# Bush Condems China's Human right's



## dodo (7 Aug 2008)

I applaud George Bush for speaking out against the terrible human rights  issue's in China , it's a pity Ireland and other Country's did not do the same as President George W Bush.
I personally think the Olympics should not be there at all until they treat their own people  like  human being's should be treated .


----------



## DavyJones (7 Aug 2008)

dodo said:


> I applaud George Bush for speaking out against the terrible human rights  issue's in China , it's a pity Ireland and other Country's did not do the same as President George W Bush.
> I personally think the Olympics should not be there at all until they treat their own people  like  human being's should be treated .



It's a bit rich coming from him don't you think?


----------



## z103 (7 Aug 2008)

So when's bush closing Gitmo?


----------



## eileen alana (7 Aug 2008)

DavyJones said:


> It's a bit rich coming from him don't you think?


 

Too true, talking about the pot calling the kettle black...


----------



## z105 (7 Aug 2008)

> I applaud George Bush for speaking out against the terrible human rights issue's in China , it's a pity Ireland and other Country's did not do the same as President George W Bush.



Lip service

Actions speak louder than words.


----------



## Purple (7 Aug 2008)

DavyJones said:


> It's a bit rich coming from him don't you think?



What does America do that is in any way comparable to what China does?
Our position is one of utter cowardice on almost all issues of human rights on all fronts so we are in no position to wag our cowardly hypocritical finger at anyone.


----------



## DavyJones (7 Aug 2008)

Purple said:


> What does America do that is in any way comparable to what China does?
> Our position is one of utter cowardice on almost all issues of human rights on all fronts so we are in no position to wag our cowardly hypocritical finger at anyone.




It's not comparable but different and just as bad.

How many people in Iraq have died since 1990, between embargo and war. .5million? 1 million? a lot.

How many innocent lives have been lost in Afghanistan?

The US are directly responible for hundreds of thousands of murders in the world.

And what about Guantánamo bay, held without trail for years on end.How many camps do the US have like that worldwide?

With a little research I could probably write a book on the crimes against humanity that the US have inflicted on the world.


----------



## z103 (7 Aug 2008)

> What does America do that is in any way comparable to what China does?


Waterboarding



> Our position is one of utter cowardice on almost all issues of human rights on all fronts so we are in no position to wag our cowardly hypocritical finger at anyone.


Cowardice? What about Free Derry, 1969?, or the hunger strikes?, or the Irish war of independence for that matter.


----------



## cole (7 Aug 2008)

Purple said:


> What does America do that is in any way comparable to what China does?


 
Not sure if China executes mentally retarded people but  does.


----------



## diarmuidc (7 Aug 2008)

cole said:


> Not sure if China executes mentally retarded people but  does.


We don't have a clue who China executes but going by the estimated numbers (>1000/year) I'd say the execute every type of people.

I'm with Purple on this one. Sure Gitmo is a disgrace but what has happened in the past 8 years is the exception not the rule. It's pretty much guaranteed that whoever gets into the WH next Jan will close Gitmo.

Waterboarding a handful of people is wrong and should be condemned but it's not comparable to restricting the freedom of expression, freedom of congregation, access to information, (and a 101 other human right abuses) for over 1 billion people


----------



## TarfHead (7 Aug 2008)

Texas is not America. There is no federal death penalty in USA.

I suspect that the US State Department cleared their President's statement with the Chinese before it was uttered.


----------



## cole (7 Aug 2008)

TarfHead said:


> Texas is not America. There is no federal death penalty in USA.


 
I'm not sure what your point is but [broken link removed] states in the US have the death penalty. There is also a [broken link removed] death penalty.


----------



## DavyJones (7 Aug 2008)

diarmuidc said:


> We don't have a clue who China executes but going by the estimated numbers (>1000/year) I'd say the execute every type of people.
> 
> I'm with Purple on this one. Sure Gitmo is a disgrace but what has happened in the past 8 years is the exception not the rule. It's pretty much guaranteed that whoever gets into the WH next Jan will close Gitmo.
> 
> Waterboarding a handful of people is wrong and should be condemned but it's not comparable to restricting the freedom of expression, freedom of congregation, access to information, (and a 101 other human right abuses) for over 1 billion people




In the last 8 years? The US have been at that kind of thing since they formed. We have been more educated  because of the "war on terror". 

Bush said these words as he prepared to go to the country, he condemned, and accept their hospitality. 
Can you tell me what else the bush administration has done besides words? words are easy. Any trade restrictings with China?

As far as I can see their as bad as each other, But saying fair play to the man is pushing it.

