Judge dismisses charges against detainee

[JMJ]

No I didn't leave it out. As you will note I said "we supported Saddam during it." Including a factual link where a guy named Donald visited him on the day he used chemical weapons on Iran. (Which we likely supplied.)

Facts
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Afghanistan_Pipeline

As far as where is the oil. Well pipelinistan is about natural gas and it isn't coming to us. It was a deal however that was brokered by none other than Dick Cheney. Zalmay Khalilzad worked for Unocal until they pulled the plug due to instability in the region. Condoleeza Rice sat on the board of Chevron until going to work for Georgie. Chevron and Unocal merged after the deal was done. To make things even crazier Enron had the contract to build and export. They were the only ones who couldn't keep their sh*t in order until the big payoff. There is no way you will ever convince me that all of these people involved with one deal concerning a country we are now "controlling" while they running our country is just a coincidence.

I'm telling you the facts. Like many others you just don't want to accept it. Look them up for yourself if I don't provide that factual links. Or are you like George Bush and expect someone else to tell you a story and you take from all the stories told and then form your own story? He's not a reader and he said this is what he does. lmao What a joke. If he worked in a office I worked at he would be the guinea pig of the office. I'd have people going in and telling him all sorts of crazy shit...

[Raider]

No I didn't leave it out. As you will note I said "we supported Saddam during it." Including aa factual link where a guy named Donald visited him on the day he used chemical weapons on Iran. (Which we likely supplied.)

You conveniently left out the facts about the war between those two countries...now onto to your accusation that we took there oil.

Facts http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Afghanistan_Pipeline

This a proposed Trans-Afghanistan natural gas pipeline, So you LIED to us when you stated we took there oil.....Again, where is the oil that we stole?...facts please.

[Duckinla]

Pointless discussion. International affairs is a complicated puzzle that has no beginning and no end. Situations and alliances change over time. And this gives both sides ample ammunition to see it interpret it whatever way they want to see it. Conservatives tend to be more about facing down threats and paying the price to eliminate them. Even if it means increasing the danger and criticism in the short-term. Liberals seem to be more about letting it drag on for genertions.

[Raider]

I like how JMJ edits his posts, he just keeps adding to them after we replied.

[JMJ]

I like how JMJ edits his posts, he just keeps adding to them after we replied.

Actually I just keep adding to them. I don't sit around waiting for your reply.

The more I dig into this the more it makes sense. Do you remember the Iran-Contra affair? So now we have our two-faced government led by Reagan and V.P. Bush selling arms to Iran and Iraq who were fighting each other at the time. Where's the motivation in that and how does that play into international affairs? I guess this way whoever comes out on top you can say you helped out and get what you want. That is unless they both retreat. (Which they did) and you get nothing. It then makes all of your work useless. So then you get all pissy and start demanding. If they don't abide you start threatening. Threats fly back and forth and you become enemies. Sound like a marriage doesn't it?

China is a communist and suppressive country but they are "good friends." Why are they good friends? Because they give us what we want, cheap goods and cheap money, in return we don't meddle in their affairs.

It's not a pointless discussion. If you don't discuss and inform yourself of whats really going on and just accept what others tell you to be true then you are sheep. I just don't accept that "they just hate us and want to kill us" as a reason.

This a proposed Trans-Afghanistan natural gas pipeline, So you LIED to us when you stated we took there oil.....Again, where is the oil that we stole?...facts please.

The new deal on the pipeline was signed on 27 December 2002 by the leaders of Turkmenistan, Afghanistan and Pakistan and in 2005 Asian Development Bank submitted the final version of feasibility study designed by British company Penspen. Signing the agreement was made possible by the invasion of Afghanistan by United States military forces a year prior, which overthrew the Taliban government controlling most of Afghanistan. However, since then the project has essentially stalled; construction of the Turkmen part was supposed to start in 2006, but the overall feasibility is questionable since the southern part of the Afghan section runs through territory which continues to be under de facto Taliban control.

So they have the same problem they had before, instability.

[Duckinla]

The more I dig into this the more it makes sense.

