@pooty said:
@AtPhantom: Where do people get this theory that those places are just a ball of sand? That is a worthless place with no resources? they are using Afghanistan and iraq like england did the native americans. They are using it like a colony. The U.S is going to build it up and turn it into a mini-version of itself. So much money can be made by introducing american business and culture to hundreds of millions of new people. It's a way to expand their empire and influence to other lands. Set up military bases in places it couldn't before. It may not be much NOW, but neither was america when we first got here. But it had potential. So does Iraq/Afghanistan. and 3,000 people is still a small number. that is 1 out of every 100,000 people in the U.S. I honestly don't understand how people can believe that this dude masterminded this from another country, got around all of our security measures, took control of planes full of people and killed 3,000 people with no inside help. And the evidence is out there, people just dismiss it as "conspiracy theory".
It doesn't work like that. Nations have strategic objectives, goals set in that they desire to accomplish in order to increase their power and well being. For the United States, the only strategic objective to have in the middle east is the control of oil. That is basically the only reason why they're there. Afghanistan? holds absolutely no strategic importance to anyone. It really has nothing to offer to America. What little ores they have you can find in other, more hospitable places. And the idea that you can introduce American businesses to a new market to exploited presumes that that market can actually support those businesses. To do that, you first need to bring Afghani people up to the level where they can buy American products. That's a tall order even for former communist countries which already had a sizeable economy (Bringing East Germany to its standard nearly bankrupted West Germany. Had they not had the Eurozone to bail them out, thing could have gone somewhat badly for them). Afghanistan is one of the poorest countries in the world, and you're going to introduce Disneyland there? What money are people going to buy tickets with? Economy simply doesn't work like that.
Notice I did not mention Iraq. There is a clear and logical reason why the US went into Iraq. But Iraq has no relevance here because the 9/11 wasn't used in justifying it.
Furthermore, Britain never really used or made profit off of Native Americans. Like the Afghani, the Native Americans had nothing to offer to the British. British wealth and global power during Pax Britannica was based on its control of the seas, and through that its control of trade. All it really needed and wanted were points around the globe through which it could control the trade routes of the world. Gibraltar, Caribbeans, Singapore, Hong Kong, etc. America, Canada and Australia and such were not only not profitable, they were more often than not a drain on the empire's resources. This is why it gave Canada and Australia their independence without much of a fuss after WWI, why it took until the 90ies to surrender Hong Kong, and why it still holds places like Gibraltar and the Falklands. Native Americans? Britain not only didn't want to exploit them, it didn't want anything to do with them, so much so that it actually forbade its colonists from settling beyond the Appalachian mountains so as not antagonize them (Which was one of the causes of the revolution. Colonists needed land. London couldn't care less).
Similarly, like the British before them, the American dominance lies not in some random third world holes it conquers, but in its massive carrier fleet keeping the sea lanes open for business whenever some country (Like Iran) gets uppity and thinks it can tell the world what to do because it sits on a major trade route. Afghanistan is not one of those countries.
Second, you completely missed my point about why your own citizens would naturally be more important that some random yellow or brown people (No offense to anyone) on the other side of the globe. Even if you accept that the US government is a of bunch emotionless calculating evil masterminds (Which they're really, really not. At least not the mastermind part), there is still a lot more factors to consider than just the percentage.
As for how he got through the cracks in the security, the answer is pretty simple: There was no security, because no one considered it a threat. It's a sad fact, but true. It's the same circumstances that allowed that madman to plant a bomb in Norway, and then head out and slaughter his way through a youth camp before they could stop him. Few nations take actions against something before it's identified as a clear threat, and America, in the nineties, was at the top of the world. It had no enemies to fear from, it though no one would be crazy enough to assault it in any way, so naturally it let its defenses slumber for a bit. 9/11 was a rude awakening. For many people it was a bitter pill to swallow that something like that could even happen, so naturally they found it easier to believe that somewhere, someone was screaming "JUST AS PLANNED!!!!!11!!" than that the US agencies simply weren't up to the task. You can tell me that I'm just dismissing the obvious as a conspiracy theory, but I can just as well say you're seeing patterns which just aren't there. So which one is right?
Log in to comment