Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: nycbull on February 01, 2007, 09:34:08 AM
-
or attempt at words.
Funny video comparing George Bush's speaking skills 10 years ago and today.
-
he is an embarassment, plain and simple.
-
Bush right after being elected, on the MacNeil/Lehrer NewHour:
"If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier... ( Chuckles ) ( laughter ) ...just so long as I'm the dictator. ( Laughter )"
-
Christ that's frightening.
-
And just why was he voted in for a second term? >:(
-
Because we hate gays.
-
And just why was he voted in for a second term? >:(
War fever. Remember that weird osama tape (where he was 50 pound heavier and 6 inches shorter than usual) which came out on Oct 30, 2004... on the eve of the Nov 2, 2004 election? Osama endorsed Kerry.
THen we had the Ohio and Florida election anomalies, where an election e-machine company whose CEO promised to "deliver the Presidency to Bush" in internal memoes, where the machine results contrasted traditionally accurate exit polling data. This means there is mathematically a one in a billion chance that Bush won. Of course, we could recount the paper backups to see if Bush is that lucky, or if Kerry won... but the Republicans sued to have the ballots destroyed. They're still sealed to this day as lawyers fight. Democracy? yeah, right...
-
And just why was he voted in for a second term? >:(
Because we hate gays.
So Getbig is a microcosm of America. Interesting.
-
hahaha, what is funny is that Bush had a higher GPA in college than Kerry did. Same school and pretty much the same classes.
Some day we will get a true candidate/leader again....and he will only get about 10% of the vote. hahahaha
-
hahaha, what is funny is that Bush had a higher GPA in college than Kerry did. Same school and pretty much the same classes.
............higher than AlGore too!
-
or attempt at words.
Funny video comparing George Bush's speaking skills 10 years ago and today.
what a sore loser..haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa ahahah
-
This will make your day!
-
............higher than AlGore too!
Are you implying that Bush is more intelligent than either Kerry or Gore?
-
Are you implying that Bush is more intelligent than either Kerry or Gore?
According to skrewl records he is!!
-
Guys, do you think this regression is due to alcoholism?
I was going to suggest the same. Once an alcholic always a alcoholic.
-
Guys, do you think this regression is due to alcoholism?
Oh shit....c'mon ::)!!
-
Guys, please tell me we're not having a debate over "who is smarter".
I'd settle for a high school dropout with a conscience and an ounce of f'knig honesty at this point.
-
According to skrewl records he is!!
So you're saying GPA scores are indicative of the intelligence level of men in their late 50's?
And are you absolutely positive that any of them actually did their own school work? I'm not just pointing out Bush in this instance, Gore is the son of a wealthy and influential father as well. Kerry to a lesser extent. It wouldn't surprise me if one or all of them did very little actual school work.
-
Guys, please tell me we're not having a debate over "who is smarter".
I'd settle for a high school dropout with a conscience and an ounce of f'knig honesty at this point.
According to Mr. I Bush's GPA is proof positive that Bush is more intelligent than either Gore or Kerry.
He must have read that in some Rush Limbaugh "artical".
-
So you're saying GPA scores are indicative of the intelligence level of men in their late 50's?
And are you absolutely positive that any of them actually did their own school work? I'm not just pointing out Bush in this instance, Gore is the son of a wealthy and influential father as well. Kerry to a lesser extent. It wouldn't surprise me if one or all of them did very little actual school work.
exactly, for example trey brewer got a 3.8 gpa but with a 860 SAT score.
-
https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/3792/
-
I'd settle for a high school dropout with a conscience and an ounce of f'knig honesty at this point.
Beetlejuice in 2008!
-
This will make your day!
hahahahah yes thats Croatch!!!!!!
-
Bush is a very stupid man. The American people are not stupid, they are very clever. I can't understand how such clever people came to elect such a stupid president.
-
Bush is a very stupid man. The American people are not stupid, they are very clever. I can't understand how such clever people came to elect such a stupid president.
