|
Iraq Rebuilding Contracts Awarded (to Haliburton - Cheney's former employer) (pg. 6)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by Trancer-X
(7) to support United States business interests and investments in the region.
|
Smoking gun?
| quote: |
I'm sure you've heard that we were quite instrumental in creating their interim gov't. with (ex-CIA contact and ex-UNOCAL advisor) Hamid Karzai as it's ~interim~ Prime Minister.
|
Well of course we were instrumental in creating their government and establish somebody that is aligned with our interests. It's not like we would oust the taleban and say "ok you guys take it from here." This does not in any way imply the reasons for engaging in the conflict.
| 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.
|
Read closely:
| quote: |
"In an article entitled, "ANALYSIS; PIPELINE SURVEY; RUSSIA GOES TO MARKET," the economist, which is the most sophisticated analytical journal of the oil industry - that is, it is not intersted in molding public opinion but exists to provide insiders with accurate information - the Petroleum Economist states that:
"The Taliban promoted Afghanistan as an oil and gas transit point for exports from the Caspian to the Mideast Gulf. In 1997, Turkmenistan brokered the creation of an international consortium, CentGas, under the leadership of Unocal, which planned to build a $2bn gas line across Afghanistan. The imposition of US and, later, UN sanctions against the country and then Unocal's withdrawal put a stop to the plan.
The project envisaged a 1,270-km, 20bn cubic metres a year link from the border with Turkmenistan, along the Herat-Kandahar road, to the Pakistan border, at Quetta, ending at Mulat." (3)
|
The US was not lobbying Afghanistan to construct a natural gas pipeline, the Taliban was lobbying the US to build the pipeline! And ultimately, it was the US COMPANY that withdrew from the deal ... NOT the taliban.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/230318.stm
| quote: |
Of course I didn't! I saw how hard lined you were from the start with all of your pro-war rhetoric, and your pro-war signature emblazoned at the bottom of every post.
|
Hard-lined?? Pro-war rhetoric? Pro-war signature emblazoned at the bottom of every post??? That constitutes your reasoning for ignoring previously aforementioned arguments? I'm afraid I can't take you very seriously from now on since you choose to attack what YOU perceive as representations of my political beliefs (when in fact they have absolutely NOTHING to do with them whatsoever) instead of attacking my actual arguments. Straw man much?
| quote: |
The primary benefactors? Right now I can only see victory for the oil-barons (can you say Rockefeller's Revenge five times, fast)
|
I thought we established the fact that this was a natural gas pipeline and not oil? And no, I provided credible news sources establishing victory for 3 countries. If you perceive them to be oil barons of America then I guess I'm at a loss of words.
| quote: |
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?
|
Sigh ... I thought that the bbc article made it abundantly clear that these three countries are the primary beneficiaries of the pipeline otherwise they would have MENTIONED the US as being the main beneficiary. However, since you require greater elaboration:
| quote: |
AFGHANISTAN EYES A PIPELINE, BUT PROSPECTS LOOK DIM
Halima Kazem: 6/06/02
With American-led military operations diminishing in Afghanistan and foreign aid taking a long time to flow, the country is looking for ways to fuel a struggling economy. Under interim government Chairman Hamid Karzai, Afghanistan has revived an old hope. It is officially seeking to build a pipeline that would take Turkmen oil and gas to India via Pakistan and Afghanistan.
Karzai traveled to Islamabad on May 30 to meet with Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf and Turkmen President Saparmyrat Niyazov. The three leaders agreed only to pursue financiers for the pipeline project. They could not promise to succeed where others with deeper pockets have failed. Karzai’s "pipeline of peace" would essentially reassemble the CentGas Consortium, a $2 billion project led by Houston oil giant Unocal in the mid-1990s. If it develops, it could bring in hundreds of millions of dollars to Afghanistan, which desperately needs funds for reconstruction. However, regional conditions have changed significantly since Unocal dissolved the CentGas Consortium in 1998. Beyond Afghanistan’s devastation, Pakistan’s energy needs and its relations to India have changed, making a trans-Afghanistan pipeline largely a fantasy.
