TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Iraq Rebuilding Contracts Awarded (to Haliburton - Cheney's former employer)
Pages (6): « 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 »

quote:

Originally posted by MrSquirrel Why resurrect a thread that has been inactive for over 4 months and then continue to post and post and post "off-topic" arguments/information?

It's called freedom. We're allowed to do it.

I'm sorry that you're so bothered by it.

The following is the letter to the editor written by Lt. Col. Steve Butler who was serving as vice chancellor for student affairs at the Defense Language Institute when he wrote the letter, published in The Herald on May 26.

Butler was suspended from his duties at the Monterey language school following publication of his letter, which could constitute a violation of Article 88 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Article 88 bars any commissioned officer from using "contemptuous words" about the president, Congress and various other officials. The matter, which is now attracting national attention, is under investigation by the Air Force.

The letter follows as originally published :

It's about time conservative idiots like Steve Kelly and Rod Musgrove got a dose of reality. Of course President Bush knew about the impending attacks on America. He did nothing to warn the American people because he needed this war on terrorism. His daddy had Saddam and he needed Osama.

His presidency was going nowhere. He wasn't elected by the American people, but placed into the Oval Office by the conservative supreme court. The economy was sliding into the usual Republican pits and he needed something on which to hang his presidency.

For them to accuse Democrats of being "sleazy" is laughable. Isn't it ironic that Kelly begins his inane babble with a reference to Monica Lewinsky? How many people died because of Monica Lewinsky? And for Musgrove to call the assertions "contemptible" is another joke. Funny how he manages to make disparaging remarks about President Clinton, as well.

Face it people, Bill Clinton was a great president. This guy is a joke. What is sleazy and contemptible is the President of the United States not telling the American people what he knows for political gain. The Democrats asking pertinent questions is their duty as public servants.

- Lt. Col. Steve Butler


http://www.montereyherald.com/mld/m...ald/3393351.htm

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation...l-suspended.htm

Damn Tiesto14 for deleting his stupid 911 thread.

Just one more gas - on the gas:

quote:

Originally posted by occrider I never said that transporting LNG from Pakistan by tanker was impossible, I said it was too costly given the expensive nature involved in cooling down the gas, and that it would be more economically feasible to transport LNG from Canada or South America.

Because natural gas moves more efficiently by pipeline than tanker (for which it needs to be liquefied), the difference comes mostly from Canada. Now the Canadians are running low, and exports to the U.S. are expected to be flat, or possibly even decline.

LIQUEFIED NATURAL GAS: BACK TO THE FUTURE. To meet the surging demand for natural gas in the short term, Greenspan does see a solution: liquefied natural gas (lng). He has told Congress that "given notable cost reductions for both liquefaction and transportation of lng, significant global trade is developing. And high gas prices projected in the American distant futures market have made us a potential very large importer."


Translation: Because natural-gas prices are going up�and are going to stay up�it's now time to bring in more expensive lng from the Caribbean, the Middle East, Africa and possibly Russia. To import natural gas, it must be chilled to minus 260(degree)F, which converts it to a liquid and reduces its volume. An amount that would normally fill a beach ball can fit inside a Ping-Pong ball. When the liquid arrives at terminals in the U.S., it is slowly warmed up, returned to a vapor form and sent through pipelines.


Today Cove Point is being expanded and will reopen soon. The plants in the three other states are already open, and plans are on the drawing board for two dozen more.


http://www.ecology.com/ecology-news...-out-of-gas.htm

http://www.dom.com/about/gas-transm...point/index.jsp

quote:

