Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoko Takeo
Saddam was placed in Iraq by the CIA, and the US fought alongside Bin Laden to drive the Soviets out of Afghanistan in their quest for oil and black marketing. Bush changed the people's opinions of both of them nearly overnight, as you said above. All he needed was a catalyst to produce that hatred. Thus you have 9/11.
|
Ok first off, and I've pointed this out to you before, Afghanistan does not have that much oil, nor do they have much of an oil industry. It's estimated there are
3.6 billion barrels of oil in Afghanistan. Now sure that sounds like a lot until you realize that the
US alone consumes about 19.5 million barrels a day and the world as a whole consumes just over 85 million barrels of oil every day. In other words, Afghanistan only has enough oil to supply the US alone for 184 days or the world as a whole for 42 days. For comparison ANWR in the US is believed to have
between 5.7 and 16.0 billion barrels of oil. The main argument against drilling for oil there is that it isn't worth the effort or disruption to the wildlife there. Yet, you're claiming the US killed 3000 of it's own people spent hundreds of billions of dollars on a war, which killed thousands more American soldiers and at a very minimum tens of thousands of Afghanis, all to get less oil then they could have gotten by simply drilling in Alaska and killing a few caribou, for a lot less money. Even if the US government cared more about not killing caribou then they did about not killing people, the US could still have simply bought more oil then Afghanistan is even thought to have for less then they spent on the war. In what way does Afghanistan being about oil make any sense at all?
Second off, I have in the past linked you a point by point refutation of 9-11 conspiracy claims n this very thread. I'm not going to do that again, since obviously it didn't convince you. What I am going to do is ask you to think about what a conspiracy like that would involve. Think abut the number of low level people that would have to be involved to successfully pull off such a thing. Now, do you honestly believe that out of the hundreds of people who would need to be involved, not one of them has had second thoughts about it and blew the whistle?
Quote:
|
Even if you want to believe that Bush was not directly responsible for the attacks, he was still responsible in a way because he had received all sorts of warnings and threats from Bin Laden that they were going to attack him in some way. Bush didn't do anything to stop them. And that's because, as I said, Bush needed a catalyst to divert the hatred away from himself. He needed a scapegoat. The media was his tool, and his used it to his advantage, not to mention he had the military support begotten from being a Republican. Despite the misgivings foreigners had toward Bush, US media supported him and provided people with a diversion.
|
What hatred? Prior to 9-11 Bush's approval ratings weren't great, but they weren't horrible either. Also, you're probably right that Bush should have done more before 9-11 to stop a terrorist attack. However, what you're actually arguing is that, assuming 9-11 wasn't done by the US, Bush knew it was going to happen and let it. However, your premise does not in any way support your conclusion. Knowing that there's a general threat of a terrorist attack does not mean you know of specifics that would allow you to successfully stop a specific attack against a specific target. Even if Bush had taken the threats more seriously and taken more action, 9-11 probably still would have happened. Maybe someone would get lucky, pick up one of the hijackers, and he'd tell them all that he knew. While that likely would have stopped one of the hijackings, it may not have stopped all of the hijackings and it'd only take one to cause some damage. If none of the hijackers were caught though, 9-11 goes off as it did despite a security crackdown.