Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 9/25/2002 10:38:52 PM EDT
Ok, I am a little pissed off. I just got off some investment board, where a lot of people think we're invading Iraq to seize its oil. Dumb. But others say we contrived the whole 9/11 attack as a pretext to invade Afghanistan and build a pipeline though it for the oil companies. Now, I hear a lot of retarded crap from leftists, but this is perhaps the dumbest I have ever heard. Not many people have the cash on hand to build a multi billion dollar project like a pipeline from Kazahkstan to the Arabian Gulf. You need to borrow a lot of money for a project like that. Now if you were a banker, would you loan money to build a pipeline through Afghanistan, a lawless country america just bombed, where any man can get himself some anti-tank weapons? If you were an insurance company, would you insure an asset like that? If you were a contractor, what kind of premium would you and your workers demand for working in an environment like that? I live in Alaska, where the pipeline company has to cope with jackasses shooting the pipeline with magnum rifles or plotting to blow it up to help their oil futures speculation. Imagine the security complications in AFGHANISTAN! In summary, leftists are stupid, and this war with Iraq is not about oil.
Link Posted: 9/25/2002 10:51:21 PM EDT
Link Posted: 9/25/2002 11:18:11 PM EDT
Sounds like the democrapic underground board.
Link Posted: 9/25/2002 11:31:26 PM EDT
I've seen this theory there, but this was on a Yahoo investment message board. Not as if that's a credible forum, but it was surprising to see that belief held besides anarchist/greenie activists.
Link Posted: 9/25/2002 11:51:51 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/25/2002 11:52:11 PM EDT by smarty_pants]
Originally Posted By raven: In summary, leftists are stupid, and this war with Iraq is not about oil
View Quote
Thats just the way it is with the truth,dumb people don't see it.
Link Posted: 9/26/2002 12:35:35 AM EDT
Q:How are we supposed to get Oil from Russia to the coast? A:Build a pipeline through Afghanistan!!!!! See were done with the Saudi's and OPEC,The Russians will sell us oil alot cheaper,why do you think GWB and Putin are so close. I dont think 9/11 was a conspiracy by our goverment,but i do think it was the straw that broke the camels back as far as our relationship with the Saudi's go. After all most of the hijackers were Saudi's. If this comes about the way i think it will I wonder if them Muslim's can eat that oil?
Link Posted: 9/26/2002 12:49:22 AM EDT
Uh, read my initial post about why that isn't a good idea.
Link Posted: 9/26/2002 12:56:31 AM EDT
I read a history of the 1973 Arab-Israeli war that claimed even during the fighting in the Golan Heights, the pipelines in the area never shutdown. They were not damaged. Shooting at the Alaska pipeline, huh? Thanks for making our lives more difficult, assholes.
Link Posted: 9/26/2002 2:02:25 AM EDT
I too don't think anything like this would be done by private entrepreneurs. However, it is possible that the US government could be conned into doing such a thing. Such a project would be a pork-barrel project of almost unbelievable proportions. It would also side-step your concerns because the massive economic losses would be covered by the taxpayers and not by someone who's job and money is on the line.
Link Posted: 9/26/2002 2:42:43 AM EDT
Well, a war with Iraq is ultimately about oil, but what the heck is wrong with that? Iraq serves as a counterbalance to Iranian power and ambitions, but Iraq's leader is too unstable to be trusted, and wants weapons that we really can't trust anyone in the region without a stable secular government to possess. If the Middle East is unstable, oil prices will skyrocket or oil may even become unavailable or at least scarce. This would cripple the world economy and our own, and despite the sentiments of isolationists, if Europe and Asia are in the economic toilet, there is nobody to buy our goods and services and our economy goes in the toilet, too. It is in everyone's best interests for the Gulf region to be stable, peaceful, and involved in normal commerce with the rest of the world. That means Iraq needs to go. The bad news is that we have to replace it with something, and over the short and long terms, that will mean American troops. Iran better watch it, or they are next. Same with Syria. The larger issue is the unstable religious doctrine of fundamental Islam and its clash with modern Western culture. Modern Western culture is stable, competitive and successful, owing in large part to secular governments, meritocracy and competitiveness that fosters beneficial change and rewards success. The middle East (except for Israel and to a lesser extent Turkey) is dominated by unsuccessful clan-based governments who are locked in to unsuccessful operating modes by hundreds of years of religion and culture. The latest attacks against the US (and Israel) are the products of that inability to compete. They cannot build, so they choose to destroy. The ultimate outcome of this will be: 1) the eradication of religious, unstable government in the middle east and its replacement with secular, modernized governments; 2) The eventual development of substitutes for oil and the isolation and containment of the middle east; 3) A drastic lessening of the power, influence and economic health of the US (and Europe) in the world and the eventual creation of a dangerous, unstable Islamic "superpower" with the human capital and purchased technology to wreck the rest of the world. I think #1 is the best outcome, but we have to have testicular fortitude and be ready for the long haul to win (which is hard when you have four-year election cycles). Maybe #3 will prove Marx partially right when he said that the capitalists will sell their enemies the rope that they use to hang them. Look at the idiot French; they'll sell advanced weapons to anyone tall enough to peer over the bar. Even the Soviets weren't that stupid; they at least sold dumbed-down "monkey models" of weapons to the middle east that weren't as capable as the real thing.