Originally posted by Trancer-X Just one more gas - on the gas: Because natural gas moves more efficiently by pipeline than tanker (for which it needs to be liquefied), the difference comes mostly from Canada. Now the Canadians are running low, and exports to the U.S. are expected to be flat, or possibly even decline. LIQUEFIED NATURAL GAS: BACK TO THE FUTURE. To meet the surging demand for natural gas in the short term, Greenspan does see a solution: liquefied natural gas (lng). He has told Congress that "given notable cost reductions for both liquefaction and transportation of lng, significant global trade is developing. And high gas prices projected in the American distant futures market have made us a potential very large importer." Translation: Because natural-gas prices are going up�and are going to stay up�it's now time to bring in more expensive lng from the Caribbean, the Middle East, Africa and possibly Russia. To import natural gas, it must be chilled to minus 260(degree)F, which converts it to a liquid and reduces its volume. An amount that would normally fill a beach ball can fit inside a Ping-Pong ball. When the liquid arrives at terminals in the U.S., it is slowly warmed up, returned to a vapor form and sent through pipelines. Today Cove Point is being expanded and will reopen soon. The plants in the three other states are already open, and plans are on the drawing board for two dozen more. http://www.ecology.com/ecology-news...-out-of-gas.htm http://www.dom.com/about/gas-transm...point/index.jsp

When gas from Turkmenestein becomes a major exporter to the US then you can say I told you so, fair enough?

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Damn Tiesto14 for (...).

Are you still going to contest our need for liquid natural gas?

quote:

Originally posted by Trancer-X Are you still going to contest our need for liquid natural gas?

Well of course we need natural gas. I contest the theory that we went to war in Afghanistan over this silly pipeline. And I still stand by my major points. Do you want to go into this whole thing again to the annoyance of others?

quote:

Originally posted by occrider What this has to do with a natural gas pipeline that no american company really wants to touch and is being managed by a middle east consortium I really have no idea.

I doubt that they would want to rely on just one source or one specific country.

http://www.gasandoil.com/goc/company/cnn33602.htm

I could go on and on and on and on and...

quote:

Originally posted by Trancer-X I doubt that they would want to rely on just one source or one specific country. http://www.gasandoil.com/goc/company/cnn33602.htm I could go on and on and on and on and...

And so could I. There are far closer and more lucrative markets to tap for our LNG needs. For christ's sake Europe and Russia contain over 40% of the world's supplies in nat gas. So do you want to go through this for another 4 pages or shall we let the issue drop?

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Do you want to go into this whole thing again to the annoyance of others?

I'm not complaining. though i must say that i usually dont belive in conspiracy theories as it is much harder to prove their validity. you have given enough information to at the very least raise doubt when considering whether the US went through all the trouble of war for a pipeline.

i came across a news article today

Iraq off limits to Israeli investments: officials
Mon Sep 22, 3:15 PM ET, AFP
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...my_030922191509

ignoring the headline, the article pointed out that:

quote:

The delegation announced here Sunday a plan of economic reforms allowing 100-percent foreign ownership in all sectors except oil and natural resources, and the establishment of a free and open market including banking and services.

i think that this is an indication that iraq will control its oil and natural resources and will prove as an argument agianst america controlling iraq's oil.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider And so could I. There are far closer and more lucrative markets to tap for our LNG needs. For christ's sake Europe and Russia contain over 40% of the world's supplies in nat gas. So do you want to go through this for another 4 pages or shall we let the issue drop?

What other markets do we have a militarily established puppet government (with ex-CIA, ex-Unocal advisor as PM) that almost guarantees deals such as the recent Haliburton "no-bid" contract which is currently under scrutiny.

We are in talks with Russia already. However, they are still supporting Iran's nuclear program which is something that we are totally against. They've also threatened to establish a natural gas OPEC. We have no leverage over them, so whatever agreements we would come to could just as easily backfire on us considering our history with them combined with the fact that we are so dependent on these fossil fuels.

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N12199701.htm
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2003/17107.htm
and here's your CNN:
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/09/iran.nuclear/


If you were really abreast of the facts you would have mentioned Qatar in your rebuttel.

quote:

Originally posted by Izzy i think that this is an indication that iraq will control its oil and natural resources and will prove as an argument agianst america controlling iraq's oil.