For one thing, Western energy companies face many opportunities to invest their money elsewhere. Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan, which have somewhat more stable structures than Afghanistan, have raised millions in oil and gas investments. Competition for foreign investment is tight even with countries with stable central governments. So it may be that no multinational company has publicly shown interest in reviving Unocal’s pipeline plans because those plans would simply not pan out economically. "There is no new interest right now in the area," said Leonard Coburn, Director of the Office of Newly Independent States, Russian and Middle Eastern Affairs at the US Department of Energy. "ExxonMobil is pulling out of Turkmenistan. They didn’t find anything and they feel that they cannot operate there. Chevron Texaco has not really looked into Turkmenistan because they are pretty tied up in Pakistan and Azerbaijan,"
Although still favored by the participant countries to revive the project, Unocal Spokesperson Terry Covington says that the company does not have any plans or interest in another pipeline project through Afghanistan. She says that after the company withdrew from the CentGas consortium in 1998, they invested their capital in other parts of the world, specifically in Southeast Asia. "We can’t make any decisions based on a snapshot of a country," Covington told EurasiaNet. "There are several things we look for before we invest in a country: an internationally recognized government, peace and stability, and social [standards]."
Karzai should be familiar with Unocal; he worked as a consultant to the company in the ‘90s. Over the past six months, the charismatic Karzai has been traveling to neighboring countries trying to rally support for the pipeline. In Niyazov and Musharraf, he has found two heads of state who say they are in favor of the pipeline project. But Coburn says that any company that goes into Afghanistan needs more reassurance and has to know that the right type of security will be provided to safeguard their investment. Afghanistan, which is beginning a grand legislative council called a Loya Jirga on June 10, still has no established government. When the Loya Jirga appoints a two-year transitional government, the country will still have to establish and figure out corporate and securities law. "From an emerging markets point of view, Afghanistan has a long ways to travel," said Peter Bassett, Investment Manager for Brunswick Capital Management, a global investment firm based in London.
Moreover, demand for trans-Afghan gas would probably only come from India – itself a tough market to gauge. Pakistan has developed enough internal gas reserves to remain self-sufficient until 2025, said Julian Lee, Senior Analyst for the Centre of Global Energy Studies in London. Pakistan’s reliance on imported oil could boost the trans-Afghanistan pipeline, but underlying power struggles between Pakistan and Afghanistan are still a major barrier for a pipeline partnership. "Historically Pakistan has always meddled in Afghanistan’s affairs and has never wanted to give Afghanistan access to its waters. It’s a way of keeping Afghanistan dependent on Pakistan," said Farhad Ahad, a member of the Institute for Afghan Studies. If Pakistan were to commit to a trans-Afghanistan pipeline, some suggest, it would be to placate the United States by avoiding a pipeline relationship with Iran. But David Goldwyn, Former United States Assistant Secretary of Energy for International Affairs, calls the chances of that happening anytime soon very slim.
That leaves India as a customer. But India remains reluctant to depend on Pakistan, its traditional rival, which would have no incentive to ensure smooth delivery through its portion of the pipeline. [See related EurasiaNet story]. "From India’s side the question is ‘How do insure the security of this project?" said Jyoti Sagar, founder of Sagar and Associates, a New Delhi law firm specializing in India’s energy sector. Indian oil demand is expected to grow 6-6.5 percent annually from 2001. Natural gas demand will surge with 7.5 million metric tons of LNG per year to be imported by 2005. This combined position will make India one of the world’s largest consumers of oil and gas. But Sagar says India is looking to neighboring Bangladesh and Myanmar for cheap natural gas imports.
In the end, Afghanistan’s pipeline dreams may hinge on simple economics. But even if the political situations in the region could be worked out, many analysts say the pipeline’s rate of return would not be very high. "A large multinational company would get maybe a 15 to 20 percent return. This is not much compared to the geo-political risk involved," said Hurst Groves, Director of Columbia University’s Center for Energy Studies.