As for being cowards Purple, would you rather we cut ties with china, cos that would teach em. or what would you suggest?


----------



## GeneralZod (7 Aug 2008)

There can be no serious debate. China is still in a different category than America.

The West shouldn't be overbearing with their criticism.  The Chinese state is using the resentment of foreign interference to stir up nationalistic fervour.  

It's time to let them get on with the games.

Are the Irish hypocrites? Most definitely.


----------



## DavyJones (7 Aug 2008)

GeneralZod said:


> Are the Irish hypocrites? Most definitely.



Explain please? and suggestions to remedy?


----------



## GeneralZod (7 Aug 2008)

Defence. We're neutral but happily sit under the American security umbrella.
Solution - we pay them to help defend us or send troops to support them.

Environment.  We call on the Americans to lead while being amongst the most fossil fuel dependent and least forested country in Europe. Solution - we build nuclear and renewables and restore Ireland's natural vegetation to a large part of the country.

Sports. We support English club teams while delighting in the regular defeats of their national side.  Solution we support both or neither.

Agriculture.  Our farmers support trade policies that harm subsistence farmers in the poorest countries. Solution agree to fairer policies.

Source of the Celtic Tiger. We go on about being young and highly educated when low corporate taxes and the currency crisis in the early 90s is what really did it. Solution admit it.


----------



## DavyJones (7 Aug 2008)

Defence. We are neutral, I don't understand how the US protect us. From whom do       we need protection?


Enviroment. They are world leaders, they should lead by example.
I do agree with your solutions.

Sports. Who's we? I like many people have no interest in foreign football teams. Enjoying a sporting rivals defeat happens even at a parish level the world over.

Agriculture. the farmers what everything their own way.

The celtic tiger has many different combinations of sources. Right on the tax, then there was subsidies, that attracted many muti national companies, and of course being pumped with EU money helped too.


----------



## jhegarty (7 Aug 2008)

DavyJones said:


> Defence. We are neutral, I don't understand how the US protect us. From whom do       we need protection?
> .



I suspect if it wasn't for the US you would be tying that comment in German or Russian


----------



## DavyJones (7 Aug 2008)

jhegarty said:


> I suspect if it wasn't for the US you would be tying that comment in German or Russian



Or maybe Queens English! Using that logic they saved the whole world from damnation. Lets not forget they were fighting for their own freedoms too, Not for little old Ireland.


----------



## rmelly (8 Aug 2008)

cole said:


> Not sure if China executes mentally retarded people but  does.


 
Did they execute him because he was retarded?


----------



## rmelly (8 Aug 2008)

DavyJones said:


> How many innocent lives have been lost in Afghanistan?


 
I suppose you'd like for it to have remained a haven for terrorists in between striking the west...


----------



## rmelly (8 Aug 2008)

I certainly won't be watching the opening / closing ceremonies, but am undecided as to whether I should watch anything else.

What I really love is the way the IOC have given in to China - backing down on internet censorship & freespeech for journalists, claiming that pollution levels are no longer a problem etc.

I wonder where the people who were forcibly evicted (without compensation I believe) to make way for some of the olympic venues are now - will they be watching?


----------



## z103 (8 Aug 2008)

> I suspect if it wasn't for the US you would be tying that comment in German or Russian


Ireland was also neutral in WWII, if it's that you are referring to.



> *How many innocent lives have been lost in Afghanistan?*I suppose you'd like for it to have remained a haven for terrorists in between striking the west


Now Afghanistan is a haven for US and UK terrorists.


----------



## GeneralZod (8 Aug 2008)

leghorn said:


> Ireland was also neutral in WWII, if it's that you are referring to.



The Nazis drew up lists of Irish Jews they planned on murdering. If they succeeding in invading Britain they would certainly have made the excursion over to Ireland to mop up people they didn't like. After killing all the obvious to them groups, Jews, Gays, travelers given free reign they'd probably have moved on to people with brown eyes and slight tans.


----------



## bullbars (8 Aug 2008)

GeneralZod said:


> The Nazis drew up lists of Irish Jews they planned on murdering. If they succeeding in invading Britain they would certainly have made the excursion over to Ireland to mop up people they didn't like.


 
They had already drawn up plans for the Irish invasion when the battle of Britain was underway, Operation Green. 


I dont think America thought too much about Human rights during their near ten year stint in Vietnam.


----------



## cole (8 Aug 2008)

rmelly said:


> Did they execute him because he was retarded?


----------



## DavyJones (8 Aug 2008)

rmelly said:


> I suppose you'd like for it to have remained a haven for terrorists in between striking the west...