LOL. Like there was a chance you would come to some different conclusion than the one you had already decided on. Give us a break. When you say something like "The more I dig into this, the more I realize how wrong I was", then you will have made a meaningful statement.

[JMJ]

I've heard nothing from you that tells me any different. So tell me what really went on? And none of this "they just want to kill us because they don't like us" crap. I have yet to hear one reasonable explanation from your side. Just that I'm wrong. I'll admit from your point of view I'm wrong because I don't by into the ideological B.S. and will not just accept what I'm told to be true.

Don't you think it pissed both Iran and Iraq off when they found out that we were supplying both of them in their battles against each other? Or is that just how your kind does politics? Two-faced politics.

[Raider]

The new deal on the pipeline was signed on 27 December 2002 by the leaders of Turkmenistan, Afghanistan and Pakistan and in 2005 Asian Development Bank submitted the final version of feasibility study designed by British company Penspen. Signing the agreement was made possible by the invasion of Afghanistan by United States military forces a year prior, which overthrew the Taliban government controlling most of Afghanistan. However, since then the project has essentially stalled; construction of the Turkmen part was supposed to start in 2006, but the overall feasibility is questionable since the southern part of the Afghan section runs through territory which continues to be under de facto Taliban control. So they have the same problem they had before, instability.

Are you saying that this stalled Natural Gas pipeline deal answers your accusation that the USA TOOK there oil? Please!, this is what you wrote and I'm still trying to get an answer for it.

If I had to guess the expectations of oil for our support didn't go through. So instead of buying at a buddy discount we went in a took it. Only it's costing a lot more than if we would have just went ahead and bought it

I've heard this same BS argument before by the anti-Bushies, and whenever there called on it, they either ignore it or throw up a smoke screen like you just did.

[JMJ]

Never said oil for afghanistan I said gas pipeline. The one I also said all of the top officials now leading our government were involved with. I didn't throw up a smoke cloud either. How did I get called on it and how did I throw up a smoke cloud? The oil companies damn sure aren't hurting for money right now. In fact they have so much play in the government they changed the current bill going through the white house now to make it virtually uninforceable. I'm still waiting on the reasonable explanation from your side. But I assume I'll wait forever on that one. You'll just keep beating around the george bush.

[Duckinla]

I've heard nothing from you that tells me any different. So tell me what really went on? And none of this "they just want to kill us because they don't like us" crap.

OK, it goes like this: A developed country sees important resources (oil) in an undeveloped country. They strike a deal, they pour in money, skill and infrastructure to get that resource. The economy grows, Quality of life goes up for everyone, but not equally. Some feel that they have been cut out because a small minority has had much greater improvement in quality of life. They become disgruntled. A guy like Osama Bin Laden, who is not content to just be one of 70 rich siblings, sees an opportunity. He rallies them around a common enemy. Who is the common enemy? The foreign interloper, of course. The people who are stealing our resources, the people who believe in a different faith. If we get rid of them, we can have that wealth for ourselves (even though we didn't pay to build the infrastructure or bring the oil out of the ground). Of course always THE JEW is evil as well. They don't see how bad life would have been without the foriegn interloper. They just see how good they don't have it compared to others. What does OBL want? He wants power. He wants to be a big fish and he wants his life to have more meaning than having just been the son of a rich guy. So he makes himself a hero to the disenchanted.

Look what happened in South Africa. The "oppressed" finally won and kicked out the white government. Apartheid was over, the news cameras went away. Did it suddenly become a Paradise because the foreign interloper was gone? No, they started chopping off each others arms to keep them from voting for the opposition party.

[JMJ]

Wow Osama and George sound like two pea's in a pod in your story book.

[Duckinla]

Wow Osama and George sound like two pea's in a pod in your story book.

I'll tell you what. If George Bush tries to find a way to stay in power when his term is up, I will agree with you that he is a fanatical power-hungry dictator that you believe he is. Fanatics cannot walk away from power. They will do whatever it takes to keep it. If he leaves without resistence after his 8 years, I hope you will realize that he's just a guy who ran the country for 8 years like any other president. Maybe you didn't like his decisons, maybe you disagreed with him. But almost by definition, he cannot be a power-hungry fanatic if he leaves office peacefully.