Oil analysts uniformly deem a trans-Afghanistan pipeline largely out of reach for now. "Until either Pakistan requires imported gas, or Pakistan and India trust each other sufficiently to allow India to source gas imports via its neighbor," says Lee, Afghanistan will need to find another means of restoring its tattered economy.
http://www.eurasianet.org/departmen...eav060602.shtml
|
We now break for Occrider's regularly scheduled hardline, pro-war rhetoric: War is good War is good War is good War is good War is good War is good War is good War is good War is good War is good War is good War is good War is good War is good War is good War is good
Ok, now that I have that out of my system:
| quote: |
I'm sure we have someone else that could take their place. We certainly have the need...
"Mr. Chairman, today America's dwindling oil reserves provide less than half of the oil our economy uses. This leaves us heavily dependent on the Middle Eastern regimes that control the vast majority of the world's known oil reserves. Many of these regimes are either actively hostile to the United States, as is the case with Iran, Iraq, and Lybia, or unsteady, autocratic regimes beholden to Islamic fundamentalists like Saudi Arabia."
"Today, therefore, 52 percent of the oil we use in America is imported from foreign sources. Our most recent EIA forecast suggests, as again was acknowledged in some of the opening statements, that our dependence could grow to 62 percent by the year 2020."
http://commdocs.house.gov/committee...hfa80291_0f.htm
|
Ok, you've established that we NEED oil. 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.
| quote: |
| quote: |
Meanwhile, while all these other countries are benefiting from the pipeline deal, the US has now pledged to spend another billion dollars to rebuild afghanistan???
|
Wouldn't that tie in with the needed stabilization of that region. I hope you realize that you appear to be talking in circles on this.
|
Missing the point! We're spending BILLIONS in order to stabilize a region for a pipeline deal who's costs are in the MILLIONS??? Why not GO AROUND Afghanistan? Why not get our NATURAL GAS somewhere else??? You're telling me that we go to war and spend billions so we don't have to extend a NATURAL GAS pipeline a few hundred miles???
| quote: |
Cheaper gas due to not having to rely on OPEC as well as not having to fund a terrorist state's economy. That doesn't make sense to you?
|
Afghanistan was the cure for OPEC? I was never aware it was a country so abundant in oil! Just think, all this trouble with the middle east and the solution all along was little ol afghanistan. What's the deal with this NATURAL GAS pipeline that's being built?
| quote: |
Ah, lift the blinders shall we? Your article:
My article:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/2986118.stm
"A tender to sell 10 million barrels of Iraqi oil was awarded on Thursday to six companies, including ChevronTexaco of the US.
News that Iraqi supplies had finally resumed helped push oil prices lower in New York, with crude futures closing down 85 cents at $31.51.
Before the war, Iraq shipped about 1.7 million barrels a day, roughly 4% of world exports."
Okay, thanks?
|
:conf:
| quote: |
Okay I agree with you on something, CNN is crap.
|
I said CNN's search tool was crap ;). I actually look on CNN with a rather positive light. If you don't want such a US focus on the news, switch to CNN International. It provides much better coverage of world events. I think it's crap to resort to one news network in general however.
| quote: |
I seriously think that you are decieving yourself by thinking that we are in the Middle East for humanitarian reasons.
|
Of course we're not in the middle east for humanitarian reasons. Whoever said that??? I think you have an overly simplistic view of attitudes and opinions of those in this forum. If you would like clarification or see where we stand on issues please ask rather than jump to conclusions. |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by Trancer-X
Of course I didn't! I saw how hard lined you were from the start with all of your pro-war rhetoric, and your war signature emblazoned at the bottom of every post.
|
You see what you've done to me Mr.Squirrel??? I've had your sig for exactly 3 days so far, and already people are formulating slanderous misconceptions! |
|
|
| occrider |
| Btw, you're a bastard for keeping me up until 4am, it's nice having someone new to argue with :p |
|
|
| MrSquirrel |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
You see what you've done to me Mr.Squirrel??? I've had your sig for exactly 3 days so far, and already people are formulating slanderous misconceptions! |
Sorry about that mate, I cannot control the thoughts of the sheep-like masses.
