...if anyone still believes that:

http://moorewatch.com/index.php/webl...an_pipe_dream/

...I would have appended this to the original thread, but that one became too flamed out...

No, it wasn't the "real reason." But it was a reason. Most of the fighting took place far west of the mountains where Osama Bin Laden was expected to be found, that area was thoroughly bombed, but very few US troops actually set foot there.

And Moore did not invent that theory. Several months before the 9/11 attacks, ABC aired a story about intense political strife between Taliban militants and oil companies who just couldn't foot the bill for the amount of trouble they were causing in the construction of an oil pipeline.

The "real reason" was to catch Osama Bin Laden. But we did a piss poor job of doing that and a really fantastic job of clearing the way for the other reason.

that wasn't a reason either.....it was pure "lets go kick some ass!"

anyway, i watched this thing about terrorism, especially w/ osama....it said, killing osama alone would have dire effects on our economy....did you know he owns like 60% of Pepsi-Cola?!

No, but the rebuttal happened to be posted in that context.

The fact that construction of a pipeline was being attempted is indeniable, dude. That and the fact that most of the actual ground fighting took place along the lines of where the pipeline was supposed to be built is pretty hard to ignore.

And that fact is entirely irrelevant is also undeniable, dude.

The MO for conspiracy theories is:

1. Mention some trivial fact X.
2. Draw sweeping, unrelated conspiracy theories from X.

I find it easy to ignore. Pipeline route = chosen for the most level, clear route from point A to point B. Troop movement path = chosen by same criteria.

So, you think soldiers should have opted for a different route, one through mountainous, impassable terrain, just to NOT use the pipeline route? I.e., reinvent the wheel, badly?

What will you say when the pipeline gets built?

It'll get built if it's economically feasible. So? Is this the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy upon which you choose to build your conspiracy theory?

Did you even read the linked article?

Yes, I did. War-mongerers are not the type of folks I trust to give me a fair and balanced analysis of the left.

And again, I'm not saying that it is the primary reason, I'm saying that the two are related. What do you have to say to the fact that the new prime minister of Afghanistan is a huge shareholder of Unocal?

Your mistake lies in imagining that anyone disagreeing with you is a "war mongerer."

Only in post hoc fallacy sort of way. Which to say, unrelated.

I'd say that it's a typical conspiracy theory factoid.

Hey, I see that "Cheney" and "Unocal" EACH HAVE SIX LETTERS!!! Coincidence? I think not....

A significant and influential shareholder is significant sign, if you ask me.

Did you think the US attacked Afghanistan because of 9/11 or not? If so, that ends the discussion. If not, that also ends the discussion.

Things aren't so black and white when we're talking about an iron triangle like this.

We went to war in Afghanistan because we wanted to get rid of the Taliban and persecute their constituencies. That's the only answer I can give to that.

The US wanted to "persecute their constituencies???" Huh?

Yeah, I guess you're right. We decided life was too good for all those women shot in the back of the neck for going outside without a shawl, or homosexuals condemned to be buried alive under masonry, and all the other theocratic sadism -- and decided to persecute them with the twin lashes of freedom and democracy.

Shame on us!

I did not make a value judgement. Please, never put words in my mouth.

Then what possible meaning can "persecute their constituencies" have? Those are the words that DID come out of your mouth.

What meaning? A literal one. Look up persecute. Look up constituencies.

I did not mean that it was good or bad that this was happening.

I understand the words. The phrase is utterly incoherent in this context. By ANY definition of "persecute," the Taliban were persecuting their people. Treatment of those same people under the US is infinitely better.

But if you don't want to explain yourself, I guess we're done here.

You got persecute correct, but you forgot constituency. You're forgetting about your favorite enemies, al Qaeda.