US withdrawing afghanistan the day after today
 

You sarcastic little strife whore.

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

... which is how we know that the world will end in 2012.

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.

I don't think it counts as "refreshing" if everyone just writes off your posts as more conspiratorial rambling.

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." :lol

Remember, folks, the mainstream media is lying to you. Thats why Geggy never believes them. Unless he thinks they support his insane ramblings.

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.

According to Geggy, that attack wasn't by terrorists.

NOBODY DIED WHEN CLINTON LIED!

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.

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!

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.

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.

And Afghanistan isn't in the Middle East.

:lol I missed this post before

good to see you laughing again. is the menopause over or are you in the eye of the storm?

if you want to be anal, the greater middle east

I bet you love anal, and holding in your shits until conditions are perfect.

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

Source?