As governor of Texas Bush never spoke or acted as poorly as he has as President. Too many Americans voted for him because they got lost in the "legacy" of his last name. I voted for Bush and think he's done a less than stellar job, but I have no definitive ties to any political party. I vote for the candidate I think best represents my interests...at that time it was Bush.....now I don't know.
-
The war criminal Bush and that Rumsfield deserve only to be beaten with shoes by freedom loving people everywhere.
-
The war criminal Bush and that Rumsfield deserve only to be beaten with shoes by freedom loving people everywhere.
AHAHAAHAH!!! "beaten with shoes" AHAAHAH!!
-
Guys, do you think this regression is due to alcoholism?
no he's just naturally stupid.
-
This will make your day!
freaking liberals.....you gotta love em because they're so retarded...lol!
-
freaking liberals.....you gotta love em because they're so retarded...lol!
yes, but can you refute his point?
Do you think lying about a BJ is better, worse, or equal to say, lying about WMD and discarding intel about 9/11, starting a war in Iraq and managing it in such a way as to lose 3000 live, most AFTER he declared victory?
-
-
The American people are not stupid, they are very clever.
You better let 240 know about this. :-\
-
and yet, another bush bashing thread.
::)
-
and yet, another bush bashing thread.
Weird that getbig posting trends would reflect the opinion of society, eh?
-
and yet, another bush bashing thread.
::)
Don't worry about it....The HEELS are going to beat Dook to death next Weds. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
Don't worry about it....The HEELS are going to beat Dook to death next Weds. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
that's right baby!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
national champs-2007
-
and yet, another bush bashing thread.
::)
What a surprise. ::)
-
BUSH, BTW, would have never have to been bashed, instead he could have been revered.............unfo rtunatly for the drones BUSh will be remembered for his blunder in Iraq rather than his resolve in the aftermath of 9/11.
P.S.: Any large group of people are stupid.
-
P.S.: Any large group of people are stupid.
???
-
unfortunatly for the drones BUSh will be remembered for his blunder in Iraq rather than his resolve in the aftermath of 9/11.
You mean for those 10+ minutes where he read "My Pet Goat" upside down while staring into space, after being told of the second plane hitting the towers?
-
???
People in large groups, (from small mobs to millions) tend to be easily manipulated and act stupidly. Individuals on the other hand can be very smart.
-
People in large groups, (from small mobs to millions) tend to be easily manipulated and act stupidly. Individuals on the other hand can be very smart.
There is some truth to this. "Group think" is very common. Not always "smart."
-
People in large groups, (from small mobs to millions) tend to be easily manipulated and act stupidly. Individuals on the other hand can be very smart.
A stigma comes with speaking outside of commonly accepted information - even when you're right.
A vietnam vet would take a man outside and kick his ass in 1970 for insinuating the US govt staged the Gulf of Tonken to get us into war.
In 2007, it's commonly known, and even used by politicians all the time, that the Gulf of Tonken was a fake attack to gain public support for the war.
-
You mean for those 10+ minutes where he read "My Pet Goat" upside down while staring into space, after being told of the second plane hitting the towers?
NO, (but i share your sarcasm) I mean his actions after the attacks, gave him the opportunity to be remember as a truely great president. Instead, he became a war monger and invaded Iraq, caused the death of thousands, incurred 400+ billion in costs, and put our country on the most hated list of more countries.
-
A stigma comes with speaking outside of commonly accepted information - even when you're right.
A vietnam vet would take a man outside and kick his ass in 1970 for insinuating the US govt staged the Gulf of Tonken to get us into war.
In 2007, it's commonly known, and even used by politicians all the time, that the Gulf of Tonken was a fake attack to gain public support for the war.
Like him or hate him, Chomsky's Manufacturing Consent gets into manipulating large groups of people real well.
-
NO, (but i share your sarcasm) I mean his actions after the attacks, gave him the opportunity to be remember as a truely great president. Instead, he became a war monger and invaded Iraq, caused the death of thousands, incurred 400+ billion in costs, and put our country on the most hated list of more countries.