Oh yeah, the BBC rocks. Isn't it amazing how a government owned news outlet in Britain can be so well balanced and even critical of it's own bosses?
Of course, I just want to know how this thread which I have never seen suddenly became a hot topic again. We should have a "dead" time on old threads....say a month or so since last post methinks.
MrS |
|
|
| Trancer-X |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
Well of course we were instrumental in creating their government and establish somebody that is aligned with our interests. It's not like we would oust the taleban and say "ok you guys take it from here." This does not in any way imply the reasons for engaging in the conflict. |
All of the puzzle pieces are laid out, it just seems that you don't want them to be put together to form the actual picture.
| quote: | Read closely:
The US was not lobbying Afghanistan to construct a natural gas pipeline, the Taliban was lobbying the US to build the pipeline! And ultimately, it was the US COMPANY that withdrew from the deal ... NOT the taliban. |
Are you nuts? So we've been bargaining with THEM for what reasons then?
http://www.worldpress.org/specials/...ne_timeline.htm
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!
There's a great deal of duplicity that's been going on within the upper echelons of our government. Our president's business track record is contrary to what you would call pristine, which only makes the issue that much worse since now things can continue almost with impunity. It appears that he just isn't a huge fan of the scrupulous.
| quote: | | Hard-lined?? Pro-war rhetoric? Pro-war signature emblazoned at the bottom of every post??? That constitutes your reasoning for ignoring previously aforementioned arguments? I'm afraid I can't take you very seriously from now on since you choose to attack what YOU perceive as representations of my political beliefs (when in fact they have absolutely NOTHING to do with them whatsoever) instead of attacking my actual arguments. Straw man much? |
Dude, read your posts and then listen to yourself. You obviously have your mind made up that nothing is at all awry in this current situation, that everything is hunky-dory. Do you seriously believe that there is no shadow government, no unlisted alphabet agencies with deeply penetrating spy-networks vested with oil and military industrial interests? Take your head out of the sand because no matter how hard you try, denying it won't make it go away.
| quote: | | I thought we established the fact that this was a natural gas pipeline and not oil? And no, I provided credible news sources establishing victory for 3 countries. If you perceive them to be oil barons of America then I guess I'm at a loss of words. |
So you're saying that since the trilateral agreement to have oil and gas pipelines was nullified, that we will no longer attempt to exert pressure to control our oil and gas interests in the region?
Sure it was a victory for those three countries, they will undoubtedly make out very well thanks to our strong reliance on their fossil fuel reserves. However, I don't see how OUR policies will have any positive effect on THEM. They never seem to work in others' favor, only ours.
We may as well give a no-bid contract to the Wackenhut Corporation to guard the pipeline while we're at it. Our puppet government shouldn't mind because they'll be acting dutifully by embracing it.
| quote: | | Sigh ... I thought that the bbc article made it abundantly clear that these three countries are the primary beneficiaries of the pipeline otherwise they would have MENTIONED the US as being the main beneficiary. |
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.
It's always about the money.
| quote: | | Ok, you've established that we NEED oil. 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. |
How come you don't seem to question at all why we would be trying so hard to secure Afghanistan in the first place? You seem so certain yet you don't seem to want to investigate any further than BBC or CNN.
| quote: | | Missing the point! We're spending BILLIONS in order to stabilize a region for a pipeline deal who's costs are in the MILLIONS??? Why not GO AROUND Afghanistan? Why not get our NATURAL GAS somewhere else??? You're telling me that we go to war and spend billions so we don't have to extend a NATURAL GAS pipeline a few hundred miles??? |
It's said that the Afghan pipeline deal could be yielding 120 billion cubic meters of gas a year by the year 2010. You're saying that this is worth only "millions" of dollars? LMAO.
| quote: | | Afghanistan was the cure for OPEC? I was never aware it was a country so abundant in oil! Just think, all this trouble with the middle east and the solution all along was little ol afghanistan. What's the deal with this NATURAL GAS pipeline that's being built? |
I never said it was a cure for anything.
from your own link:
Reconstructing
Afghanistan plans to build a road linking Turkmenistan with Pakistan parallel to the pipeline, to supply nearby villages with gas, and also to pump Afghan gas for export, Mr Razim said.