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N05205144.htm

quote:

Originally posted by Trancer-X http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N05205144.htm

yup
i heard from madeline albright when she gave a speech here last spring that iraq's oil infrastructure is in shambles and just to update to the technology they have in other oil producing arab countries is going to cost through the roof.

BP and Royal Shell just started pumping, but major reconstruction work is needed to produce anything of significance.

quote:

Originally posted by Trancer-X What other markets do we have a militarily established puppet government (with ex-CIA, ex-Unocal advisor as PM) that almost guarantees deals such as the recent Haliburton "no-bid" contract which is currently under scrutiny. We are in talks with Russia already. However, they are still supporting Iran's nuclear program which is something that we are totally against. They've also threatened to establish a natural gas OPEC. We have no leverage over them, so whatever agreements we would come to could just as easily backfire on us considering our history with them combined with the fact that we are so dependent on these fossil fuels. http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N12199701.htm http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2003/17107.htm and here's your CNN: http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/09/iran.nuclear/ If you were really abreast of the facts you would have mentioned Qatar in your rebuttel.

Sigh ... I really didn't want to get back into this, but if you insist.



There are plenty of other prospects besides Russia (if you want to assume that bush looked into the future and foresaw this whole Iranian affair would take place):

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...ilippines_usa_1

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...db_030910232545



Bush wants to rely on domestic gas

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...ernors_energy_1

And furthermore, if the US had such a vested interest in natural gas such that they would be willing to go to war, why would they reject a loan issuance for the Peruvian pipeline?

http://www.bradenton.com/mld/braden...rld/6640588.htm

We care about the environment but a war is ok?


Now look, I've weathered through every single argumentative shift you've gone through in your theory. First you insinuated that the Taliban backed out of the pipeline deal:

quote:

You're getting ahead of yourself now. The US tried negotiating with the Taliban for quite some time but were ultimately unsuccessful. Perhaps after unsuccessful bribes they came to wits-end and decided that bargaining was the wrong path to take after all.

I've refuted that irrevocably describing how Unocal withdrew from the deal and later the US imposed sanctions making it impossible for any deal to even ocurr.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/161099.stm

Then you changed your argument over to the reasoning that the primary benficiaries are going to be oil barons and the US.

quote:

The primary benefactors? Right now I can only see victory for the oil-barons (can you say Rockefeller's Revenge five times, fast?) So how would these 3 countries benefit any more than the U.S.A.? Are they hurting for oil? Are their companies putting up all the dough for the construction? Do THEY rely on foreign oil to power their ever growing population's motorized vehicles?

I think I've refuted that quite solidly in establishing that those 3 countires ARE the main beneficiaries of the pipeline with the whole development of the pipeline revolving around INDIAN demand.

You then imply that the whole purpose of the war was to allow US companies to build the pipeline:

quote:

The whole point is that there was no way a U.S. company could safely control their interests in that region BECAUSE of the constantly feuding warlords and other turmoils. If you take the time to actually delve into it instead of just listening to what the normal media channels have to say you'd see that there is alot more to the picture. The whole point is that Unocal had done feasability studies which said that the only way they could profit from the venture is if they had a secure pipeline, which they wouldn't have under the previous (or even current) circumstances. Of course they don't want to build a pipeline that has a good chance of being blown up!

I've refuted that in establishing that Unocal and NO US companies are willing to support the pipeline project.

Then you say that even though US companies are not directly involved, the US investors will profit off this deal:

quote:

So we've had an American company, with paid CIA/Unocal consultants trying to get into Afghanistan. This ten year effort was really only to benefit those 3 countries and not us? Come on! Do you think that these countries have the finances to undergo such an operation? As far as I'm aware they are relying on INVESTORS.

After which I refuted by establishing the fact that the investors are a multi-national lending institution and the world bank.