They are terrorists when it suits them (US and UK). you do know how the Taliban  came into power, right? and who trained Mr Bin Landen?


----------



## bullbars (8 Aug 2008)

DavyJones said:


> They are terrorists when it suits them (US and UK). you do know how the Taliban came into power, right? and who trained Mr Bin Landen?


 
And who supplied them all with those lovely Stinger missiles that keep pestering their helicopters?


----------



## rmelly (8 Aug 2008)

cole said:


>


 
? You phrased it like that - what crime(s) did this guy commit - or is that not relevant?


----------



## rmelly (8 Aug 2008)

DavyJones said:


> They are terrorists when it suits them (US and UK). you do know how the Taliban came into power, right? and who trained Mr Bin Landen?


 


> And who supplied them all with those lovely Stinger missiles that keep pestering their helicopters?


 
Thanks guys, but I don't need a history lesson from either of you. They weren't terrorists back then - they were freedom fighters, fighting Soviet invaders - hardly comparable to unprovoked attacks on US embassies, office blocks, a train station, a nightclub, public buses & trains etc.


----------



## DavyJones (8 Aug 2008)

rmelly said:


> Thanks guys, but I don't need a history lesson from either of you. They weren't terrorists back then - they were freedom fighters, fighting Soviet invaders - hardly comparable to unprovoked attacks on US embassies, office blocks, train stations and public buses & trains.



From the sounds of it you do need a history lesson. One mens terrorist is an other mans freedom fighter. Unprovoked attack, are you joking? are you not aware of US foreign policy I.E if we can't control them from the inside, we'll just take them out of power.


----------



## rmelly (8 Aug 2008)

DavyJones said:


> From the sounds of it you do need a history lesson. One mens terrorist is an other mans freedom fighter. Unprovoked attack, are you joking? are you not aware of US foreign policy I.E if we can't control them from the inside, we'll just take them out of power.


 
So an attack on a 'civilian' target is justified in your opinion?


----------



## DavyJones (8 Aug 2008)

rmelly said:


> So an attack on a 'civilian' target is justified in your opinion?



My opioion is irrelevant, The US declared a war, they bomb places I can't pronounce killing innocent lives. the opposition kill innocent lives. I think its called collateral damage, it's something that happens in war.


----------



## rmelly (8 Aug 2008)

DavyJones said:


> My opioion is irrelevant, The US declared a war, they bomb places I can't pronounce killing innocent lives. the opposition kill innocent lives. I think its called collateral damage, it's something that happens in war.


 
Sorry, maybe I'm misunderstanding - did the US (legitimately) invade Afghanistan BEFORE September 11th?


----------



## DavyJones (8 Aug 2008)

rmelly said:


> Sorry, maybe I'm misunderstanding - did the US (legitimately) invade Afghanistan BEFORE September 11th?



Thats Ok, I'll make things clear for you. 

Long before 9/11 the US had been supplying(logistic support and intelligence) and training to the [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Northern Alliance along with Iran, India and Russia.

It is widely reported(pre 9/11) that The US wanted to invade with the aid of  Russia and overthrow  the exisiting goverment. However when 9/11 occured it allowed the US to go it alone.

In the months up to september the US had soldiers in neighbouring countries training.
This war has been going on alot longer then 9/11 and for what? Oil and gas and a pipe line.

[/FONT]


----------



## rmelly (8 Aug 2008)

DavyJones said:


> Thats Ok, I'll make things clear for you.
> 
> Long before 9/11 the US had been supplying(logistic support and intelligence) and training to the [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Northern Alliance along with Iran, India and Russia.[/FONT]
> 
> ...


 

And I suppose you think the US government filled the world trade centre with explosives before the planes hit them...


----------



## DavyJones (8 Aug 2008)

rmelly said:


> And I suppose you think the US government filled the world trade centre with explosives before the planes hit them...



No, but I like the way you think.
  I belive they knew an attack was on the cards, Al Qaeda were being monitored in the late ninties by the CIA and probably the NSA. there are reports of listening devices that tracked Al Qaeda tactical radio messages. That along with spies and informers would suggest the US know a lot more then they let on.

So you need to ask yourself the question, did the US know a specific attack was coming?  and what would be the consequences of such an attack?.

An attack would let them have free reign to attack a resource rich country without having to align with the likes of Iran,India and Russia


----------



## rmelly (8 Aug 2008)

DavyJones said:


> No, but I like the way you think.
> I belive they knew an attack was on the cards, Al Qaeda were being monitored in the late ninties by the CIA and probably the NSA. there are reports of listening devices that tracked Al Qaeda tactical radio messages. That along with spies and informers would suggest the US know a lot more then they let on.
> 
> So you need to ask yourself the question, did the US know a specific attack was coming? and what would be the consequences of such an attack?.
> ...