The government would also earn transit fees from the export of gas and oil and hoped to take over ownership of the pipeline after 30 years, he said.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/1984459.stm
You're failing to see the forest for the trees.
| quote: | | I said CNN's search tool was crap ;). I actually look on CNN with a rather positive light. If you don't want such a US focus on the news, switch to CNN International. It provides much better coverage of world events. I think it's crap to resort to one news network in general however. |
That's why I'm happy to be able to read so fast. I go through almost all of them along with several independent sources that I enjoy reading.
| quote: | | Of course we're not in the middle east for humanitarian reasons. Whoever said that??? I think you have an overly simplistic view of attitudes and opinions of those in this forum. If you would like clarification or see where we stand on issues please ask rather than jump to conclusions. |
LOL. You just make it seem like we're only there for the right reasons, that's all. |
|
|
| Trancer-X |
| quote: | Originally posted by MrSquirrel
Sorry about that mate, I cannot control the thoughts of the sheep-like masses.
Oh yeah, the BBC rocks. Isn't it amazing how a government owned news outlet in Britain can be so well balanced and even critical of it's own bosses?
Of course, I just want to know how this thread which I have never seen suddenly became a hot topic again. We should have a "dead" time on old threads....say a month or so since last post methinks.
MrS |
The sheep-like masses that consider the news unbiased? LMAO.
As far as the thread, that's why you're a squirrel and not a moderator.
Now go find yourself an acorn you narrow-minded rodent. |
|
|
| Trancer-X |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
Btw, you're a bastard for keeping me up until 4am, it's nice having someone new to argue with :p |
I'd call it a heated debate. |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by Trancer-X
All of the puzzle pieces are laid out, it just seems that you don't want them to be put together to form the actual picture.
|
Or you're trying to jam pieces together that don't fit ...
| quote: |
Are you nuts? So we've been bargaining with THEM for what reasons then?
http://www.worldpress.org/specials/...ne_timeline.htm
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!
There's a great deal of duplicity that's been going on within the upper echelons of our government. Our president's business track record is contrary to what you would call pristine, which only makes the issue that much worse since now things can continue almost with impunity. It appears that he just isn't a huge fan of the scrupulous.
|
Now don't change your original argument that I responded to. You said:
"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."
To which I replied that we didn't need to bribe them or coax anything out of them. THEY wanted the pipeline. We backed out of the deal because it was viewed as too risky a business venture. I never said that Unocal didn't have in-depth negotiations with the Taliban in order to secure a pipeline deal.
Now, let's think through the situation rationally. If the US was so hell bent on setting up this pipeline, why did we impose sanctions against our own companies doing business in Afghanistan? Instead of a billion dollar war, the lives of soldiers, and a billion dollar reconstruction effort, why didn't we just construct the pipeline to go around afghanistan??? Or, why not use just half that money, give it to the Taliban, and have them eliminate all opposition in that country???