Now your argument is that the US did it, not so Unocal can go in and finish what they started, not so any other US company can build the pipeline, not so US companies can invest and finance the pipeline, but that we did it because we are facing a critical natural gas crisis whereby our import situation cannot be remedied in ANY other method than war. Never mind the fact that we currentely produce 87% of our natural gas, never mind the fact that we have massive untapped resources in the ANWAR region and the gulf of Mexico, never mind the fact that we have potential suppliers in South America, Russia, Africa, the phillipines, even the middle east over central asia, etc., never mind the fact that even though we needed nat gas so badly we STILL rejected to finance a pipeline in Peru, never mind ALL these alternatives. No, the BEST way to secure our nation's supply of natural gas is to wage a $5 billion + war in Afghanistan that's STILL going on. Forget using all that money to finance cheaper projects in other regions, let's go to the FARTHEST place from America we can possibly get, and hedge all of our bets on ONE pipeline. Well perhaps you should notify investors of this! Because with SUCH an incredible demand for this pipeline, it seems to be having trouble securing investors. Why is it 2 years after the war and the pipeline is STILL in the development phase?

With all our bets on this pipeline, what would we have done if the Taleban ACCEPTED our ultimatum???

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/1547991.stm

Then all this careful planning would go down the drain!

I've quoted insider magazine after insider magazine ... nothing mentions any major demand for Turkmen gas EXCEPT for India and Pakistan.

And now, your argument is that IF the US had demand for natural gas, then that is the smoking gun evidence of US intentions to enter Afghanistan to secure this pipeline. One would expect a heavier burden of proof than that.

Now can we simply agree to disagree?

"Pipeline Plan Another Casualty"
By Nick Hordern
Australian Financial Review; February 28, 2003

The death of Juma Mohammad Mohammadi, Afghanistan's Minister for Mines and Industries, in a plane crash on Tuesday cast a pall of gloom over TAP, the proposal for a gas pipeline from Turkmenistan through Afghanistan to Pakistan.

The light plane carrying Mohammadi and four Afghan officials crashed as it flew from Pakistan's port city of Karachi to south-western Baluchistan province, where he was to inspect mining projects.

Mohammadi's death was one more bad augury for TAP.

He had been in Pakistan for last weekend's meeting between the three countries in Islamabad.

After the meeting, the three invited India to participate in the $US3.2 billion ($5.3 billion) project as a customer for Turkmen gas.

"Since the viability of the project depends upon the extension of the pipeline to India, it was agreed to formally forward the documents of the TAP to the government of India, inviting them to join the project," a joint communique said.

On the face of it, Indian involvement in TAP makes sense for all four countries.

Although it has the world's fourth-largest gas reserves, Turkmenistan is dependent on customers in the former Soviet Union and is seeking other markets.

After 24 years of war, Afghanistan's economy is in ruins and Kabul is in dire need of the sort of revenue TAP would generate.

Pakistan has no urgent need to import gas, but its own reserves will not last for ever.

And Islamabad is keen to build economic links with Afghanistan and the 'Stans the five former Soviet Muslim republics of Central Asia.

India's demand for gas is expanding at 6 per cent a year and cannot be supplied from domestic reserves. India suffers from horrific pollution, so has an environmental imperative: gas is a cleaner fuel than the coal that provides the bulk of India's power.

Despite these common interests, TAP is unlikely to proceed because India will not countenance the use of energy piped across the territory of arch-enemy Pakistan.

Twice in the past 15 months, Delhi and Islamabad have been on the brink of war over the disputed Himalayan territory of Kashmir.

The problem is not that India is opposed to closer economic ties with Afghanistan and the other states of Central Asia.

Tomorrow, for example, Afghan President Hamid Karzai is due in New Delhi to sign an agreement with India that will slash tariffs in bilateral trade.

And Delhi is urging Tehran to improve road links between Central Asia and the Iranian port of Chah Bahr, to boost seaborne trade with India and so avoid Pakistan.

But the likelihood that Delhi will reject TAP can be inferred from its plans to buy Iranian gas.