[JMJ]

I hope his belongings get tossed out on the White House lawn before he can walk out peacefully.

Back to your story. What happens once we leave Iraq and Afghanistan and whatever power that comes to be there decides they don't want to give us what we poured into it back? Should we just go back in and take it again?

[Duckinla]

What happens once we leave Iraq and Afghanistan and whatever power that comes to be there decides they don't want to give us what we poured into it back? Should we just go back in and take it again?

That is the $400 Billion question, isn't it. Did we take out Saddam just to fold to the first challenger that comes along? Or do we pay the price now in hopes of a better future? If your companies invest billions based on an agreement with current government, do you let a new government change the rules on you and steal your investment? Or do you use your military to defend your corporations investments? If you don't defend them, companies will just stop investing in developing countries. It will be to risky.
Do you understand how much we poured into Japan and Germany after defeating them in WWII? Have we even really left yet?

[JMJ]

Ah so the cat has come out of the bag.. I was hoping you would take the bait.

[Duckinla]

I was hoping you would take the bait.

Take the bait? My whole post was a series of questions and one statement about the risk of global investents.

[JMJ]

For one it's a 1 trillion dollar question. Your questions all circulated around corporate investments and us protecting them. Iraq wasn't really a developing country. Afghanistan maybe. But if those governments don't want our corporate dollars then who are we to force them on them? All I wanted you to admit is that it's all about the corporate dollar. Sure you can sugar coat it with saving the world. But the bottom line it's all about the almighty corporate dollar when it comes to our foreign policies.

[Duckinla]

You weren't asking about the invasion of Iraq or Afghanistan. You were asking a hypothetical about the future. My response was to your question about what we should or shouldn't do in the future. After WWI we learned that you don't leave nations decimated after defeating them. You rebuild them as allies. But that involves significant private-sector investment that needs reasonable insurance it will be defended in the future.

[JMJ]

Well hypothetically speaking. If a company and or several individuals already spent a lot of time and money on a particular project. Lets say maybe a pipeline through a country. Should we protect their investments and interests? And if it appears as though that has already happened shouldn't I question their motives?

Maybe it would have been better if you said. Should we be concerned more with protecting corporate investments or should we be more concerned with protecting people? As of right now we seem to be more concerned with corporation's P&L's.

[scooter49]

http://www.channel4.com/news/article...o+order/552067

"Dispatches exposes a new phase in America's dirty war on al Qaeda: the rendition and detention of women and children. Last year, President Bush confirmed the existence of a CIA secret detention programme but he refused to give details and said it was over."

Very interesting reading and I look forward to the program.


If America wants to regain some credibility in the world it has to radically rethink its foreign policy as at present, it is making more enemies than allies.

How can you claim to be "the land of the free"?
1. Guantanamo bay: No rights, no visits, no attorney, no trial
2. Rendition flights. Kidnapped, no rights, no visits, no attorney, no trial

We in the Western world are advocates for democracy. To me, this means free speach, free vote, the right to an attorney and innocent until proven guilty.

Can you not see how 2 faced American policy is at the momment? I am a Christian in the UK and I can. I can also appreciate why so many normal main stream Muslims are getting mighty pissed.

It is because of USA foreign policy that our Muslim allied countries are now facing an ever increasing, growing threat from within their own countries.

It is time to stop the bully boy tacticts of "you're either with us or against us". Can you not see the hatred this is breeding?

.

1. Close Guantanamo. Try them or release them. That is what democracy is about. You have people in there that have been there for over 4 years!!! If you do not have sufficient evidence by now, you never will.

Or are they still there because of "good intelligence" reports. To the rest of both the Western and Eastern world that will equate to the same type of intelligence report that said Iraq had weapons of mass destrution.

Nobody trusts our intelligence reports any longer. We fecked up big time and both the USA and UK went to an illegal war on a total fabrication.


2. Rendition flights. If you have enough evidence that someone poses a real threat, don't kidnap them and take them to another country with poor human rights so they can be tortured. Extradite them and let them face trial in the USA.

Do things properly. Do things the same way that you would do with fellow USA citizens. That is what democracy is all about and that is what we are meant to be advocating throughout the world.