 
In what way exactly is the US benefitting from the resources of Iraq?


----------



## cole (8 Aug 2008)

Quote:
Originally Posted by *cole* http://www.askaboutmoney.com/showthread.php?p=683624#post683624 
_Not sure if China executes mentally retarded people but  does._



rmelly said:


> Did they execute him because he was retarded


 


rmelly said:


> ? You phrased it like that - what crime(s) did this guy commit - or is that not relevant?


 
If you checked the link you'd see that the man in question had an IQ of 64 and G. W. Bush refused to offer clemency.

Do you think that his crimes are relevant as to whether or not a person with an IQ of 64 can be executed?


----------



## rmelly (8 Aug 2008)

cole said:


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *cole* http://www.askaboutmoney.com/showthread.php?p=683624#post683624
> _Not sure if China executes mentally retarded people but  does._
> 
> ...


 
I didn't check the link and have no intention of doing so - what crime(s) did he commit? Of course it's relevant - if anything is irrelevent it's the IQ.


----------



## cole (8 Aug 2008)

rmelly said:


> I didn't check the link and have no intention of doing so - what crime(s) did he commit? Of course it's relevant - if anything is irrelevent it's the IQ.


 
Check the link and you'll find out.

Do you really think it's fine to execute someone who is mentally retarded?


----------



## rmelly (8 Aug 2008)

cole said:


> Check the link and you'll find out.
> 
> Do you really think it's fine to execute someone who is mentally retarded?


 
If he committed a crime that would otherwise have led to his execution, then yes. Presumably the alternative would have been the remainder of his life in prison - would you find this acceptable?


----------



## DavyJones (8 Aug 2008)

rmelly said:


> In what way exactly is the US benefitting from the resources of Iraq?




I was referring to Afghanistan.
 The Afghan goverment (the one the US formed) had welcomed US firms and the US goverment pledge to help reconstruct their infrastructure (the one the US near destoryed). the US trade and development agency have been in Afghanistan for the last 5 years or so "aiding" with gas/oil other resources. Why? because they trade. Did they trade before?

I assume it will go the same way in Iraq. How many US firm are there now? Lots and they control almost everything including the Iraq "goverment"

It's all about control and the US have it.

These "wars" are a long term investment.


----------



## cole (8 Aug 2008)

rmelly said:


> If he committed a crime that would otherwise have led to his execution, then yes. Presumably the alternative would have been the remainder of his life in prison - would you find this acceptable?


 
I find both outcomes repulsive the latter being less so. Detaining someone in a mental institution that is able to cope with their needs whilst keeping people safe would be a better option.

But it's a bit rich to laud GW for telling off the Chinese when he has signed the death warrent for at least two people who were mentally ill. Hardly a paragon of Human Rights.


----------



## rmelly (8 Aug 2008)

DavyJones said:


> I was referring to Afghanistan.
> The Afghan goverment (the one the US formed) had welcomed US firms and the US goverment pledge to help reconstruct their infrastructure (the one the US near destoryed). the US trade and development agency have been in Afghanistan for the last 5 years or so "aiding" with gas/oil other resources. Why? because they trade. Did they trade before?
> 
> I assume it will go the same way in Iraq. How many US firm are there now? Lots and they control almost everything including the Iraq "goverment"
> ...


 
Afghanistan wasn't any where near a first world country before the invasion, so I'm not sure how much the US destroyed - maybe some caves now need renovating after the bunker busters?

To say the US invaded Afghanistan to get access to a market of 30 million people is a bit much. The per capita GDP for 2007 is ranked 172nd - ordinary Afghani's are not exactly queuing up for Hummers and iPhones.

Is the US the only country trading with Afghanistan? Do you think US companies / aid agencies etc should be precluded from trading with Afghanistan, or that it should be kept a backward country?


----------



## DavyJones (8 Aug 2008)

rmelly said:


> Afghanistan wasn't any where near a first world country before the invasion, so I'm not sure how much the US destroyed - maybe some caves now need renovating after the bunker busters?
> 
> To say the US invaded Afghanistan to get access to a market of 30 million people is a bit much. The per capita GDP for 2007 is ranked 172nd - ordinary Afghani's are not exactly queuing up for Hummers and iPhones.
> 
> Is the US the only country trading with Afghanistan? Do you think US companies / aid agencies etc should be precluded from trading with Afghanistan, or that it should be kept a backward country?