India has been considering a pipeline from Iran's South Pars gas field since 1994.

The two countries signed a memorandum of understanding on the purchase of gas during last month's visit to Delhi by Iran's President Mohammad Khatami.

"In view of huge reserves of energy in Iran and [the] increasing requirement of India [for] energy, the two nations are natural partners," Indian Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee said at the time.

But India will not take the simple option of piping Pars gas across Pakistan.

"We have not spoken to Pakistan on this and we are not going to talk to them," India's Petroleum Minister, Ram Naik, said last week.

Instead, India intends to pursue the more expensive and technically challenging option of an undersea pipeline.

This is a striking demonstration of the cost of the Kashmir dispute not just to India and Pakistan but to other countries in the region.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider We care about the environment but a war is ok?

You and that guy in your sig must have gone to the same school of thought.

Overturning the Kyoto Protocol really shows how we care for the environment, doesn't it?

Everything these jerkoffs do is spurned by some unknown agenda.

How can you honestly defend such trash?

And no war is not okay, I've been saying that for how many frikkin' posts now? I seriously figured that it would have sunk into that thick skull of yours by now. It's like teaching a blind person astronomy, absolutely pointless and a waste of time.






As ex-FBI Director John O'Neil said when he quit in disgust, "The main obstacles to investigate Islamic terrorism were US oil corporate interests, and the role played by Saudi Arabia in it."

I really don't blame him at all for quitting, especially after Dubya cut the National Airport Security budget by $200 Million just prior to 9-11.

I can still easily picture Baltimore Mayor Martin O'Malley desperately pleading for the money that was alloted to Baltimore for "Homeland Security" (for protecting the Inner Harbor and the Port of Baltimore.) He was angry because Bush was making such a huge issue about the terrorist threat (we were bombing Afghanistan at the time) but had yet to provide the city with the much-needed money, which he repeatedly said was still past due even from the year before.

And do you know what happens when the alert system goes to red?

Martial Law. Suspension of our Constitution.

I'm sure that it's just a matter of time.

That's what happened in Germany in 1935.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Let's look at your bolded quotes: quote: Originally posted by Trancer-X So there will be no pipeline until there is an internationally regionized government and a government that is recognized by the people of Afghanistan too, I would imagine that you wanted to put that caveat on it. Right? It's not just internationally recognized, but it has to be accepted by the people of the country. Right? So the subcommittee on the asia and the pacific of the committee on international relations in the house of representatives is questioning why the pipeline cannot be built under the current system of government and that translates to what exactly?

That they were discussing it back in February 1998. If you would take off those glasses you might see that for yourself. Do you even read this or do you just cut and paste pieces of my post for the thrill of it?

quote:

quote: What about the haven for international terrorists? There is a Saudi terrorist who is infamous for financing terrorism around the world. Is he in the Taliban area or is he up there with the northern people? And?

You don't think they're talking about Bin-Laden? Come on dude, I hope that you're smarter than that.

Nah, they didn't have any forewarning of 9-11. I guess that it's a perfect world when your head fits so cozily in your ass.

quote:

Originally posted by Trancer-X You and that guy in your sig must have gone to the same school of thought. Overturning the Kyoto Protocol really shows how we care for the environment, doesn't it? Everything these jerkoffs do is spurned by some unknown agenda. How can you honestly defend such trash? And no war is not okay, I've been saying that for how many frikkin' posts now? I seriously figured that it would have sunk into that thick skull of yours by now. It's like teaching a blind person astronomy, absolutely pointless and a waste of time.