Ozmo,
My next post will be a brief history of the relationship between the taleban and the US.
We put them into power so that they could give us the oil pipeline. Then they took our paycheck and screwed us. THAT is why we invaded Afghanistan - to secure longterm US resources. IF Bush is remembered as great, it will be for controlling mid east oil and not letting china or russia have it.
The Afghan invasion was very much going to happen in mid-october, even if nothing had happened on 9/11.
-
1991-1997: Oil Investment in Central Asia Follows Soviet CollapseThe Soviet Union collapses in 1991, creating several new nations in Central Asia.
1995-November 2001: US Lobbies India Over Enron Power PlantEnron’s $3 billion Dabhol, India power plant runs into trouble in 1995 when the Indian government temporarily cancels an agreement.
September-October 1995: Unocal Obtains Turkmenistan Pipeline DealOil company Unocal signs an $8 billion deal with Turkmenistan to construct two pipelines (one for oil, one for gas), as part of a larger plan for two pipelines intended to transport oil and gas from Turkmenistan through Afghanistan and into Pakistan.
December 1995: Caspian Sea Said to Contain Two-Thirds of World’s Known Oil Reserves
May 1996: US Seeks Stability in Afghanistan for Unocal Pipeline
June 24, 1996: Uzbekistan Cuts a Deal with EnronUzbekistan signs a deal with Enron
August 13, 1996: Unocal, Delta Oil Plan Afghan Pipeline
September 27, 1996: Victorious Taliban Supported by Pakistan; Viewed by US, Unocal as Stabilizing Force
October 7, 1996: Future Bush Envoy to Afghanistan Wants US to Help Taliban Unify Country, Build Pipeline
October 11, 1996: Afghan Pipeline Key to ‘One of the Great Prizes of the 21st Century’
August 1997: CIA Monitors Central Asia for Oil Reserves
October 27, 1997: Halliburton Announces Turkmenistan Project; Unocal and Delta Oil Form ConsortiumHalliburton, a company headed by future Vice President Dick Cheney
November 1997: Enron and bin Laden Family Team Up for Project
December 1997: Unocal Establishes Pipeline Training Facility Near bin Laden’s Compound
December 4, 1997: Taliban Representatives Visit Unocal in Texas
Early 1998: US Official Meets with Taliban; Promote Afghan Pipeline
June 23, 1998: Future VP Cheney Raves About Caspian Sea Opportunities
August 9, 1998: Northern Alliance Stronghold Conquered by Taliban; Pipeline Project Now Looks Promising
December 5, 1998: Unocal Abandons Afghan Pipeline Project
Late 1998: Taliban Stall Pipeline Negotiations to Keep Western Powers at Bay
1999: US Ready to Fight For Oil, Especially in Persian Gulf and Caspian Regions
A top level US policy document explicitly confirms the US military’s readiness to fight a war for oil. The report, Strategic Assessment 1999, prepared for the US Joint Chiefs of Staff and the secretary of defense, states, “energy and resource issues will continue to shape international security,” and if an oil “problem” arises, “US forces might be used to ensure adequate supplies.” Oil conflicts over production facilities and transport routes, particularly in the Persian Gulf and Caspian regions, are specifically envisaged. [Sydney Morning Herald, 5/20/2003]
July 4, 1999: Executive Order Issued Against Taliban
December 20, 1999: Iran Said to Be Supporting Conflict in Afghanistan to Further Their Own Pipeline Plans
December 19, 2000: US Seeks Taliban Overthrow
January 21, 2001: Bush Administration Takes Over; Many Have Oil Industry Connections
May 16, 2001: Cheney’s Energy Plan Foresees Government Helping US Companies Expand Into New Markets
May 23, 2001: Former Unocal Employee Becomes Bush’s Special Assistant to Middle East and Central Asia
June 27, 2001: India and Pakistan Discuss Building Pipeline Project Through Iran
July 21, 2001: US Official Threatens Possible Military Action Against Taliban by October if Pipeline Is Not Pursued
August 2, 2001: US Official Secretly Meets Taliban Ambassador in Last Attempt to Secure Pipeline Deal
September 11, 2001: The 9/11 Attack
October 5, 2001: Study Reveals Significant Oil and Gas Deposits in Afghanistan
October 9, 2001: Afghan Pipeline Idea Is Revived
December 8, 2001: US Oil Companies to Invest $200 Billion in Kazakhstan
January 1, 2002: Ex-Unocal Employee Becomes US Special Envoy and ’Real President’ of Afghanistan
February 9, 2002: Pakistani and Afghan Leaders Revive Afghanistan Pipeline
February 14, 2002: US Military Bases Line Afghan Pipeline Route
May 30, 2002: Afghan, Turkmen, and Pakistani Leaders Sign Pipeline Deal
December 27, 2002: Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Turkmenistan Agree on Building Pipeline
-
Ozmo,
My next post will be a brief history of the relationship between the taleban and the US.
