Does this add up? Does the U.S. get a discount on smack from the Taliban in Afghanistan, since they are the biggest importer, but now they want to take out the middle man? Does this follow the logic?
2007-03-10 04:40:13 · 8 answers · asked by Heywood J Helpaguy 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Hmmm, so far asmith10 is in the lead. Can't most people see the fallacy in this? Can't most people see the jocular ambiguousness? Chill out and be like me; just go to the beach, man.
2007-03-10 05:38:08 · update #1
Lesroys, I like the way you think. It's always good when someone can see both sides of an argument, which you clearly can, and offer both "truths" for the people to try to decide between. None of us have the actual answer.
2007-03-10 08:25:08 · update #2
I'm so tired of the oil thing.
And shhhh - don't tell them!
2007-03-10 04:43:23 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
when jr. was appointed president his oil baron buddies wanted to build a pipeline across Afganistan, and were in negotiations with the taliban trying to get their permission. We had people there, they had people here. Finally the taliban said no because the us supports isreals terrorist genocide aganist the Palistinians.
Also, the taliban had wiped out opium poppy production. They are fundamentalists like arch Christians, they are against getting high in any form.
The US/cia make millions off the opium poppy trade every year. The need a steady supply coming into the US.
And every year since jr invaded, poppy production has soared. Street heroin purity is up, prices are down.
The invasion of Afganistan was planned BEFORE 9/11. It has nothing to do with papabush's ex-employee bin-laden. The taliban offered to turn bin-laden over to an international court if someone would produce evidence that he was inviolved, no one could.
Not even the fbi have found any evidence that bin was involved. That's why he's not wanted for any 9/11 events.
2007-03-10 04:54:37 · answer #2 · answered by AlphaMale 2 · 0⤊ 3⤋
No, they're in Afghanistan for the natural gas and the shortest route pipeline from India/Pakistan for the transportation of their natural gas supplies, bypassing Russia which has a kind of monopoly on natural gas exports and as we now know is rather authoritarian in its supply control.
(That's the same logic one would exercise if they believed the US was really in Iraq for the oil, whereas in reality it is for a whole host of other reasons).
2007-03-10 07:47:59 · answer #3 · answered by lesroys 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You do know that it's just the typical fake ploy by the liberals because they are too scared to join the military and see the real truth. They are a pathetic lot who will believe anything as long as it helps their argument no matter if it's a lie or not.
2007-03-10 05:51:36 · answer #4 · answered by Kevin A 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Your question is a fallacy because the U.S. is not in Iraq for oil only.
2007-03-10 04:56:36 · answer #5 · answered by asmith1022_2006 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The lack of answers should be answer enough for you, the oil believers have no leg to stand on with this one.
2007-03-10 04:45:50 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Yea, oil sure worked out well for us, didn't it?
2007-03-10 04:45:07 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Who are "they"? You and your friends?
Lame, lame, lame.
2007-03-10 04:47:40 · answer #8 · answered by Beachman 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