The US has no interest in 30 million Afghans,  they are interested in the vast qamount of oil/gas/coal/copper and more. The US will supply the technology know how to exploit all these resources. Do you belive for one second that the US are doing this for the good of the Afghan people?


----------



## rmelly (8 Aug 2008)

> The US has no interest in 30 million Afghans, they are interested in the vast qamount of oil/gas/coal/copper and more.


 
What are the recognised reserves for Afghanistan for all of the above?



> The US will supply the technology know how to exploit all these resources.


 
What's so wrong about that?



DavyJones said:


> Do you belive for one second that the US are doing this for the good of the Afghan people?


 
No, I took it as revenge.


----------



## DavyJones (8 Aug 2008)

are you asking me how much of each resource they have? do you wish to refute my claim that Afghanistan is a country rich in resources?

Whats wrong with the US raping a country of its natural resources? everything

The Taliban didn't want to play ball with the US and they suffered for it.

Most of the 9/11 attackers were Saudi's, I actually don't think any were Afgans.
 Why don't you think they took revenge against Saudi Arabia?


----------



## rmelly (8 Aug 2008)

DavyJones said:


> are you asking me how much of each resource they have? do you wish to refute my claim that Afghanistan is a country rich in resources?


 
I wasn't aware it was considered to be a country that rich in resources...for example it has coal reserves of 73 *million* tons versus US proven reserves of 273 *billion*.

Can you point me to 'official' details of their proven or provable oil reserves?



> Whats wrong with the US raping a country of its natural resources? everything


 
Not everyone sees it as 'raping'. I prefer to see as giving a much needed helping hand.



> The Taliban didn't want to play ball with the US and they suffered for it.
> 
> Most of the 9/11 attackers were Saudi's, I actually don't think any were Afgans.
> Why don't you think they took revenge against Saudi Arabia?


 
Because it wasn't state sanctioned by Saudi Arabia - had the Taliban not continued to host & protect bin laden and co. then the invasion would not have occured.


----------



## GeneralZod (8 Aug 2008)

There are easier countries to take over if you're just after their natural resources. Australia for example.

Sometimes it is as simple as it seems. The Americans invaded Afghanistan a couple of months after Sept 11th when emotions were still running high because the Taliban wouldn't give up Osama. 

Since then American policy has shifted decisively to break the dependence on foreign oil and to stop buying it from people that use it to threaten the security interests of the US and its allies.


----------



## S.L.F (8 Aug 2008)

Purple said:


> What does America do that is in any way comparable to what China does?



They both lost wars in Vietnam.



diarmuidc said:


> Sure Gitmo is a disgrace but what has happened in the past 8 years is the exception not the rule.



I seem to recall the Good Old US of A. invaded Grenada because their leaders were Socialist.



jhegarty said:


> I suspect if it wasn't for the US you would be tying that comment in German or Russian



Gee how many years was it before the good old US of A decided to get involved with either of the world wars.
They sat on the fence until the Lusitania got sank.
Then Pearl Harbour was attacked.
The rest is history.



rmelly said:


> I suppose you'd like for it to have remained a haven for terrorists in between striking the west...



As has been said before they were trained and equipped by guess who 'Bush senior' amazing coincidence.

This goes for Saddam too!

Someone told me there's a street in Texas that was named after Saddam Hussain, funny old world.



rmelly said:


> They weren't terrorists back then - they were freedom fighters, fighting Soviet invaders



They are still freedom fighters since they are now fighting a different invader.



rmelly said:


> Sorry, maybe I'm misunderstanding - did the US (legitimately) invade Afghanistan BEFORE September 11th?



Did they *legitimately* invade after Sept 11?



rmelly said:


> Not everyone sees it as 'raping'. I prefer to see as giving a much needed helping hand.



 That's rich!

Bomb them into submission then help them out of the rubble then steal everything of value and claim you're doing a good turn to them.



rmelly said:


> Because it wasn't state sanctioned by Saudi Arabia - had the Taliban not continued to host & protect bin laden and co. then the invasion would not have occured.



So why was Iraq invaded?
No weapons of mass destruction!
No nothing.....well except for a lot of *oil*


----------



## DavyJones (8 Aug 2008)

The motives for attacking both Iraq and Afganistan are similar, they both have something of use, oil and a path way to more oil, via the central Asia pipe line. They were seen as unstable in ways of trade and  they both surround Iran which in the eyes of the US need to be watched.