We put them into power so that they could give us the oil pipeline. Then they took our paycheck and screwed us. THAT is why we invaded Afghanistan - to secure longterm US resources. IF Bush is remembered as great, it will be for controlling mid east oil and not letting china or russia have it.
The Afghan invasion was very much going to happen in mid-october, even if nothing had happened on 9/11.
If we were for sure going to invade afghanistan in October there would be wide spread knoowledge of it in the millitary 6 mos to a year prior.
Assets and logistics would have been immposible to cover up. I knew about iraq 6 months before it happened.
So, although your timeline looks good, i think there should be more supporting evidence.
-
1991-1997: Oil Investment in Central Asia Follows Soviet CollapseThe Soviet Union collapses in 1991, creating several new nations in Central Asia.
1995-November 2001: US Lobbies India Over Enron Power PlantEnron’s $3 billion Dabhol, India power plant runs into trouble in 1995 when the Indian government temporarily cancels an agreement.
September-October 1995: Unocal Obtains Turkmenistan Pipeline DealOil company Unocal signs an $8 billion deal with Turkmenistan to construct two pipelines (one for oil, one for gas), as part of a larger plan for two pipelines intended to transport oil and gas from Turkmenistan through Afghanistan and into Pakistan.
December 1995: Caspian Sea Said to Contain Two-Thirds of World’s Known Oil Reserves
May 1996: US Seeks Stability in Afghanistan for Unocal Pipeline
June 24, 1996: Uzbekistan Cuts a Deal with EnronUzbekistan signs a deal with Enron
August 13, 1996: Unocal, Delta Oil Plan Afghan Pipeline
September 27, 1996: Victorious Taliban Supported by Pakistan; Viewed by US, Unocal as Stabilizing Force
October 7, 1996: Future Bush Envoy to Afghanistan Wants US to Help Taliban Unify Country, Build Pipeline
October 11, 1996: Afghan Pipeline Key to ‘One of the Great Prizes of the 21st Century’
August 1997: CIA Monitors Central Asia for Oil Reserves
October 27, 1997: Halliburton Announces Turkmenistan Project; Unocal and Delta Oil Form ConsortiumHalliburton, a company headed by future Vice President Dick Cheney
November 1997: Enron and bin Laden Family Team Up for Project
December 1997: Unocal Establishes Pipeline Training Facility Near bin Laden’s Compound
December 4, 1997: Taliban Representatives Visit Unocal in Texas
Early 1998: US Official Meets with Taliban; Promote Afghan Pipeline
June 23, 1998: Future VP Cheney Raves About Caspian Sea Opportunities
August 9, 1998: Northern Alliance Stronghold Conquered by Taliban; Pipeline Project Now Looks Promising
December 5, 1998: Unocal Abandons Afghan Pipeline Project
Late 1998: Taliban Stall Pipeline Negotiations to Keep Western Powers at Bay
1999: US Ready to Fight For Oil, Especially in Persian Gulf and Caspian Regions
A top level US policy document explicitly confirms the US military’s readiness to fight a war for oil. The report, Strategic Assessment 1999, prepared for the US Joint Chiefs of Staff and the secretary of defense, states, “energy and resource issues will continue to shape international security,” and if an oil “problem” arises, “US forces might be used to ensure adequate supplies.” Oil conflicts over production facilities and transport routes, particularly in the Persian Gulf and Caspian regions, are specifically envisaged. [Sydney Morning Herald, 5/20/2003]
July 4, 1999: Executive Order Issued Against Taliban
December 20, 1999: Iran Said to Be Supporting Conflict in Afghanistan to Further Their Own Pipeline Plans
December 19, 2000: US Seeks Taliban Overthrow
January 21, 2001: Bush Administration Takes Over; Many Have Oil Industry Connections