Link Posted: 9/26/2002 3:23:11 AM EDT
Fact of the matter is, the US was negotiating with Taliban to build a pipeline. Talks broke down in the spring of 2001. Construction will probably begin in less than a year, there's talk of running it all the way to India. Oil is also a consideration in invading Iraq... Also, the US will have a higher profile in east Africa in it's quest for oil, look for some new military bases to be built there...
Link Posted: 9/26/2002 3:25:46 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/26/2002 3:49:50 AM EDT by mr_wilson]
[b]But others say we contrived the whole 9/11 attack as a pretext to invade Afghanistan and build a pipeline though it for the oil companies.[/b] UNOCAL and others have/were courting the Taliban (which if you do your research you'll find that the US infact founded the Taliban via CIA connections in the Pakistani ISI, which it also founded) to build this pipeline quite a few years ago. Jane's Defense Weekly, the India Times and several papers of the Pakistani press ran articles in March/June and July of 2001 stating the facts that US-Taliban relations were unsuccessful in their dealings and attempts to get this pipeline project rolling. All three sources listed above ran articles stating that the US would be on the ground and enguaged w/ Taliban in October 2001, bombing them into submission was mentioned. Anyone familiar w/ miltary operations knows that actions like those taken by US forces in Afganistan do not spring from thin air and require massive amounts of planning and pre-employment of manpower and support. These types of operations were planned months in advance of 9/11. Read [b]"The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives"[/b] by Zbigniew K. Brzezinski for an overview of US foreign policy in this area of the world. 9/11 was the trigger, not saying that 9/11 was our doing, but when one takes the time to research the involvement of OBL (one time US CIA asset), our support for the Taliban under the Clinton administration and payments by Pakistani ISI (as stated above "a creation of the CIA") top officials to Mohamed Atta and other hijackers one will come away with the distinct impression that pre-knowledge of 9/11 is a foregone conclusion. Oil in this area of the world and who ultimately will control the rights to this oil IS definately a factor in our actions. There can be no other conclusion when you look at the big picture. Your comments about the dangers of pipeline construction in a "lawless country" are dead on and the reason the oligarchs controlling our country replaced them (the Taliban) with the current choice for leader of Afganistan Hamid Karzai, who was a UNOCAL employee and primary front-man in negotiations w/ the Taliban for construction of the pipeline. Mike
Link Posted: 9/26/2002 4:24:23 AM EDT
Gee, [b]Mr_Wilson[/b], is that the same Zbigniew Brzezinski that was the National Security Advisor to that 'failure of foreign policy' President Jimmy Carter? The same NSA that failed to see the fall of the Shah of Iran? Or the rise of Islamic fundamentalism in Iran and the Middle East? The same NSA chief who failed to see the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan? The same one who told everyone who would listen that a strong Soviet Union was a fact that the West needed to get used to? In his book, [b]Between Two Ages[/b] (Viking Press, New York, 1970), this same Brzezinski claimed that mankind has been moving through great stages of evolution. He believed that we are now in the final stages -- a time when a "new fabric of international relations" is emerging. The first stage, Brzezinski asserts, revolved around religion. This provided for the "acceptance of the idea that man's destiny is essentially in God's hands". This "primitive" concept demonstrates "a narrowness derived from massive ignorance, illiteracy and a vision confined to the immediate environment". The second stage, he claimed, was nationalism. This "marked another giant step in the progressive redefinition of man's nature and place in the world". The third step was Marxism which "represents a further and vital creative stage in the maturing of man's universal vision". Marxism, he claimed, is "simultaneously a victory of the external, creative man over the inner passive man and a victory of reason over belief". Now, granted, that is what he wrote in 1970, at age 42. Hardly the age of youthful exhuberance! A victory of reason over belief? So keep on reading that Bullshit about plots and subplots over oil prices etc. The Gulf War, as we are constantly told, was a war simply to artificially bolster the price of oil on the world market, to keep Pres. Bush's friends and political cronies in easy cash. So, how is it that the Gulf War reduced oil prices for almost a decade? Some rather [u]bad[/u] planning, I would think, on the part of the Rothschilds, the Bilderbergers, and the New World Order folks, eh? Eric The(Stunned)Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 9/26/2002 4:34:59 AM EDT
ETH has it exactly right. Actually, war over oil is a proper action on our part. IMHO the vermin declared war on US in 1973 and we have failed to respond properly since then! If we do the RIGHT thing in Iraq, which is unlikely, we will occupy the place and rapidly pump their oil at prices BELOW the cost of production; $9.00 a barrel comes to mind. That can win the 1973 war declared by OPEC, a terrorist organization, AND break the Saudis economy. I prefer a military attack on Saudi but economic destruction is a good second choice.