Sigh ... there's not a verbal bunker buster in the world that could possibly permeate that foggy mess of thoughts that goes on in your head. READ THE ARTICLE. UNDERSTAND the implied logic. IF we were willing to go to WAR for natural gas. WHY would we NOT favor the construction of a pipeline because of envionmental concerns??? GET IT??? If we were as desperate for natural gas resources, and we have shown utter disdain for the environment ala kyoto agreement, WHY DID WE REJECT FINANCING OF THAT PIPELINE??? Once again you continually attempt to attack one specific aspect of my argument attempting to derail my whole theory. What of every other point?

quote:

And do you know what happens when the alert system goes to red? Martial Law. Suspension of our Constitution. I'm sure that it's just a matter of time. That's what happened in Germany in 1935.

Ah finally, it was only a matter of time ....

Godwin's Law /prov./ [Usenet] "As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one." There is a tradition in many groups that, once this occurs, that thread is over, and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever argument was in progress. Godwin's Law thus practically guarantees the existence of an upper bound on thread length in those groups.

quote:

That they were discussing it back in February 1998. If you would take off those glasses you might see that for yourself. Do you even read this or do you just cut and paste pieces of my post for the thrill of it? You don't think they're talking about Bin-Laden? Come on dude, I hope that you're smarter than that. Nah, they didn't have any forewarning of 9-11. I guess that it's a perfect world when your head fits so cozily in your ass.

SO what??? The government was talking with Unocal about the failure of the pipeline project .... that's how GLOBAL business is conducted. Companies GO THROUGH GOVERNMENTS to get things done in other countries. If company has problems, they tell government who then negotiate with said country to resolve differences. That's why we see government officials from Pakistan, Turkmen, and Afghanistan working together to build this pipeline! IF the goal of Afghanistan was to invade the country, WHY GIVE THE TALIBAN AN OUT BY GIVING UP BIN LADEN??? Hmmmmmmm because GOAL was Bin LADEN!

Once again, I tried to let the issue drop but if you want to continue ... in an effort to steer the debate back on topic and avoid a flaming debate, I have outlined the weaknesses of the "they invaded Afghanistan for a pipeline" theory for you to address:

1. If the US invaded Afghanistan in order to build this pipeline to meet American natural gas needs, why has the US NOT involved itself in being the front runner of establishing this pipeline. Why not manage the financing and construction of the project to ensure its development? Why are no US companies seeking to involve themselves in the pipeline deal? Why hinge the construction of the project on another country's demand, or leave the ultimate decision of building the pipeline in the hands of Afghanistan/Pakistan/Turkem and the ADB/World Bank? If the pipeline is so critical, why not personally assure its creation by managing its construction? Why give the taliban an option to avoid invasion, and therefore establishment of the pipeline, if they hand over bin laden?

2. Given the United State's absolute desperation to secure natural gas resources, why did the US reject funding of the Peruvian pipeline for environmental reasons? Why not drill our HUGE natural gas deposits underneath federally protected environmental areas? Why not secure more drilling of ANWAR and the Alaskan natural gas fields? Why not secure more drilling in the gulf of Mexico? If the largets customer of the Afghan pipeline is going to be India/Pakistan, how is whatever left going to satisfy our immense nat gas demands which is why we supposedly invaded to begin with? Wouldn't we simply have all exports of the pipeline flow to the US? Why is the pipeline having trouble securing investors if it is a for sure thing that the US is going to import all its natural gas? Why impose sanctions in 1998 and therefore eliminating ALL possiblity of negotiating a settlement with the Taliban?