May 16, 2001: Cheney’s Energy Plan Foresees Government Helping US Companies Expand Into New Markets
May 23, 2001: Former Unocal Employee Becomes Bush’s Special Assistant to Middle East and Central Asia
June 27, 2001: India and Pakistan Discuss Building Pipeline Project Through Iran
July 21, 2001: US Official Threatens Possible Military Action Against Taliban by October if Pipeline Is Not Pursued
August 2, 2001: US Official Secretly Meets Taliban Ambassador in Last Attempt to Secure Pipeline Deal
September 11, 2001: The 9/11 Attack
October 5, 2001: Study Reveals Significant Oil and Gas Deposits in Afghanistan
October 9, 2001: Afghan Pipeline Idea Is Revived
December 8, 2001: US Oil Companies to Invest $200 Billion in Kazakhstan
January 1, 2002: Ex-Unocal Employee Becomes US Special Envoy and ’Real President’ of Afghanistan
February 9, 2002: Pakistani and Afghan Leaders Revive Afghanistan Pipeline
February 14, 2002: US Military Bases Line Afghan Pipeline Route
May 30, 2002: Afghan, Turkmen, and Pakistani Leaders Sign Pipeline Deal
December 27, 2002: Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Turkmenistan Agree on Building Pipeline
I need people like you to post on my board... awesome post, do you know that I still hire Moderators? ;)
-
Ozmo,
My next post will be a brief history of the relationship between the taleban and the US.
We put them into power so that they could give us the oil pipeline. Then they took our paycheck and screwed us. THAT is why we invaded Afghanistan - to secure longterm US resources. IF Bush is remembered as great, it will be for controlling mid east oil and not letting china or russia have it.
The Afghan invasion was very much going to happen in mid-october, even if nothing had happened on 9/11.
And ???? I can't think of any better justification. And there is no way that if Bush would have stated the "real" reason, that Americans would have supported invading. The media would have had a field day with the "no blood for oil" mantra.
-
If we were for sure going to invade afghanistan in October there would be wide spread knoowledge of it in the millitary 6 mos to a year prior.
Assets and logistics would have been immposible to cover up. I knew about iraq 6 months before it happened.
So, although your timeline looks good, i think there should be more supporting evidence.
Jane's Defense - India Joined US led plan against Afghanistan in March 2001.
http://www.janes.com/security/international_security/news/jir/jir010315_1_n.shtml
"India joins anti-Taliban coalition"
By Rahul Bedi
India is believed to have joined Russia, the USA and Iran in a concerted front against Afghanistan's Taliban regime.
From April 2001, yet more indications that a mideast war was planned long before 9/11.
India Reacts - American government told other governments about Afghan invasion IN JUNE 2001.
http://www.indiareacts.com/archivefeatures/
nat2.asp?recno=10∓ctg=policy
In this article published in India in the summer of 2001 the Indian Government announces that it will support America's PLANNED military incursion into Afghanistan.
India in anti-Taliban military plan
India and Iran will "facilitate" the planned US-Russia hostilities against the Taliban.
By Our Correspondent
26 June 2001: India and Iran will "facilitate" US and Russian plans for "limited military action"
against the Taliban if the contemplated tough new economic sanctions don't bend Afghanistan's fundamentalist regime.
The Taliban controls 90 per cent of Afghanistan and is advancing northward along the Salang
highway and preparing for a rear attack on the opposition Northern Alliance from
Tajikistan-Afghanistan border positions.
