Let's pick some nits with your vague conspiracy implying article.

Conspiracy theories range from the Neocons in the administration actually planning and funding 9/11, to them having prior knowledge and ordering the air force to stand down. Both theories are aided by the fact that no fighters were scrambled despite the time span between the attacks.

Given the tens of thousands of people involved in an effort like stopping planes from being scrambled, wouldn't yoou think that there would be some insiders who would spill the beans that they were specifically ordered not to respond? Conspiracies don't work well when they require the silence of enormous numbers of people.

There is also a large group who believe Zionist operatives were involved in the attacks, or that Israel had prior knowledge. This is the theory that I recently had reason to believe in, when I read that, just before 9/11 Saudi Arabia had convinced the U.S. to force Israel into creating an independent Palestinian state and finding a just solution to the other conflict issues. Then 9/11 was carried out by Saudi terrorists and it was all cancelled.

Sorry to hear you believed in this, because it makes no sense at all. I hope you recovered.

If the Israelis were trying to stop the Saudi peace plan, then why would the 9/11 hijackers be provably Saudis themselves? Are you saying that a group of scores of Saudi terrorists would work for Israel and never suspect anything? Pretty farfetched.

Note that two of those countries, Iraq and Iran have the world's next largest oil reserves after U.S. ally Saudi Arabia.

Actually, the latest estimates show Canada and Venezuela in the number 2 and 3 spots, with the UAE at #4 then it's a tossup between Iraq, Iran and Kuwait. So, when do we invade Canada?

Bush then invaded Iraq, justified by the creation of false evidence. Among the lies were Saddam's connection to Osama bin Laden and his hand in 9/11.

I challenge you to find ANYWHERE in the 2002 Iraq War AUMF or the earlier AUMF for the War on Terror any reference to bin Laden being associated with Iraq or Iraq being involved in the 9/11 attacks. The closest it comes is to say that some al Quaeda members were in Iraq, which was true as there was an al Qaeda training camp on the northern border inside Iraq.

The Neocons' Unocal operative Khalilzad was moved from Afghanistan to Iraq in his U.S. Ambassador role to smooth their taking control of Iraq's oil profits.

Which throughout the occupation the US has stated was not their intention, and in fact is not the result of the recently passed oil law in Iraq. The US has always said it would hold the oil in trust for the Iraqi people and that appears to be exactly what is happening.

Iraq was seen to be the militarily weaker of the two and gave the Neocons, troops, armor and fighter jets on both sides of the militarily stronger axis member, Iran.

I'll give you this one. I've said this was the case for years. But it's a sensible STRATEGY not a conspiracy.

All pretty weak, Liam.

Dave

This is no conspiracy "THEORY"--the taking over of theplanet's petroleum reserves is right out of the Neo-Cons' Plan for a New Century, originally drafted in 1992--then interrupted by the 8 years of the Clinton administration--then updated in 2000.

The plan was to take over the resrves--exc ept for those of Saudi which they believed they already had a commitment for--in the decreasing order of those reserves.

Probalem is, the numbers have had some changes since then. Actually, if Venezuela's Orinoco Basic reserves are certified, it will be in the number 1 spot--followed by Canada and Saudi Arabia.

Gee whiz, isn't it interesting that the Bush Gang tried to overthrow Chavez 5 years ago (April 11th is the fifth anniversary of the failed coup) and is still trying everything they can think of to get him out of the power?

I wonder WHY?

This is another case of it not taking a weatherman (or Weatherman--another 60s reference for ol' politically aware infant Dave) to see which way the wind is blowing.

MR the Weather Underground didn't declare its war on the state until 1970, and they were active throughout the 70s when I was more than old enough to know what was going on, especially living in Washingotn DC as I did for many of those years.

As for Bush overthrowing Chavez, we've been over the many good reasons for doing that before.

Dave

"Which throughout the occupation the US has stated was not their intention, and in fact is not the result of the recently passed oil law in Iraq. The US has always said it would hold the oil in trust for the Iraqi people and that appears to be exactly what is happening."

Exactly?

Yo!

"A Federal Oil and Gas Council will be established. It will be chaired by the prime minister, or his appointee, and will include the oil, treasury, and planning and cooperative development ministers. It will also include the director of the Central Bank, a minister representing each region; a representative of each governorate not belonging to a region; executive managers from relevant petroleum companies, including the National Iraqi Oil Company and the Oil Marketing Company; and not more than three experts specializing in petroleum, finance, and economics appointed to five-year terms."

Iraq's proven oil reserves of 112 billion barrels rank Iraq second in the world behind Saudi Arabia. Unexplored regions of Iraq could yield an additional 100 billion barrels.

The Oil and Gas Council will be chaired by the prime minister, or his appointee...It will also include... executive managers from relevant petroleum companies.

Sounds like just a few foxes will guard the hen house.

Let's see how fast the money disappears into Swiss bank accounts.

(Assuming that the Iraqis on the Council 'keep their heads' about the plan long enough to get to the bank.)

That's pretty weak, MBD. The only people specified are Iraq state employees. Admittedly likely to be corrupt as hell, but it's still Iraqis managing the oil and the wealth it generates on behalf of their people. As good as you're going to get anywhere else in the world.

Dave

Liam,

Thanks for adding to the proof that liberalism is a mental disorder. Your article reads like the ramblings of Lt. Cmdr. Philip Francis Queeg in the Cane Mutiny...

"Ahh, but the strawberries that's... that's where I had them. They laughed at me and made jokes but I proved beyond the shadow of a doubt and with... geometric logic... that a duplicate key to the wardroom icebox DID exist, and I'd have produced that key if they hadn't of pulled the Caine out of action."

JOM

Utter nonsense, Nalle. You are not going to convince me that you knew what was going on in the 70s, as you don't have a clue even now!

A few points to chew on....

The US essentially lost interest in Afghanistan after the Soviet departure. They stopped funding the Muhajadeen, removed their training assets and basically sat back complacently while Afghanistan tore itself apart anew. They didn't care. It wasn't strategic anymore. They were there primarily to bleed the Soviets, not because Afghanistan was a major asset. When the Russian's left, the US didn't care anymore and the region became a backwater to them.

It was into this vacuum that the Taliban arose and were able to assume power in 1996, after a protracted struggle with the Muhajadeen who had assumed power after the Soviets departed. The fractured muhajadeen forces later became the Northern Alliance, which continued the civil war in Afghanistan until 2001.

The Taliban were formed out of a backbone of hard-line puritanical Islamic fundamentalists muhajadeen, originally supported and trained by Pakistan.

My question is this: If the US and its commercial interests are so omnipotantly clever to build this vast strategic plan/conspiracy, how could they have been so blatently stupid to allow a bunch of medieval puritanical fundamentalists to take over the key territory in question?

It certainly didn't take a huge amount of extra effort or resources to fund the Northern Alliance to the point they could defeat the Taliban. If, as you claim, it's all part of a grand conspiracy to build the pipeline and grab the profits, then why allow the Taliban to assume power in the first place?

Either the US are Machiavellianly clever or leading-edge stupid....they can't be both. If it is, as you claim, a conspiracy, then demonstrate to me how it was smart to allow things to unfold the way they did - what is the benefit? What is the gain?

My vote is for stupidity, it drives more history then cleverness does on any day of the week.

you have proof of this right? It's just not speculation. You have hard facts, transcripts, documents, disks of all information...hmmmmm Ya, right buddy. Go have yourself a hit off your pipe, get an abortion, and go read some Marx you freak.