|
Iraq Rebuilding Contracts Awarded (to Haliburton - Cheney's former employer) (pg. 11)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| 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. 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. |
|
|
| occrider |
| 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. |
|
|
| Trancer-X |
| 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/ |
|
|
| Trancer-X |
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.) |
|
|
| occrider |
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. |
|
|
| occrider |
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...db_030910232545
| quote: |
The US Export-Import Bank, citing environmental concerns, rejected a 214-million-dollar loan guarantee for the project late last month, at the time buoying Camisea critics' hopes that the IDB also would turn it down.
But the Andean Development Corp., to which Latin American and Caribbean governments and private banks belong, on Tuesday approved 75 million dollars for Camisea.
Although a relatively small portion of Camisea's 1.6-billion-dollar price tag, the IDB money was considered key to providing the project with a political seal of approval. This was because it had to be approved by member governments and came with environmental and social conditions attached.
|
|
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
Face it Occ, you're an old fart conservative! Just admit it, damnit! I'm tired of you parading around like you are some sort of centrist! You LOOOOOOOOVE Bush, don't you! Admit it, man! You're a closet Bush lover!
I had you pegged from the start, and now this hippy liberal's got your number too! We're comin' after you, you closet Bush-lovin' old geaser!
Fight the Power! |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by MisterOpus1
Face it Occ, you're an old fart conservative! Just admit it, damnit! I'm tired of you parading around like you are some sort of centrist! You LOOOOOOOOVE Bush, don't you! Admit it, man! You're a closet Bush lover!
I had you pegged from the start, and now this hippy liberal's got your number too! We're comin' after you, you closet Bush-lovin' old geaser!
Fight the Power! |
LOL you're right MisterOpus ... you finally fingered me. I'm actually Dick Cheney and I just woke up after being in the sack with Bush all night long. I LOVE HIM!!!! He really cares about me like no other man has done before. Now excuse me while I medidate and build up my powers of the dark side ...
And now I must burn my centrist bible and assume the full mantle of ... REPUBLICANISM! |
|
|
| Trancer-X |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
And I've established with reference after reference that the profiteers and owners of the gas station are Pakistan, India, Afghanistan, and Turkmen. |
Those countries own the oil conglomerates that would be providing the major services? How about the tankers used for shipping?
| quote: | | 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? |
Probably because they realized that there are others out there with the brains and insight (and absense of denial) to see through the smoke and mirrors.
Critics charge that the government and the project's developer, a private-sector consortium led by Argentinas PlusPetrol, have put economic benefits before the environment and the livelihood of indigenous people living in the vicinity of the project.
The criticism has gained weight in recent months as the consortium, which includes private companies from Peru, Algeria, South Korea and the United States (the Hunt Oil Company of Texas), has gone after loans from public financing institutions to meet the final price tag.
Fourteen celebrities, among them Kevin Bacon, Rubén Blades, Chevy Chase and Susan Sarandon, also had expressed their concerns about the project, writing to the IDB, President Bush and Peruvian President Alejandro Toledo asking for a change in or abandonment of the Camisea project.
In a Sept. 4 letter to Bush, the group urged that he ''ensure that our tax dollars not contribute to the whole-sale destruction of one of the planet's most biodiverse and remote rain forests.'' (The U.S. government has a 30 percent stake in the IDB.)
Environmental concerns weighed heavily on the U.S. Export-Import Bank's Aug. 28 veto of a $213.6 million loan to the consortium.
| quote: | 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.
|
I'm at work, sitting here at my desk at a financial consulting firm. I'm sorry but I have other obligations besides debating with some random online lackwit. |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by Trancer-X
Those countries own the oil conglomerates that would be providing the major services? How about the tankers used for shipping?
|
Ok, now we're getting somewhere. So we did this whole thing for the benefit of the (not oil) natural gas tankers??? And yes, believe it or not, other countries own tankers too! And besides, the natural gas is slated for delivery to INDIA not worldwide export.
| quote: |
Probably because they realized that there are others out there with the brains and insight (and absense of denial) to see through the smoke and mirrors.
|
Yes flame me to answer the question. Good job.
| quote: |
Critics charge that the government and the project's developer, a private-sector consortium led by Argentinas PlusPetrol, have put economic benefits before the environment and the livelihood of indigenous people living in the vicinity of the project.
The criticism has gained weight in recent months as the consortium, which includes private companies from Peru, Algeria, South Korea and the United States (the Hunt Oil Company of Texas), has gone after loans from public financing institutions to meet the final price tag.
Fourteen celebrities, among them Kevin Bacon, Rubén Blades, Chevy Chase and Susan Sarandon, also had expressed their concerns about the project, writing to the IDB, President Bush and Peruvian President Alejandro Toledo asking for a change in or abandonment of the Camisea project.
In a Sept. 4 letter to Bush, the group urged that he ''ensure that our tax dollars not contribute to the whole-sale destruction of one of the planet's most biodiverse and remote rain forests.'' (The U.S. government has a 30 percent stake in the IDB.)
Environmental concerns weighed heavily on the U.S. Export-Import Bank's Aug. 28 veto of a $213.6 million loan to the consortium.
|
And? So a US company is involved in building the pipeline. And a US company REJECTED financing of the pipeline. And the American representatives of IAD abstained from voting in approval of the pipeline.
| quote: |
I'm at work, sitting here at my desk at a financial consulting firm. I'm sorry but I have other obligations besides debating with some random online lackwit. |
LoL, and I'm sitting here at a software consulting firm trying desperately to beat some common sense into you. However, I replied before that if you wanted to intelligentely discuss the debate then address my entire argument as a whole rather than trying to dispute one or two points. I also asked for you to contain the argument to discussing the facts rather than flame baiting. Since you'd rather flame me than actually discuss my arguments I'm considering this debate over.
Have a nice day. |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | | I'm at work, sitting here at my desk at a financial consulting firm. I'm sorry but I have other obligations besides debating with some random online lackwit. |
Dodge. You've done a terrific job with ad hominem attacks. Before throwing another personal insult at your debator, try answering his questions. If you do not have enough time at the moment, please try to extend the courtesy and tell him you'll attend his inquiries when you do have time.
Otherwise, you're continuing to look like an . |
|
|
| Trancer-X |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
Yes flame me to answer the question. Good job. |
I never mentioned any names, you can take what you want from that one.
| quote: | | And? So a US company is involved in building the pipeline. And a US company REJECTED financing of the pipeline. And the American representatives of IAD abstained from voting in approval of the pipeline. |
That's called partisan politics.
| quote: | LoL, and I'm sitting here at a software consulting firm trying desperately to beat some common sense into you. However, I replied before that if you wanted to intelligentely discuss the debate then address my entire argument as a whole rather than trying to dispute one or two points. I also asked for you to contain the argument to discussing the facts rather than flame baiting. Since you'd rather flame me than actually discuss my arguments I'm considering this debate over.
Have a nice day. |
What is your argument? I'm still trying to figure that one out.
I've provided numerous references debunking so much of the propaganda that you so desperately seem to be clinging to. I've provided the real legwork here.
If your argument is that we are in the Middle East for the right reasons then I honestly don't see how you could validate that with any measure of sincerity. If you think that we bombed Afghanistan because that would help put an end to the terrorism, then again I am at a loss for words because all we did was further ignite the hotbed of anti-US sentiments.
I know that my forefathers, who all fought hard for our various freedoms when they were in either the Marines, RAF, Army Air Corps, CIA (yeah that's right), etc., would be damn perturbed by such reckless and vexatious foreign policy.
I'm sure that yours would be too. |
|
|
|
|