Indian foreign secretary Chokila Iyer attended a crucial session of the second Indo-Russian joint working group on Afghanistan in Moscow amidst increase of Taliban's military activity near the Tajikistan border. And, Russia's Federal Security Bureau (the former KGB) chief Nicolai Patroshev is visiting Teheran this week in connection with Taliban's military build-up.
Indian officials say that India and Iran will only play the role of "facilitator" while the US and Russia will combat the Taliban from the front with the help of two Central Asian countries, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan, to push Taliban lines back to the 1998 position 50 km away from Mazar-e-Sharief city in northern Afghanistan.
Military action will be the last option though it now seems scarcely avoidable with the UN banned from Taliban controlled areas. The UN which adopted various means in the last four years to resolve the Afghan problem is now being suspected by the Taliban and refused entry into Taliban areas of the war ravaged nation through a decree issued by Taliban chief Mullah Mohammad Omar last month.
BBC - American government told other governments about Afghan invasion IN JULY 2001.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/
south_asia/newsid_1550000/1550366.stm
US 'planned attack on Taleban'
The wider objective was to oust the Taleban
By the BBC's George Arney
A former Pakistani diplomat has told the BBC that the US was planning military action against Osama Bin Laden and the Taleban even before last week's attacks.
Niaz Naik, a former Pakistani Foreign Secretary, was told by senior American officials in mid-July that military action against Afghanistan would go ahead by the middle of October.
Mr Naik said US officials told him of the plan at a UN-sponsored international contact group on Afghanistan which took place in Berlin.
Mr Naik told the BBC that at the meeting the US representatives told him that unless Bin Laden was handed over swiftly America would take military action to kill or capture both Bin Laden and the Taleban leader, Mullah Omar.
The wider objective, according to Mr Naik, would be to topple the Taleban regime and install a transitional government of moderate Afghans in its place - possibly under the leadership of the former Afghan King Zahir Shah.
Mr Naik was told that Washington would launch its operation from bases in Tajikistan, where American advisers were already in place.
He was told that Uzbekistan would also participate in the operation and that 17,000 Russian troops were on standby.
Mr Naik was told that if the military action went ahead it would take place before the snows started falling in Afghanistan, by the middle of October at the latest.
He said that he was in no doubt that after the World Trade Center bombings this pre-existing US plan had been built upon and would be implemented within two or three weeks.
And he said it was doubtful that Washington would drop its plan even if Bin Laden were to be surrendered immediately by the Taleban.
-
In the summer of 2001, while the American media kept the people distracted with "All Condit All The Time", the US Government was informing other governments that we would be at war in Afghanistan no later than October.
How lucky for our government that just when they are planning to invade another country, for the express purpose of removing that government, a convenient "terrorist" attack occurs to anger Americans into support for an invasion.
"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."
Tony Blair. July 17, 2002 [Guardian]
WIKI
The U.S. may have decided long before 9/11 to invade Afghanistan in October 2001. On September 18, 2001 Niaz Naik, a former Pakistani Foreign Secretary, said "senior U.S. officials" told him in mid-July 2001 that U.S. military action against Afghanistan would be commenced by the middle of October 2001. Further, Mr. Naik reported that, based on the information he allegedly received from the U.S. officials, it was doubtful that the U.S. would abandon its plan to invade Afghanistan even if the Taliban immediately surrendered bin Laden. [10] Mr. Naik said he was told that Uzbekistan would also participate in the operation and that "17,000 Russian troops were on standby"; as of late 2006, no Uzbek or Russian forces took part in any U.S. or NATO -led operations in Afghanistan.
-
Military preparations in Afghanistan BEFORE 9/11
For the US to invade Afghanistan at the other side of the world was a delicate operation. Step by step the US had pushed its influence and control in the former soviet republics. US oil and gas related companies had started up activities in Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan and US' military had gained influence in the region, challenging Russia and China in their backyards.