Why not use those billions of dollars to procure natural gas investments in other regions of the world? Oh wait, now that I mentioned that, that's exactly what happened. From my article above:
| quote: | For one thing, Western energy companies face many opportunities to invest their money elsewhere. Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan, which have somewhat more stable structures than Afghanistan, have raised millions in oil and gas investments. Competition for foreign investment is tight even with countries with stable central governments. So it may be that no multinational company has publicly shown interest in reviving Unocal’s pipeline plans because those plans would simply not pan out economically. "There is no new interest right now in the area," said Leonard Coburn, Director of the Office of Newly Independent States, Russian and Middle Eastern Affairs at the US Department of Energy. "ExxonMobil is pulling out of Turkmenistan. They didn’t find anything and they feel that they cannot operate there. Chevron Texaco has not really looked into Turkmenistan because they are pretty tied up in Pakistan and Azerbaijan,"
Although still favored by the participant countries to revive the project, Unocal Spokesperson Terry Covington says that the company does not have any plans or interest in another pipeline project through Afghanistan. She says that after the company withdrew from the CentGas consortium in 1998, they invested their capital in other parts of the world, specifically in Southeast Asia.
.
.
.
In the end, Afghanistan’s pipeline dreams may hinge on simple economics. But even if the political situations in the region could be worked out, many analysts say the pipeline’s rate of return would not be very high. "A large multinational company would get maybe a 15 to 20 percent return. This is not much compared to the geo-political risk involved," said Hurst Groves, Director of Columbia University’s Center for Energy Studies.
|
Well, now that we went through that entire mess of a war, spent billions to wage the war, spending billions in reconstruction after the war, we've finally achieved our ultimate objectives! We can now build that pipeline that's going to be none too profitable. There should be a million American companies vying to build it right, right? Shell, Texaco, Exxon? You guys don't want it? Unocal, not even you??? That doesn't seem like a very cost-effective war.
| quote: |
Dude, read your posts and then listen to yourself. You obviously have your mind made up that nothing is at all awry in this current situation, that everything is hunky-dory. Do you seriously believe that there is no shadow government, no unlisted alphabet agencies with deeply penetrating spy-networks vested with oil and military industrial interests? Take your head out of the sand because no matter how hard you try, denying it won't make it go away.
|
So simply because I have yet to see convincing proof or rational to back up the theory, my disagreement with it shows that I obviously have my mind made up about everything and my head is buried in the sand? :rolleyes:
| quote: |
So you're saying that since the trilateral agreement to have oil and gas pipelines was nullified, that we will no longer attempt to exert pressure to control our oil and gas interests in the region?
Sure it was a victory for those three countries, they will undoubtedly make out very well thanks to our strong reliance on their fossil fuel reserves. However, I don't see how OUR policies will have any positive effect on THEM. They never seem to work in others' favor, only ours.
We may as well give a no-bid contract to the Wackenhut Corporation to guard the pipeline while we're at it. Our puppet government shouldn't mind because they'll be acting dutifully by embracing it.
|
I don't think I understand the point you're trying to make. The DEMAND for the natural gas was coming from india:
| quote: |
Moreover, demand for trans-Afghan gas would probably only come from India – itself a tough market to gauge. Pakistan has developed enough internal gas reserves to remain self-sufficient until 2025, said Julian Lee, Senior Analyst for the Centre of Global Energy Studies in London. Pakistan’s reliance on imported oil could boost the trans-Afghanistan pipeline, but underlying power struggles between Pakistan and Afghanistan are still a major barrier for a pipeline partnership.
|
So let's sum things up, India benefits because the natural gas from the pipeline flows to India. Afghanistan benefits because they earn transit revenue from the pipeline. Turkmenistan benefits because they are selling the natural gas. And whatever company builds the pipeline benefits because they get paid a crap load of money to build it. All the US companies are hesistant to back the deal because they already committed their resources elsewhere. Therefore the consortium is struggling to find a major energy corporation to back the pipeline deal. Meanwhile, the US is spending, not earning, billions by maintaining our presence in Afghanistan. Once again I'm trying to conduct a cost-benefit analyis of the entire situation and it always comes up negative.
| 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.
|
No we did it to benefit the company that was going to build the pipeline. After the collapse of the deal, that company spent money and resources elsewhere.
| quote: |
It's always about the money.
|
Which is kind of going against your case since it appears we are losing a lot more money than we are gaining from this entire affair.
| quote: |
How come you don't seem to question at all why we would be trying so hard to secure Afghanistan in the first place? You seem so certain yet you don't seem to want to investigate any further than BBC or CNN.