Link Posted: 9/26/2002 5:04:05 AM EDT
Yes it is the very same jerk. Wasn't aware that I was making a statement pro or con about Brzezinski only suggesting a resource which might aid in indentifying aims of the oligarchy controling our country. Per your typical tactic of ignoring what I wrote and taking off on some abstract tangent, you have completely missed the point of my post. I said nothing relating to the Rothschilds, the Bilderbergers, and the New World Order folks which is just another attempt at deflection of the topic, however were I to engage in a naming of folks responsible for the directions our country has taken I'd probably be naming names like Brown Brothers Harriman, George "Bert" Walker, Prescott Bush, John Foster Dulles, William Stamps Farish, John D. Rockefeller, Jr., Fritz Thyssen, Gordon Gray and others all connected with the past and present administrations. All which is off the topic of this post. My mom always told me "if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all" and I have nothing to say about you or your insults. Mike
Link Posted: 9/26/2002 5:11:17 AM EDT
Mr Wilson, if you truly believe that the "US government" (as if that has any meaning in this context with so many different agencies and branches of government involved) knew the details of the 9-11 attacks beforehand and didn't prevent them in order to stabilize Afghanistan to facilitate the building of a pipeline, you are a fool. Nothing stays secret for long...people in the government know that. We see it proven every day. The politicians KNOW that. I know some people here think there are myriad conspiracies being played out everywhere you look but history proves that to be a very unrealistic view.
Link Posted: 9/26/2002 5:25:29 AM EDT
[b]Hopefully, the pipeline will be built.[/b] I believe we need a permanent presence in Central Asia and the pipeline would insure that we remain as a stabilizing force in that region. The "stans" would profit, Afghanistan would profit and we would profit. [b]For a nation of capitalist, this seem to be good business - at least to me.[/b] (Sooner or later someone will point out that China would also benefit. Anything that enhances the world's supply of oil helps us all.)
Link Posted: 9/26/2002 5:30:17 AM EDT
[size=6]ANWR[/size=6] Afghani National Wildlife Reserve ?? Stop the pipelines...for our children[:D]
Link Posted: 9/26/2002 5:44:35 AM EDT
Originally Posted By ELEFTARIA: [size=6]ANWR[/size=6] Afghani National Wildlife Reserve ?? Stop the pipelines...for our children[:D]
View Quote
[:D]
Link Posted: 9/26/2002 6:03:30 AM EDT
Post from Mr_Wilson -
Yes it is the very same jerk. Wasn't aware that I was making a statement pro or con about Brzezinski only suggesting a resource which might aid in indentifying aims of the oligarchy controling our country.
View Quote
Well, what makes you think he's any more correct on the particulars of the 'oligarchy controlling our country'? I mean, fercryingoutloud, this man was a Marxist in 1970, at age 42! Do you know anyone at all, who you would trust, that was a Marxist at age 42? So, how can you rely on [u]him[/u] for [u]any[/u] information whatsoever? But you have! You listen to what he says and you ask us to believe what he has written! Thanks, but no thanks! My Mom also taught me some good old Texas lessons, and one of them is [b]'An idiot at 42 is still an idiot 32 years later.'[/b]
Per your typical tactic of ignoring what I wrote and taking off on some abstract tangent, you have completely missed the point of my post.
View Quote
No, I think not. I just assailed your use of the writings of one man to buttress your views that the World is run by powerful men, whose world views have nothing in common with us, the poor downtrodden proletariats. The folks, such as yourself, are very adept at looking at history afterwards and explaining why the US 'won' WWII, but 'lost' Korea, how we 'won' by installing the Shah in 1952 in Iran, but 'lost' when the Shah was deposed in 1979, how we 'won' the Gulf War, but how we will 'lose' the War on Terrorism.... Are you beginning to see a pattern? I am willing to bet the farm that you do [u]not[/u].
I said nothing relating to the Rothschilds, the Bilderbergers, and the New World Order folks which is just another attempt at deflection of the topic, however were I to engage in a naming of folks responsible for the directions our country has taken I'd probably be naming names like Brown Brothers Harriman, George "Bert" Walker, Prescott Bush, John Foster Dulles, William Stamps Farish, John D. Rockefeller, Jr., Fritz Thyssen, Gordon Gray and others all connected with the past and present administrations. All which is off the topic of this post.
View Quote
No, such drivel is not 'off topic' on this thread. You firmly believe that there is an invisible group of folks are responsible for world history. A group of powerful men who turn every blessed event in the history of the world into a finely tuned and planned work of black art by a master group of magi! This group of men, whether it's Illuminati, Masons, Jews, European Ueber Capitalists, CFR, Trilateral Commission members, whatever, are so in control of the world that their slightest whim becomes inevitable. [b]Balderdash![/b] If the thread is so obvious, then from your reading of the history of the 'oligarchy' that controls this country, what is going to happen in Iraq? Will the UN succeed in making Iraq yield to its inspection teams? Will force be necessary? Will the US have any allies in a coalition against Iraq? Will oil prices shoot up and stay up in the event of a US-led invasion of Iraq? Will oil prices tumble after a US-led invasion? Will Saddam finally be toppled? What form of government will replace the Baath Party dictatorship? If there is any, and I mean any at all, facts behind your views on this subject, you and the others should be able to predict in advance what the outcome will be that most complies with the desires of the 'oligarchy.' But you must do it in advance, and not afterwards. There is nothing that disgusts me more than the John Birch Society's propensity to view all history with 20/20 hindsight and yet claim 'There's an invisible government that is running the world' [u]without[/u] being able to correctly forecast what that government would do in any given situation! Let's see if [u]you[/u] can do better! You can teach this old Hun a great lesson and give him a little good old comeuppance, if you'd just give us your predictions of what will occur over the next six months in Iraq. I mean, it can't be that difficult to do. Like Z. Brezhinski was able to predict the collapse of the Soviet Union.....NOT!