The reason they overlook the Saudi Arabia link is because its the US's biggest trading partner.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (9 Aug 2008)

Did you see that Olympic thingummy?  When the Chinese President stood to say a few opening words, the whole 100,000 in the stadium obediently rose in his honour.  Scary  I doubt whether even Hitler wielded such immense totalitarian authority.


----------



## rmelly (9 Aug 2008)

DavyJones said:


> which in the eyes of the US need to be watched.


 
What about the eyes of the rest of the world...the UN has imposed sanctions on the country, so clearly it's not just the US that has concerns.


----------



## S.L.F (9 Aug 2008)

rmelly said:


> What about the eyes of the rest of the world...the UN has imposed sanctions on the country, so clearly it's not just the US that has concerns.



I don't remember the UN imposing sanctions on either the US or the UK for their illegal war in Iraq.

Aren't they very picky about who they impost sanctions on aren't they.

Sure Iran has supported terrorists.

So has the US, they supported the Taliban, gave them weapons, trained them and gave them logistical support

I'm sure if you could search their records you'd find that Bin Laden went here.

It would be the ideal place for some one like him to train.

That took me 2 seconds to find.


----------



## rmelly (9 Aug 2008)

> Aren't they very picky about who they impost sanctions on aren't they.


 
Thankfully so.



> Sure Iran has supported terrorists.


 
The sanctions are nothing to do with terrorism - they are in response to their nuclear programme.



> It would be the ideal place for some one like him to train.


 


> That took me 2 seconds to find.


 
You found the records to say bin laden attended?


----------



## S.L.F (9 Aug 2008)

rmelly said:


> Thankfully so.



I doubt very much the hundreds of thousands of dead people who depended on the UN to be impartial would be heartened with your last comment



rmelly said:


> The sanctions are nothing to do with terrorism - they are in response to their nuclear programme.


 
Just like the sanctions against Iraq for Weapons of mass destruction.

Why shouldn't Iran have nuclear power?



rmelly said:


> You found the records to say bin laden attended?



rmelly you read the article didn't you?

The US has been training terrorists since 1946 where else would they send Bin Laden, if they were going to send him to be trained.

Even if he didn't go there he would most certainly have had help from that terrorist school.


----------



## rmelly (9 Aug 2008)

S.L.F said:


> I doubt very much the hundreds of thousands of dead people who depended on the UN to be impartial would be heartened with your last comment


 
If the UN is so impartial, what's the problem?



> Why shouldn't Iran have nuclear power?


 
No one believes they want it for anything other than producing nuclear weapons...maybe you do?



> rmelly you read the article didn't you?
> 
> The US has been training terrorists since 1946 where else would they send Bin Laden, if they were going to send him to be trained.
> 
> Even if he didn't go there he would most certainly have had help from that terrorist school.


 
If we're just going to add 2 and 2 together and come up with 22, or make giant leaps based on a few 'facts', assertions, conjecture, assumptions etc...then give me a few minutes to patch together an alternative scenario with very little basis in fact - I'll be back to prove that bin laden is actually Dick Cheney in disguise.


----------



## DavyJones (9 Aug 2008)

rmelly said:


> If we're just going to add 2 and 2 together and come up with 22, or make giant leaps based on a few 'facts', assertions, conjecture, assumptions etc...then give me a few minutes to patch together an alternative scenario with very little basis in fact - I'll be back to prove that bin laden is actually Dick Cheney in disguise.



That I would belive 

Going back to the OP, rmelly, do you agree or disagree? in a word.


----------



## S.L.F (9 Aug 2008)

I've done a bit more research and found [broken link removed]

It tells some of the dirty story of the Americans and the Afghanistan problem of their own making.


----------



## rmelly (9 Aug 2008)

S.L.F said:


> I've done a bit more research and found [broken link removed]
> 
> It tells some of the dirty story of the Americans and the Afghanistan problem of their own making.


 
Fair play - but I'm not even going to open the page let alone read it given the url is greenleft...more propagandist rubbish - maybe include some links to al jazeera while you're at it for completely unbiased impartial reporting.


----------



## rmelly (9 Aug 2008)

DavyJones said:


> That I would belive
> 
> Going back to the OP, rmelly, do you agree or disagree? in a word.


 
Yes. Better to have said what he said than to have said nothing at all. I would have liked him to go further e.g. not attending the event at all and having no or low ranked governemnt officials present, but wouldn't have expected the US team to boycott the event - after all the main ones to benefit then would be the chinese athletes winning more medals.


----------



## S.L.F (9 Aug 2008)

S.L.F said:


> I doubt very much the hundreds of thousands of dead people who depended on the UN to be impartial would be heartened with your last comment





rmelly said:


> If the UN is so impartial, what's the problem?