3. Given the costs involved in waging the war and reconstruction in Afghanistan ... $3-$5 billion plus, perform a cost/benefit analysis of the situation establishing how the pipeline theory is indeed a profitable venture for the US. As you stated before, it is all about money. Therefore, why wage a costly, uncertain war to secure one pipeline from which we aren't even the primary customers? If 47% of the cost of natural gas comes from its transportation and distribution to the customer, how is it going to be any cheaper getting this natural gas from Turkmen, then paying transit fees in Afghanistan, then paying transit fees through Pakistan, then paying for the cost to liquify the gas, then paying for the cost to ship it from the Indian ocean, then paying for the cost to convert the lng back to a gaseous state? Why not use said funds to simply develop natural gas resources in other, closer regions? South America, Phillipines, South East Asia, Africa, Middle East, Russia (remember this is 2001 before the Iranian affair), etc.? Instead of spending so much on war and reconstruction for this pipeline, why not simply finance the South American pipeline? Or, why not simply endorse the Taliban in 1998 and give them the necessary funds needed to stabilize the region? Wouldn't that be a cheaper option? Illustrate how the US is exactly going to achieve the immense return on investments one would expect from such a risky venture. And when will we see this return on investments? It seems that the pipeline won't even be built by the time Bush is out of office ... why take all the political heat associated with waging a war and the massive amounts of spending involved when he won't even see the benefits of his plan come to fruition?

Now, I probably have a few more that I'll tack on a bit later. If you would like to intelligentely discuss this topic than please resort from flaming. If you continue to do so, than I'm dropping the topic and it will be end of discussion. And please address EVERY single question that I ask rather than trying to win over one point and ignoring the rest.

quote:

Originally posted by Trancer-X Overturning the Kyoto Protocol really shows how we care for the environment, doesn't it? Everything these jerkoffs do is spurned by some unknown agenda. How can you honestly defend such trash?

I would like to comment on this statement as well. I am in no way trying to DEFEND the Bush administration in ANY respect. I have disagreed with virtually EVERY single one of their critical foreign policy decisions (I did want pressure applied to Iraq, but I didn't want a pre-emptive strike at that time). Just about the only thing I supported was the first set of tax cuts as a means for economic stimulus. And, I would like nothing better than to see them out of office come 2004.

Please stop confusing my agenda to analyze and debate the actual political motivations for foreign policy as being a platform for defending Bush.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Once again, I tried to let the issue drop but if you want to continue ... in an effort to steer the debate back on topic and avoid a flaming debate, I have outlined the weaknesses of the "they invaded Afghanistan for a pipeline" theory for you to address: 1. If the US invaded Afghanistan in order to build this pipeline to meet American natural gas needs, why has the US NOT involved itself in being the front runner of establishing this pipeline.

http://www.gp.org/press/pr_03_04_02.html

quote:

Why are no US companies seeking to involve themselves in the pipeline deal? Why hinge the construction of the project on another country's demand, or leave the ultimate decision of building the pipeline in the hands of Afghanistan/Pakistan/Turkem and the ADB/World Bank? If the pipeline is so critical, why not personally assure its creation by managing its construction? Why give the taliban an option to avoid invasion, and therefore establishment of the pipeline, if they hand over bin laden?

Why do you speak with such certainty on topics that you seem to know so little about. I guess that we'll just have to wait for it all to come to fruition so that once it's reported I can supply all of the news links (as I've basically been doing this whole thread.)

quote:

2. Given the United State's absolute desperation to secure natural gas resources, why did the US reject funding of the Peruvian pipeline for environmental reasons?

Where have YOU been?

Andean Economic Development Corporation agreed to a $75 million loan to the consortium last Monday and the Inter-American Development Bank approved a $135 million loan for the project last Wednesday. The U.S. representative to the IDB abstained, while the other country directors voted for approval. There were no negative votes.


http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiheral...day/6765877.htm

quote:

why wage a costly, uncertain war to secure one pipeline from which we aren't even the primary customers?

If someone built a gas station in someone else's neighborhood would you consider that to the benefit of THAT neighborhood or to the owner of the gas station. That argument is stupid. The profiteers are the benefactors.

quote:

Why impose sanctions in 1998 and therefore eliminating ALL possiblity of negotiating a settlement with the Taliban?

Why at the same time did we give the Taliban a $43 Million bribe in an attempt to curb their Opium production? I don't always understand our foreign policy either.

quote:

3. Given the costs involved in waging the war and reconstruction in Afghanistan ... $3-$5 billion plus, perform a cost/benefit analysis of the situation establishing how the pipeline theory is indeed a profitable venture for the US.