I have nothing to say about you or your insults.
View Quote
So it's an insult to question your sources? That's odd, you should be the very first one to question your own sources prior to putting them out for us to read! Eric The(ThinkAboutThat!)Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 9/26/2002 6:09:53 AM EDT
How do I get an "Invisible Government" job. I mean, the perks must be pretty sweet! [;)]
Link Posted: 9/26/2002 6:23:49 AM EDT
Originally Posted By RikWriter: Mr Wilson, if you truly believe that the "US government" (as if that has any meaning in this context with so many different agencies and branches of government involved) knew the details of the 9-11 attacks beforehand and didn't prevent them in order to stabilize Afghanistan to facilitate the building of a pipeline, you are a fool.
View Quote
RikWriter: In Mr Wilson's post, where did he advocate that the government was aware of 9-11 attacks beforehand? Have I missed something? He referred to the belief of conspiracy theorists that the 'government' was responsible, however he goes on to state his belief that the government had no involvement and the event was simply triggered a response from the US.
Link Posted: 9/26/2002 7:02:56 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/26/2002 7:06:14 AM EDT by 9divdoc]
Three elements rule over human history God , human flesh, and the devil... The hidden hand is the law of supply and demand... The first human conspiracy was the tower of bable...the rest have ultimately fared just about as well... Oil from Russia vs oil from OPEC....hmmm tough choice..anything that pulls OPECs fangs is a good deal...and DEFUNDS ISLAMIC TERRORISTS...and isnt that what the war is all about...ridding us of the bastards who killed our people 09/11 We should be very gratefull GW Bush is our Prez and Cheney the VP.... These are oil guys...and Islamic terror draws its strength from oil and our need for it... Who better to deal with these dinks than oil men who are loyal Americans..they know the business and they know the arab world.. Imagine the bride of Belzabubba or Bohdezophi algore running things.... Never Forget...
Link Posted: 9/26/2002 7:08:08 AM EDT
Originally Posted By talbalos: RikWriter: In Mr Wilson's post, where did he advocate that the government was aware of 9-11 attacks beforehand?
View Quote
That would be here: "9/11 was the trigger, not saying that 9/11 was our doing, but when one takes the time to research the involvement of OBL (one time US CIA asset), our support for the Taliban under the Clinton administration and payments by Pakistani ISI (as stated above "a creation of the CIA") top officials to Mohamed Atta and other hijackers one will come away with the distinct impression that pre-knowledge of 9/11 is a foregone conclusion." Happy to be of help.
Link Posted: 9/26/2002 7:19:36 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/26/2002 7:44:26 AM EDT by hound]
Once again rikky and eth take the stage when anyone talks bad about their angel---shrub---Rik first----Rik as it has been said many time, just because you pay a man, doesn't mean you are involved in his actions right...that's what everybody tells me about Saudi and the terrorists.....and everything he said can be proven, By you, if you choose to look it up and not blindly attack him. And now to Eric......are you honestly going to sit there and say that "there are no conspiracies" Just look at American history, there are more than enough examples...let me give you a few from our recent past....Tyson foods, BCCI, Waco, And as far as Afghani oil....ya gotta be kiddin'...that war weren't about oil........try poppies......
Link Posted: 9/26/2002 7:59:58 AM EDT
hound, I would sit down and tear apart your response, but frankly you write so poorly it simply isn't worth the time to parse it out.