 
I never said they were impartial if you read the post you'd see that.



rmelly said:


> No one believes they want it for anything other than producing nuclear weapons.



 Why not?

Let's face facts we heard that Iraq had big bad boogyman WMDs

but it didn't did it?
 


rmelly said:


> I'll be back to prove that bin laden is actually Dick Cheney in disguise.



That I'd like to see,

it would prove that the USA are controlling their students.


----------



## room305 (9 Aug 2008)

S.L.F said:


> Did they *legitimately* invade after Sept 11?


 
People seem to equating the motives of the two wars America is currently engaged in as being one and the same. To my mind they are not comparable. Afghanistan was a country run by the Pakistani-funded Taliban, which overthrew the Northern Alliance militias (recognised by the UN as the legitimate government of Afghanistan). The Taliban aided the 9/11 attackers and refused to hand over Osama bin Laden, hence the US attacks (alongside the Northern Alliance) leading to the overthrowing of the Taliban.

I believe the war in Iraq was spawned out of a Neo-con fantasy about breaking the power of the OPEC cartel. Despite having the world's fourth largest proven oil reserves, in a relatively unexplored country, Iraq was generally constrained to pumping no more than 2 million barrels of oil a day. The Neo-con fantasy then, was that US-led coalition would take control in Iraq then finance the invasion by privatising all the oil fields. It was hoped that by increasing output to nearly 10 million barrels the world market would become flooded crushing the power of OPEC. Quite apart from the logistics involved, I believe the oil companies were not particularly keen on sabotaging their own very profitable industry.

So in my opinion, while there is enormous justification for the US involvement in Afghanistan, there is little justification for their involvement in Iraq.



DavyJones said:


> The motives for attacking both Iraq and Afganistan are similar, they both have something of use, oil and a path way to more oil, via the central Asia pipe line. They were seen as unstable in ways of trade and they both surround Iran which in the eyes of the US need to be watched.


 
I think this notion of Afghanistan as some kind of natural resource powerhouse needs to be knocked on the head. Even if they had as much oil as Saudi Arabia, it is a much more inhospitable environment for drilling (since it is very mountaineous). It is never going to be as easy to drill there as in a desert. Under Russian control in the seventies, Russia estimated their "proven and probable" oil reserves as a paltry 100 million barrels. This compares with 115 _billion_ proven reserves in Iraq. The Russians had plans to build a 10,000 barrel a day refinery but it never happened. Currently Afghanistan imports all of its oil requirements. The World CIA Factbook still lists its proven oil reserves as none. I have read that US geological surveys in the region post-invasion have put potential reserves at estimates variously between several hundred million and over 3 billion. How easy or viable this will be to extract is anyone's guess. If you have any reputable sources of data on Afghanistan's oil reserves please share them, as it is difficult to find reliable data.

If Afghanistan has an importance in the oil and gas world it is more likely as a pipeline route bringing oil and gas from neighbours such as Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan.



S.L.F said:


> Why shouldn't Iran have nuclear power?


 
Because President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will most likely use it to build a nuclear weapon with the intention of annihilating Israel, sparking nuclear armageddon when Israel and the United States retaliate. It's been foretold in the prophecies don't you know?


----------



## DavyJones (9 Aug 2008)

The invasion in Afghanistan was planned long before 9/11 because the Taliban would not cooperate with  outside forces with regard to the central Asian pipeline, which is key to opening up world oil supply.
Afghanistan lack the techology to seroiusly look for reserves until now that is, with a little help from the US trade and development agency and other private US firms.

I also belive the position of both countries (Afghanistan and Iraq) are key because of their proximity to Iran. How many US and Allied  soldiers now surround Iran?


----------



## DavyJones (9 Aug 2008)

rmelly said:


> Fair play - but I'm not even going to open the page let alone read it given the url is greenleft...more propagandist rubbish - maybe include some links to al jazeera while you're at it for completely unbiased impartial reporting.




In your opinion who doesn't report unbiased and impartially? CNN, SKY news, BBC etc?


----------



## rmelly (9 Aug 2008)

DavyJones said:


> In your opinion who doesn't report unbiased and impartially? CNN, SKY news, BBC etc?


 
why, so you can go off and find some articles from the news sites and piece together another fantastic story?


----------



## rmelly (9 Aug 2008)

> Afghanistan lack the techology to seroiusly look for reserves until now that is, with a little help from the US trade and development agency and other private US firms.


 
I've asked for details on official proven or provable oil reserves in Afghanistan a couple of times - now it sounds like (you think) they invaded on a complete hunch that there MIGHT be oil reserves - why would they bother and not just go straight for Iraq if it was all about oil?