It's not a profitable venture for the US. It's profitable for the war financiers, the oil and gas interests, the loan originators, etc. We Americans will undoubtedly pick up a large portion of the tab though as our failing economic policies are just adding to our burgeoning deficit. Remember those trillions of dollars that we already owe? We do owe them to someone, you do know that much I hope.

quote:

why take all the political heat associated with waging a war and the massive amounts of spending involved when he won't even see the benefits of his plan come to fruition?

You don't think he'll see the benefits? Are you completely void, or just incapable of insight?


http://slate.msn.com/id/2081572/

Andean Economic Development Corporation agreed to a $75 million loan to the consortium last Monday and the Inter-American Development Bank approved a $135 million loan for the project last Wednesday. The U.S. representative to the IDB abstained, while the other country directors voted for approval. There were no negative votes.


http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiheral...day/6765877.htm

Before you go spouting something like, "That's the IDB, not the United States!"


from that link, since you don't really seem to read them:

(The U.S. government has a 30 percent stake in the IDB.)

quote:

Originally posted by Trancer-X http://www.gp.org/press/pr_03_04_02.html

No, Halliburton is not conducting the feasability study. I've already quoted insider sources and government sources outlining the fact that the ADB is conducting the feasibility study. And this provides no references at all for its findings.

quote:

Why do you speak with such certainty on topics that you seem to know so little about. I guess that we'll just have to wait for it all to come to fruition so that once it's reported I can supply all of the news links (as I've basically been doing this whole thread.)

MY point exactly. I DON'T KNOW everything with absolute certainty with respect to this topic. And neither do you! I'm presenting evidence that conflicts with your theory in the hopes of finding out the truth! That's why it's called a DEBATE.

quote:

Where have YOU been? Andean Economic Development Corporation agreed to a $75 million loan to the consortium last Monday and the Inter-American Development Bank approved a $135 million loan for the project last Wednesday. The U.S. representative to the IDB abstained, while the other country directors voted for approval. There were no negative votes. http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiheral...day/6765877.htm

I know the pipeline deal was approved. However, it was DENIED funding by the US lending institution the pipeline was lobbying. WHY? And read your own text, the US faction of IAD abstained from the vote because of their previous concerns. If they wanted this natural gas so badly, why first deny funding and refuse to vote in approvaal of the IDB's decision?

quote:

If someone built a gas station in someone else's neighborhood would you consider that to the benefit of THAT neighborhood or to the owner of the gas station. That argument is stupid. The profiteers are the benefactors.

And I've established with reference after reference that the profiteers and owners of the gas station are Pakistan, India, Afghanistan, and Turkmen.

quote:

Why at the same time did we give the Taliban a $43 Million bribe in an attempt to curb their Opium production? I don't always understand our foreign policy either.

Umm to curb opium production?

quote:

It's not a profitable venture for the US. It's profitable for the war financiers, the oil and gas interests, the loan originators, etc. We Americans will undoubtedly pick up a large portion of the tab though as our failing economic policies are just adding to our burgeoning deficit. Remember those trillions of dollars that we already owe? We do owe them to someone, you do know that much I hope.

Yes, I have a degree in economics, I understand the principles of government debt quite well. And now you're changing the debate to something that cannot be proved but only hypothesized.

quote:

Andean Economic Development Corporation agreed to a $75 million loan to the consortium last Monday and the Inter-American Development Bank approved a $135 million loan for the project last Wednesday. The U.S. representative to the IDB abstained, while the other country directors voted for approval. There were no negative votes. http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiheral...day/6765877.htm Before you go spouting something like, "That's the IDB, not the United States!" from that link, since you don't really seem to read them: (The U.S. government has a 30 percent stake in the IDB.)

Why not finance them directly from the US import/export company? And once again you failed to answer every question from my original statement. You are merely picking and choosing which questions you choose to answer in an effort to dispel the entire argument.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.