Link Posted: 9/26/2002 10:08:35 AM EDT
Eric , I don’t ask anyone to believe what he says, I read to learn and in some instances some of what I read I don’t believe or agree with, but there are inferences which can be drawn. The Grand Chessboard from what I gathered from it does have validity in that is describes the importance of Euro-Asia from a natural resources point of view and to some extent the view of those who think their better that us common folk. Taken in conjunction with other books and topics it does provide some insight into how the oligarchy view the world’s resources and it is my opinion that they are attempting to control those resources. While, as an American, I understand and support securing those resources, I do have problems w/ the manner of deceit (to the US public) and genocide (on the INNOCENT civilian population of Afghanistan) used to accomplish this endeavor. [b] The folks, such as yourself, are very adept at looking at history afterwards and explaining why the US 'won' WWII, but 'lost' Korea, how we 'won' by installing the Shah in 1952 in Iran, but 'lost' when the Shah was deposed in 1979, how we 'won' the Gulf War, but how we will 'lose' the War on Terrorism.... Are you beginning to see a pattern? I am willing to bet the farm that you do not.[/b] You are possibly correct here for if there’s one thing I do know it’s that I don’t know everything; could it have possibly had anything to do with the exiling of MacArthur to the old folks home. Or could it be related to the fact that the War on Terrorism is in fact not a war on terrorism at all, but another attempt by the oligarchy at reducing the numbers of non-white populations of the world while at the same time securing the natural resources that will allow them to maintain financial control of our planet. [b] You firmly believe that there is an invisible group of folks are responsible for world history. A group of powerful men who turn every blessed event in the history of the world into a finely tuned and planned work of black art by a master group of magi![/b] No I don’t, but when one learns that the war my father and uncle fought in (WWII) was predicated on the lie of Pearl Harbor or that former President Bush was a business partner of Sadam Hussien and that they spilt oil profits from our previous engagement, which itself was predicated on the lie our own government told Sadam , “that the US wouldn’t care if he dealt w/ Kuwait” I tend to wonder ”what in the hell is going on in this country”. On one hand we tell him, it’s no big deal then turn around and kick the shit out of him, [b]but don’t finish the job[/b]. Sheesh, it’s no wonder I can’t figure things out, they don’t want us peons too. I learned an interesting thing about oligarchy recently, from [b]”George Bush, The Un-Authorized Biography”[/b] and that was: [red]"For oligarchs like Bush are well aware that there are only two ways to organize human affairs, namely the republican and the oligarchical modes. The republican mode depends upon the presence of citizens-- well educated, technology-oriented, mature, and courageous people who are willing to think for themselves. Oligarchical forms function best in the presence of a culturally pessimistic, hedonist, supersititious mass of passive witnesses to the passing scene".[/red] I want to be governed by leaders who respect us as citizens not played with as if I was a subject. As to your remaining questions, how in the heck is a dumb old country boy from East Texas supposed to know any of that, hell, I’m just as confused as the rest of folk around here. I tend to treat people the way I’d like to be treated, just the way I was brought up. I believe that government is or was supposed to be subservient to the PEOPLE. IT’S NOT! I work for a living and most certainly don’t have all the answers, but I try not be stupid either (most of the time, which in it’s self is a full time job), so I say to Bush and those behind him, whoever or wherever, [b]”Don’t piss down my back and tell me its raining”[/b]. You insult people around here all the time, you called one guy an a-hole yesterday, because he had the gall to insinuate that W wasn’t a good student. To the best of my knowledge he wasn’t that different than “Poppy” who against most norms managed to get a 4 year degree from Yale in 2.5 years, or became the youngest Naval Aviator (at age 18) in the country, by NOT having to have 2 years of college, because of his Daddy’s (Prescott) connections. Those kinds of things are not right, I don’t care how many billion your daddy has, It’s not right. They aren’t the privileged and don’t have the right to make decisions for you and me, they (those in government) work for us! Sorry to delay, but had to wait for lunch to get time to respond, Mike
Link Posted: 9/26/2002 10:45:42 AM EDT
Thanks once again to rikky for showing up to a gunfight with bubblegum. You know you got nothing and you can't respond to my badly wriiten arguments......later boyee
Link Posted: 9/26/2002 12:39:18 PM EDT
Originally Posted By hound: Thanks once again to rikky for showing up to a gunfight with bubblegum. You know you got nothing and you can't respond to my badly wriiten arguments......later boyee
View Quote
I've already responded to your badly written arguments when they were presented in a coherent manner by your betters.
Link Posted: 9/26/2002 5:22:17 PM EDT
Originally Posted By RikWriter:... Nothing stays secret for long...people in the government know that. We see it proven every day. The politicians KNOW that. I know some people here think there are myriad conspiracies being played out everywhere you look but history proves that to be a very unrealistic view.
View Quote
What? Nothing stays secret? Roswell, Vulcans in Carbon Creek, JFK Assassination, MLK Assassination, 9/11? [:D]
Link Posted: 9/26/2002 6:38:03 PM EDT
What conspiracies? What about Roswell? No aliens crashed there, even the farmer who found the debris said the stuff couldn't have weighed more than five pounds and the UFO conspiracy didn't pick up until the 1970's after the farmer was dead and no one can ask him. JFK? I am concerned at the number of people who believe in a conspiracy. All of the evidence points to Oswald, even his wife says he did it and the "evidence" that points to a conspriacy has been largely disproven. MLK assasination? I wasn't even aware of a conspiacy theory surronding him, James Earl Ray made so much sense, more sense than any other thing I can think of. Can you honestly say that you think 9/11 was a conspiracy? That someone just sat on the knowledge that 3,000 people were going to die? Come on, not everything has to be a conspiracy.