|
Like I said before, to benefit an energy company interested in funding the construction of a pipeline. That interest was lost, and the company moved on to fund other projects. And I don't seem to want to investigate any further than BBC, CNN, Reuters, and the economist because they are reliable news agencies that maintain some semblance of impartial balance. More so than any .org site.
| quote: |
It's said that the Afghan pipeline deal could be yielding 120 billion cubic meters of gas a year by the year 2010. You're saying that this is worth only "millions" of dollars? LMAO.
|
$2.9 billion project (from your source). 15-20% return on investment (my source) = $580 million dollars. Now factor in things such as risk assessment and you have a potentially much lower number.
| quote: |
from your own link:
Reconstructing
Afghanistan plans to build a road linking Turkmenistan with Pakistan parallel to the pipeline, to supply nearby villages with gas, and also to pump Afghan gas for export, Mr Razim said.
The government would also earn transit fees from the export of gas and oil and hoped to take over ownership of the pipeline after 30 years, he said.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/1984459.stm
You're failing to see the forest for the trees.
|
Yes the AFGHAN government.
| quote: |
LOL. You just make it seem like we're only there for the right reasons, that's all. |
Simply because I don't believe in this particular conspiracy theory (because I have looked into it and studied it very thoroughly) doesn't mean that I think that the government never has alterior motives for its actions.
| quote: |
I'd call it a heated debate.
|
Hehe hardly heated. This debate is very mild compared to some of the "debates" that go on in these forums heh.
And my reply to any response you may have must now wait until Monday because it's time to go back to DC and consume alcohol in copious amounts.
Cheers! |
|
|
| Yoepus |
| hippie... i smell hippie!.... :( |
|
|
| MrSquirrel |
| quote: | Originally posted by Trancer-X
The sheep-like masses that consider the news unbiased? LMAO.
As far as the thread, that's why you're a squirrel and not a moderator.
Now go find yourself an acorn you narrow-minded rodent. |
I never said the news was unbiased. The BBC has a bias, yes. But what the BBC does tha tfew if any American news sources do is attempt in most cases to present both sides of the story.
I am not a moderator because no one has asked me to be one. I have also only been frequenting these boards for a little over a month so I would not expect to be one. It is a lot of work and I am not sure I would want to be one if asked.
As to being narrow minded, well I am not going to argue the point with you. You are welcome to your opinions. But seeing as my comments were directed solely at occrider (whose sig btw is not pro-war....I made it and all I did was grab a goofy Sahaf picture off the web and add some text, it was originally intended as a joke inside of another thread). Your attacks at me based on a comment not concerning or directed at you is, in my opinion, unfounded.
MrS |
|
|
| Trancer-X |
| It just sounds like a case of failed foreign policy to me Mr. Squirrel. |
|
|
| Trancer-X |
| quote: | Originally posted by Trancer-X
Brief snippet from the 1999 Silk Road Strategy Act:
SEC. 3. POLICY OF THE UNITED STATES.
It shall be the policy of the United States in the countries of the South Caucasus and Central Asia--
(1) to promote and strengthen independence, sovereignty, democratic government, and respect for human rights;
(2) to promote tolerance, pluralism, and understanding and counter racism and anti-Semitism;
(3) to assist actively in the resolution of regional conflicts and to facilitate the removal of impediments to cross-border commerce;
(4) to promote friendly relations and economic cooperation;
(5) to help promote market-oriented principles and practices;
(6) to assist in the development of the infrastructure necessary for communications, transportation, education, health, and energy and trade on an East-West axis in order to build strong international relations and commerce between those countries and the stable, democratic, and market-oriented countries of the Euro-Atlantic Community; and
(7) to support United States business interests and investments in the region.
|
As an afterthought, I should have bolded #3 as well!
(3) to assist actively in the resolution of regional conflicts and to facilitate the removal of impediments to cross-border commerce; |
|
|
|
|