DavyJones said:


> I also belive the position of both countries (Afghanistan and Iraq) are key because of their proximity to Iran. How many US and Allied soldiers now surround Iran?


 
And it's still acting up - maybe they need to locate allied troops in some more of the neighbours, or get it over with and liberate the people of Iran?


----------



## DavyJones (9 Aug 2008)

rmelly said:


> why, so you can go off and find some articles from the news sites and piece together another fantastic story?



Do you think western news agencies report with an unbiased or impartcial view?

In answer to your question see here: www.azom.com/News.asp?NewsID=5071 
Or here for copper [broken link removed]


----------



## rmelly (9 Aug 2008)

DavyJones said:


> Do you think western news agencies report with an unbiased or impartcial view?
> 
> In answer to your question see here: www.azom.com/News.asp?NewsID=5071
> Or here for copper [broken link removed]


 
The second link doesn't work, however based on the first:

Natural Gas: The highest Afghanistan estimate is 36.462 trillion cubic feet. US proven reserve are put at 190 trillion cubic feet.

Oil: The highest Afghanistan estimate is 3.559 billion barrels. US proven reserves are put at 21 billion barrels.

Neither of the figures for Afghanistan is proven - these are the highest, most optimistic 'estimates'.

Both of the Afghanistan figures are fractions of the US figures, so to claim the invasion was to get hands on these is fanciful at best.

One also wonders why they waited until 2004 to start the analysis if it was the main reason for the invasion.


----------



## DavyJones (9 Aug 2008)

Do you think western news agencies report with an unbiased or impartcial view?

Do you agree or disagree that Afghanistan has significant natural resources?

Do you agree or disagree that the Central Asian pipeline is a key part  to accessing vast amounts of oil?

see here also: www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2008-04/usgs-ndt042208.php


----------



## rmelly (9 Aug 2008)

DavyJones said:


> Do you think western news agencies report with an unbiased or impartcial view?


 
No, do you think al jazeera does?



> Do you agree or disagree that Afghanistan has significant natural resources?


 
You've asked me that a few times, and I have said I haven't seen the details to say that they do have 'significant' natural resources, so no I don't believe they have, but am open to being shown otherwise.

The optimistic estimates you have linked to are much less than the comparable PROVEN US figures for oil, gas and coal (see earlier response). They are not insignificant by Irish standards, but in the context of the US figures, they are not significant.

If these really were the motive, why was the country left largely untouched after the end of the war with Russia? Also, why did the US not invade Iraq in the initial Gulf war? They could have invaded and occupied and then had much less reliance on Saudi Arabia both in terms of oil and for baseing of troops in the area.



> Do you agree or disagree that the Central Asian pipeline is a key part to accessing vast amounts of oil?


 
Can you point me to some details on this pipeline? Who built it, where does the oil come from, who does it supply?


----------



## DavyJones (9 Aug 2008)

rmelly said:


> No, do you think al jazeera does?
> 
> 
> 
> ...




See here please :http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/2608713.stm


----------



## rmelly (9 Aug 2008)

DavyJones said:


> See here please :http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/2608713.stm


 
Thanks, just wanted to conform we were talking about the same pipeline.

1. This is a gas pipeline, not oil.
2. This article makes no mention of US involvement. Who built it or will build it?
3. The gas is from Turkmenistan - what is US involvement in extracting gas in Turkmenistan?
4. The article says India is the largest potential buyer, where is the US involvement? Given the previous references to the US having significantly larger PROVEN gas reserves.

Check out the last paragraph of this related article - seems apt: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/1626889.stm


----------



## DavyJones (9 Aug 2008)

rmelly said:


> Thanks, just wanted to conform we were talking about the same pipeline.
> 
> 1. This is a gas pipeline, not oil.
> 2. This article makes no mention of US involvement. Who built it or will build it?
> ...




Those reports are a bit old, Check these out:


and
.

Check out the paragraph headed oil pipe dreams:

[broken link removed]

 These link American national interests on the oil and gas pipe lines. As I have said this war is a long term investment for the US and just because they have a lot of something doesn't mean they don't want more.

This is also quite interesting: http://english.aljazeera.net/archive/2003/04/2008491314568943.htm


----------



## rmelly (9 Aug 2008)

I think we'll have to agree to disagree. While I don't accept the invasion was staged to take control of the resources & move the pipeline project forward, to me it is a positive side effect that should benefit all concerned - except maybe Iran & Russia but I won't lose sleep over that.


----------