Link Posted: 9/26/2002 7:02:18 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/26/2002 7:07:15 PM EDT by pdxshooter]
Originally Posted By guardian855: What conspiracies? What about Roswell? No aliens crashed there, even the farmer who found the debris said the stuff couldn't have weighed more than five pounds and the UFO conspiracy didn't pick up until the 1970's after the farmer was dead and no one can ask him. JFK? I am concerned at the number of people who believe in a conspiracy. All of the evidence points to Oswald, even his wife says he did it and the "evidence" that points to a conspriacy has been largely disproven. MLK assasination? I wasn't even aware of a conspiacy theory surronding him, James Earl Ray made so much sense, more sense than any other thing I can think of. Can you honestly say that you think 9/11 was a conspiracy? That someone just sat on the knowledge that 3,000 people were going to die? Come on, not everything has to be a conspiracy.
View Quote
Right. So what's your point? Besides, you didn't have a retort about the Vulcans so why should I believe the rest of your supposed answers? Now excuse me while I adjust my custom fitted tin foil hat... [;)]
Link Posted: 9/26/2002 7:09:52 PM EDT
oops, my bad. I didn't detect the sarcasm. I guess I will stop trying to look up the vulcan incident on the web, laugh.
Link Posted: 9/26/2002 7:11:53 PM EDT
Well yeah, Iraq's behavior IS providing a convinenet excuse for setting up a puppet government. One that will break up OPEC and introduce democracy to the region. But that is also the only way we are going to get to end the problem of Islamic exreamism. Saudi Arabia is probably more to blame but Iraq is vulnerable. Once we are in Iraq it will be much easier to turn out Saudi Arabia through subversion and economic warfare.
Link Posted: 9/26/2002 8:07:04 PM EDT
Pipeline thru Afganistan? That is nuts. It would have to cross three massive mountain ranges, and two very unstable nations (Afganistan and Pakistan). And where does the oil end up? On the Indian Ocean on the opposite side of the earth from the USA and Europe. The real pipelines are already being built, and they will bring the oil down to the Black Sea, much closer to Europe and the USA. I am beginning to tire of these conspiracy nuts. From what I can tell Iraq's oil reserves are overstated. Back in the 1980s Iraq officially doubled their reserves, but they only did this on paper, not in the field, because they wanted to get a bigger OPEC production quota. I wonder if their oil reserves and production are much higher than Kuwaits? GunLvr
Link Posted: 9/26/2002 8:14:21 PM EDT
Iraqs oil reserves are not the point. They were, at one time, the 2nd largest producer before wars and embargos cut in. How many years they can keep pumping are less relevant than that they will pump all they can and depress prices.
Link Posted: 9/27/2002 5:54:37 AM EDT
They were only marginally the second largest producer in 1989, and they produce almost as much oil today as they did pre-Gulf War. And right now, Iran, Mexico, the US, Norway, and Venezuela all produce more oil than Iraq and more than Iraq produced before the Gulf War. Kuwait and the UAE are both in about the same ballpark as Iraqi production. GunLvr
Link Posted: 9/29/2002 6:44:22 AM EDT
Originally Posted By GunLvrPHD: Pipeline thru Afganistan? That is nuts. It would have to cross three massive mountain ranges, and two very unstable nations (Afganistan and Pakistan). And where does the oil end up? On the Indian Ocean on the opposite side of the earth from the USA and Europe. The real pipelines are already being built, and they will bring the oil down to the Black Sea, much closer to Europe and the USA. I am beginning to tire of these conspiracy nuts........ GunLvr
View Quote
Ummmmm, let's see...Who's nuts?? [url]http://www.oilandgasinternational.com/departments/from_editor/10_29_01.html[/url]
From the Editor Unocal & Afghanistan (10/29/01) There can be no doubt that the tragic terrorist attack on New York City and Washington requires apprehension and bringing to justice those responsible. They and their organization were in all likelihood led by the terrorist linchpin Osama bin Laden, who is harbored in Afghanistan, from which he is believed to have directed, trained, and financed this and other terrorist acts. And there can be no question that the Taliban rulers of Afghanistan are aiding and abetting him and his al-Qaida organization. But, despite how much this terrorist and his henchmen and the Taliban themselves are despised by most of the civilized world and the majority of Afghans themselves, can that be a justification for the present bombing of the country and soaring number of innocent casualties? Or, as is being said throughout the Middle East, is there an ulterior motive? Is it to put another regime in power that may be more favorable to the West? Author Ahmed Rashid has revealed that since 1995, Unocal has sought to build US$1.9 billion, 790-mile oil and gas pipelines from the 25 Tcf Dauletabad Field in Turkmenistan across Afghanistan to Pakistani ports on the Arabian Sea as an alternate route for transporting Caspian region oil and gas to the enormous Indian subcontinent markets and perhaps beyond to Southeast Asia. But, Rashid points out, this requires an agreeable administration in Afghanistan, which the Taliban no longer is. Unocal tried courting Taliban leaders after they took Kabul in 1996, taking them to Houston, where they were treated royally. They were offered US$.15 per 1000 cf of gas that passed through Afghanistan, and they agreed after US Assistant Secretary of State Robin Raphael lobbied them for the Unocal pipeline. During their first year running the country. The Taliban were unopposed by the US government. Rashid says in 1997, he was told by an American diplomat, "The Taliban will probably develop like the Saudis did. There will be Aramco, pipelines, an emir, no parliament, and lots of Sharia law. We can live with that." But when the Taliban began to enforce strict sharia edicts, particularly against women, policies began to change. Nevertheless, Rashid says, Unocal told a 1998 US congressional hearing that Asian energy demands and the sanctions against Iran made Afghanistan "the only other possible route" for its proposed million b/d pipeline, but when the Taliban demanded more than the $100 million a year in rent for the pipeline route in the form of the construction of roads, water supplies, telephone lines, and electricity power lines, as well as a tap in the pipeline to provide oil and gas for Afghanistan, Unocal balked, and finally dropped its plans after the East Africa embassy bombings. The US Energy Information Agency says, "Afghanistan's significance from an energy standpoint stems from its geographical position as a potential transit route for oil and natural gas exports from Central Asia to the Arabian Sea. This potential includes the possible construction of oil and natural gas export pipelines through Afghanistan." If the Taliban is overthrown, terrorism may take a major blow, but in doing so, the primary stumbling block to the Caspian-Pakistan pipeline will also be removed. In the Middle East, where oil has always dominated political decisions, this is the rationale for the US-led strike against Afghanistan. The question is asked, if bin Laden were still in Saudi Arabia, would the same punishment be given that country?