Already in 1997, north of Afghanistan, the US had considerably expanded its military "cooperation" with Kazakhstan, which forms the buffer with Russia. [71] In 1999, closer to Afghanistan, the US expanded its presence in Kyrgyzstan [72], and in Uzbekistan, one of Afghanistan's direct neighbours. [73] April 14-15, 2000, Uzbek and US troops conducted joint military exercises. [74]
East of Afghanistan the US administration has strong ties with the Pakistani intelligence service. Its director, Lieutenant-General Mahmoud Ahmad, was with US' officials the week before and during the attacks of 9/11. [75] On the west side F-15 were based in Saudi-Arabia, Kuwait and Turkey and the Fifth fleet was permanently based in the Persian Gulf. [76]
For the war in Afghanistan, huge transports of troops and material had to be organized well before the invasion. On November 7, 2000, the day all US-citizens were occupied with the election of their president, the UK announced its biggest military exercise since the Gulf War, operation Swift Sword (Saif Sareea in Arabic), involving 24,000 troops and a lot of heavy material. [77]
The exercise took place in Oman, a strategic location, since all oil tankers from the Persian Gulf region (Saudi-Arabia, the United Arabic Emirates, Qatar, Kuwait, Iraq and Iran) have to cross the Gulf of Oman. Here the UK detaines a War Material Storage. [78] They exercised on the coast of Oman from September 15 until the end of October 2001, [79] and started moving their material in August 2001. [80] The UK participated in the invasion. [81]
From October 8 until the end of October, 2001 another military operation was planned in Egypt: NATO Operation Bright Star. It was the world's largest exercise with more than 11 Nations, and over 70,000 troops (among which 23,000 from the US) participating. [82]
Among several other "coincidental" military moves towards Afghanistan, we notice that on July 23 2001 aircraft carrier Carl Vinson was sent out from Bremerton (on US West coast) to the Arabian Sea. It arrived just in time to launch the first air strikes on Afghanistan on October 7, 2001. [83]
Diplomatic preparations
On the diplomatic front, to lower the risk of upsetting China, on June 19 2001, Bush had proposed to attend the APEC summit in Shang Hai and was expected to meet president Zemir between October 15 and October 21 2001. [84] & [85] (Bush's meeting with presidents Zemir and Putin took place on October 20, 2001) [86]
Besides, in 2001 China was completing its bilateral agreements with all 37 WTO members to become a full WTO-member. China wanted to become member since many years. China's bilateral agreement with Mexico would be the last and this would complete China's membership. [87] In July 2001 Bush would polish his relations with Mexico, "lobbying" against US unfair import restrictions on Mexican trucks. [88]
This was probably not only to get the Mexicans in the right mood to sign with China, but also because Mexico would be member of the UN Security Council in 2002 and 2003. China reached its bilateral agreement with Mexico and became WTO member on September 13, 2001. [89]
-
You ignored me 240 :( I feel strangly violated
-
I need people like you to post on my board... awesome post, do you know that I still hire Moderators? ;)
sorry i missed your post with all the pasting I did.
what board?
-
240,
There's a big difference in the USA invading another country versus the USA helping a politcal group within another country to overthrow the government.
We do the latter all the time.
Having military exercises and linking them to assests already in the area is a far cry from what's needed to invade a country not to mention the manipulation of the american public for it's support. I have a pretty good back ground in military history and tactics those things you site don't point to an invasion and they aren;t the things that would indicate an invasion. Think logistics 240....that's the key! The same sources that told me about Iraq would have told me about this also.
For you to say we were going to invade Afghanistan is grossly inaccuarate and not to rag you too much in that regard, you are always doing stuff like that. A good debater doesn't need to bend facts or speculate from facts they have no expertese in to win his/her points.
BTW link 2 doesn't work and link 3 is a daily news page.
-
lol it's ok, I have a new page with a collection of Natural Babes, the page is called www.simply2hot.com and I try to hire another Moderator primarily responsibility would be to take care of the board promote the page as such and help making this page fly, it was more a joke that I ask you since I know how busy you are, it's just extremly hard to get good reliable partners to make a page fly.
