, but not so much now. His posts have gone down in quality considerably since election of Obama and frankly, I think we need to reevaluate our needs for him as an employee of the politics section.
Nov 18th, 2009 10:46 AM
WhiteRat NOBODY DIED WHEN CLINTON LIED!
Nov 18th, 2009 10:21 AM
El Blanco According to Geggy, that attack wasn't by terrorists.
Nov 17th, 2009 11:57 PM
The Leader I like how Geggy's evidence never actually supports his theories. What's that? The militarily and economically dominant power on the planet was involved in the middle east before September 11 because there's oil there? Clearly that's why we invaded Iraq and Afghanistan and it couldn't possibly have anything to do with the terrorist attacks. Yes, because anyone can see that if there wasn't oil in the middle east then we wouldn't bother retaliating against a terrorist group that killed several thousand Americans.
Nov 17th, 2009 04:36 PM
Dr. Boogie Last edited by Geggy : Nov 17th, 2009 at 03:46 AM. Reason: forgot to add the laughing emoticon
Nov 17th, 2009 03:34 PM
El Blanco Remember, folks, the mainstream media is lying to you. Thats why Geggy never believes them. Unless he thinks they support his insane ramblings.
Nov 17th, 2009 05:31 AM
Geggy you only think it's rambling because you dont take it seriously, possibly out of fear of being perceived as what blanco says a "sad, lonely, and hopeless person."
Nov 17th, 2009 05:16 AM
Dr. Boogie I don't think it counts as "refreshing" if everyone just writes off your posts as more conspiratorial rambling.
Nov 17th, 2009 04:49 AM
Geggy Just refreshing everyone's memory why the US is in afghanistan. If you truly believe we are there to smoke osama out of the cave and spread democracy, you've got your head far up in your ass.
Nov 17th, 2009 04:19 AM
Dr. Boogie ... which is how we know that the world will end in 2012.
Nov 17th, 2009 04:12 AM
Geggy The catalogue of evidence does, however, fall into place when set against the PNAC blueprint. From this it seems that the so-called "war on terrorism" is being used largely as bogus cover for achieving wider US strategic geopolitical objectives. Indeed Tony Blair himself hinted at this when he said to the Commons liaison committee: "To be truthful about it, there was no way we could have got the public consent to have suddenly launched a campaign on Afghanistan but for what happened on September 11" (Times, July 17 2002). Similarly Rumsfeld was so determined to obtain a rationale for an attack on Iraq that on 10 separate occasions he asked the CIA to find evidence linking Iraq to 9/11; the CIA repeatedly came back empty-handed (Time Magazine, May 13 2002).

In fact, 9/11 offered an extremely convenient pretext to put the PNAC plan into action. The evidence again is quite clear that plans for military action against Afghanistan and Iraq were in hand well before 9/11. A report prepared for the US government from the Baker Institute of Public Policy stated in April 2001 that "the US remains a prisoner of its energy dilemma. Iraq remains a destabilising influence to... the flow of oil to international markets from the Middle East". Submitted to Vice-President Cheney's energy task group, the report recommended that because this was an unacceptable risk to the US, "military intervention" was necessary (Sunday Herald, October 6 2002).

Similar evidence exists in regard to Afghanistan. The BBC reported (September 18 2001) that Niaz Niak, a former Pakistan foreign secretary, was told by senior American officials at a meeting in Berlin in mid-July 2001 that "military action against Afghanistan would go ahead by the middle of October". Until July 2001 the US government saw the Taliban regime as a source of stability in Central Asia that would enable the construction of hydrocarbon pipelines from the oil and gas fields in Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, through Afghanistan and Pakistan, to the Indian Ocean. But, confronted with the Taliban's refusal to accept US conditions, the US representatives told them "either you accept our offer of a carpet of gold, or we bury you under a carpet of bombs" (Inter Press Service, November 15 2001).

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2...ptember11.iraq
Nov 10th, 2009 09:25 PM
Evil Robot
Nov 10th, 2009 03:44 PM
Evil Robot You sarcastic little strife whore.
Nov 9th, 2009 11:08 PM
Geggy
US withdrawing afghanistan the day after today

http://www.alternet.org/story/143819/

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

   


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:02 PM.


© 2008 I-Mockery.com
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.