View Quote
You have a PHD eh?? Might be a good idea to check the FACTS before insulting people...or making your self a fool...
Link Posted: 9/29/2002 7:18:36 AM EDT
Youse guys are missing the whole point! That's the real question, isn't it -- "Why?" -- the "how" is just "scenery" for the suckers . . . Bush, OBL, Reno, Clinton, Shapiro, OJ, the orkin man... it keeps people [i]guessing[/i] like a parlor game, but it [b]prevents[/b] them from asking the [size=2]most important question[/size=2] -- Why? Why was the pipeline important? Who benefited? Who has the power to cover it up? [:)]
Link Posted: 9/29/2002 7:25:10 AM EDT
chuckles hehehehe-hohohohahahaha [:D]
Link Posted: 9/29/2002 7:37:22 AM EDT
Another..... [url]http://www.zmag.org/tanteroil.htm[/url]
Richard Tanter Oil and gas are not the reason the US has attacked Afghanistan, but Afghanistan has long had a key place in US plans to secure control of the vast but landlocked oil and gas reserves of Central Asia. Though the primary US motivation is to destroy Osama bin Laden’s sanctuary in Afghanistan, another, rather more pecuniary objective is also on the agenda, particularly in the search for an alternative government in Kabul. With the Taliban out of Kabul and the search for a new Afghan government on center stage, one criterion on Washington’s mind will be how best to make Afghanistan safe for a couple of billion-dollar pipeline investments. In the case of the great natural gas and oil fields of Turkmenistan, immediately north of Afghanistan, the US government has for a decade strongly supported plans by US-led business groups for both an oil pipeline from Turkmenistan to the Arabian sea via Afghanistan and a gas pipeline from Turkmenistan across Afghanistan to Pakistan. Such pipelines would serve important US interests in a number of ways: l drawing the Central Asian oil states away from the Russian sphere of influence and establishing the foundation for a strong US position l thwarting the development of Iranian regional influence by limiting Turkmenistan-Iranian gas links and thwarting a plan for a Turkmenistan-Iran oil pipeline to the Arabian Sea. l diversify US sources of oil and gas, and, by increasing production sources, help keep prices low l benefiting US oil and construction companies with growing interests in the region l providing a basis for much-needed economic prosperity in the region, which might provide a basis for political stability. For much of the 1990s the United States supported the Taliban’s rise to power, both by encouraging the involvement of US oil companies, and by implicitly tolerating Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, two of its key regional allies, in their direct financial and military support for the Taliban. The Taliban, which is committed to a particularly primitive vision of Sunni Islam, had the added advantage for the US of being deeply hostile to Shia Muslims in neighboring Iran (as well as within Afghanistan). A crucial condition for building the pipelines is political stability in Afghanistan, and for a time the US believed the Taliban could provide just that. Had it not been for the Taliban’s apparent tolerance of the former US-supported Osama bin Laden, and the Taliban’s highly visible extremely repressive attitude to women and other social issues, the US would most likely have continued its support for the Taliban, and the construction of the pipelines would have got underway in the late 90s. Certainly Iran believed that the US was behind Pakistani and Saudi support for the Taliban as part of a long-term plan to contain Iran. But as so often before, US foreign policy based on the principle of “my enemy’s enemy is my friend” helped generate the conditions that allowed the New York and Washington atrocities to be conceived. The key to Central Asian politics is economic development in Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan, all of which are amongst the poorest parts of the former Soviet Union. Most are authoritarian dictatorships of the most dismal kind. For the past ten years the US has been wooing the governments of these countries, and opening the doors for profitable investment by US companies. Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and Kazakhstan make up the eastern side of the Caspian Sea Basin, beneath which lie oil reserves to rival those of Saudi Arabia and the world’s richest reserves of natural gas. If you read the trade newspapers and websites of the world oil industry, words like “fabulous”, “huge”, “enormous” flow across the pages describing the Caspian Sea Basin gas and oil fields. But more importantly, these words go together with “undeveloped”, “isolated” and “politically unstable”. There are billions of dollars to be made there, but the possibility of realizing these fabulous profits hinges on one crucial issue: how is the gas and oil to get to its potential markets? While the countries of Central Asia may be floating on a sea of hydrocarbon, they are far from both actual seas and centres of industry. – and deep in the heart of Islam In the past the Caspian republics exported most of their oil and gas to a pipeline grid integrated into the rest of the Soviet Union/Russia. But with the collapse of the Soviet Union, the