And sorry to you all for shamefully hijacking this thread for my own personal gain :)
-
lol it's ok, I have a new page with a collection of Natural Babes, the page is called www.simply2hot.com and I try to hire another Moderator primarily responsibility would be to take care of the board promote the page as such and help making this page fly, it was more a joke that I ask you since I know how busy you are, it's just extremly hard to get good reliable partners to make a page fly.
And sorry to you all for shamefully hijacking this thread for my own personal gain :)
Nice site Stark! I like it!!!!
-
Nice site Stark! I like it!!!!
giggidy Gig Aaaalll RIIIGHT !!!! ;D
-
If we were for sure going to invade afghanistan in October there would be wide spread knoowledge of it in the millitary 6 mos to a year prior.
Assets and logistics would have been immposible to cover up. I knew about iraq 6 months before it happened.
So, although your timeline looks good, i think there should be more supporting evidence.
I think you just defeated your own argument.
HOW WERE WE ABLE TO INVADE AFGHANISTAN IN 3 WEEKS?
It's impossible to go from detective work to declaration of war with fullscale forces in 3 weeks.
They HAD to start prepping before 9/11, right?
-
I think you just defeated your own argument.
HOW WERE WE ABLE TO INVADE AFGHANISTAN IN 3 WEEKS?
It's impossible to go from detective work to declaration of war with fullscale forces in 3 weeks.
They HAD to start prepping before 9/11, right?
No.
We were in Afghanistan in a very limited way 3 weeks after 9/11. The assets we had on the ground were special forces such as green berets and CIA opperatives set up for rapid deployment. Our plan was to help the local warlords to over throw the taliban becuase it would have taken 6 months or more for us to assemble the "logistics" needed to invade a country.
I've been a military history buff all my life dude. (not the dept Cav 22 is with WW2) But i have a pretty good understanding of how modern warfare works. this was not the case in Afghanistan.
-
What about us TELLING the taleban we were about to fck them up? This was before 911, after we paid them 40+ million for a pipeline then they told us to piss off.
-
What about us TELLING the taleban we were about to fck them up? This was before 911, after we paid them 40+ million for a pipeline then they told us to piss off.
and.....what would you do if you had just paid that kind of cash and some turds tried to renig on the deal?
-
What about us TELLING the taleban we were about to fck them up? This was before 911, after we paid them 40+ million for a pipeline then they told us to piss off.
Just off the top of my head................ Castro is the first guy that comes to mind that told us to piss off after we invested tons of time and money into him.
I'm sure there's many other examples.
That doesn;t mean we go off an invade them.
-
and.....what would you do if you had just paid that kind of cash and some turds tried to renig on the deal?
I would have bombed the motherfuckers into the stone age.
But I wouldn't have let 911 happen to get public support behind it.
-
I would have bombed the motherfuckers into the stone age.
But I wouldn't have let 911 happen to get public support behind it.
40 million dollars vs. the cost of the military operation and lives lost as a result? Not worth it.
-
40 million dollars vs. the cost of the military operation and lives lost as a result? Not worth it.
Access to AT LEAST the $2 trillion dollars of oil in the caspian, plus the oil and gas pipelines, plus keeping it out of chinese hands... in the utilitarian sense (the one in which govts are run), very much worth it.
Some people get confused oon my stances- I supprt the war in afghanistan for them burning us on the oil pipeline. I would like to see a new investigation into 9/11 because I think it was used to get people to support the war for resources in afghanistan.
-
Access to AT LEAST the $2 trillion dollars of oil in the caspian, plus the oil and gas pipelines, plus keeping it out of chinese hands... in the utilitarian sense (the one in which govts are run), very much worth it.
Some people get confused oon my stances- I supprt the war in afghanistan for them burning us on the oil pipeline. I would like to see a new investigation into 9/11 because I think it was used to get people to support the war for resources in afghanistan.
I thought you meant bombing them as a retaliation not invading them. I supported it (afghanistatn) too, but not for the same reasons.