terms of trade became very sharp. In the 1990s the ex-Soviet buyers of Caspian hydrocarbons could no longer afford to pay world prices. And Gazprom, the old Soviet oil company that owned the pipelines, was selling its own oil in competition with that of the Caspian republics. In 1997, Gazprom denied Turkmenistan access to its pipelines over a payment dispute, resulting in a devastating 25% drop in the Turkmenistan GDP. The ex-Soviet Russian pipeline network itself is past its use-by date, having been sloppily built with out-of-date technology, and itself needs billions of dollars simply to renovate it. A small number of new pipelines have been built, but many more are, as they say, in the pipeline. But all have costs in the billions, and each of the possible routes from the Caspian Sea Basin – west, south, southeast and east – has very serious political difficulties. If Afghan political turmoil could be ended, there are literally billions of dollars to be made by US and Japanese companies, by the Turkmenistan, Afghan and Pakistani governments, and one key element of US planning for Central Asian regional hegemony would be achieved. The Northern Route: from the Caspian through Russia An existing Russian pipeline to the huge oil terminal on the Black Sea port of Novorossiisk could be linked to the new fields in Azerbaijan and later Kazakhstan. A plan for this “Northern Route” involving the Caspian Sea Pipeline Consortium of Russian and foreign corporations is pressing ahead, but faces several severe obstacles. The first is the war in Chechnya, through which the first phase of this pipeline passes. The second is that the US is opposed to it for precisely the reasons that Russia likes it: it would be good for Russia. The third is that Turkey is uneasy about increasing Russian oil and gas tanker traffic exiting the Black sea through the already over-crowded 17 mile-long Bosphorus/Turkish Straits which connect the Black Sea to the Mediterranean, and which now carry 1.7 million barrels/day of oil alone.
View Quote
(continued)
Link Posted: 9/29/2002 7:39:04 AM EDT
The Western Route (2): via Georgia to Turkey In late September of this year, Azerbaijan and Georgia agreed on terms for passage rights across Georgia of a gas pipeline from Azerbaijan to Turkey to start exports in 2004. In total, the Trans-Caspian Gas Pipeline will cost about $1 billion, but would open the way to Azerbaijani gas reaching either Turkish domestic markets or onward to Europe. This would fit with EU planning to create a gas grid stretching from the Caspian to the Atlantic. Georgia is still politically unstable, but more importantly, this route is not especially suitable for the states to the east of the Caspian Sea – Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Kazakhstan. Anything involving the Caspian Sea itself is regarded as extremely sensitive by oil companies because in the mess left by the break-up of the Soviet Union, there is no accepted legal framework for governing the Caspian Sea itself. The US has been pressing hard for the project to come on line quickly, both because it would begin the flow of serious investment funds, and because it would strengthen its current favourite for regional strongman, Turkey, against its former favourite, Iran. The Eastern Route: China Another possibility of considerable importance for East Asia and Japan would be a pipeline from Turkmenistan to Xinjiang in China, and then into the Chinese gas grid to the industrialized east coast – and possibly on to Japan. The problem however is the huge distance involved – more than 7,000 km. – and very rugged terrain in places. According to a study prepared jointly by Mitsubishi, Exxon and China National Petroleum, such a pipeline would cost more than $10 billion. There is also a small problem of providing a tempting and vulnerable target to separatist movements in China’s western provinces. China National Petroleum recently abandoned an agreement with Kazakhstan to construct an oil pipeline east because of disagreements about cost. However, China is seriously interested in Caspian Sea hydrocarbon resources, and has even reported an interest in a pipeline to the Arabian sea, with a view to importing gas and oil by supertanker. The Southern Route: Iran Turkmenistan shares a long border with Iran, and there is already a gas pipeline linking it to the northern region of Iran, where most of Iran’s industry is located. Iran, of course, itself has very large gas and oil reserves, but these are located in the south of the country, close to the Persian Gulf. An expansion of the Turkmenistan-Iran relationship could be beneficial to both states. More importantly, it would provide another route to Turkey, and hence Europe, or to the Indian Ocean. However, the prosperity of Iran is not something viewed with great favour in Washington. Nonsense about rogue states apart, Washington’s core concern about Iran is its role as the natural dominant power in the Persian Gulf. When the Shah was in power, this was to be lauded; come the Iranian revolution, to be abhorred. As French, Japanese, Italian, Chinese, Malaysian and Russian companies have moved back into a politically changing Iran, American oil and construction companies have long been nudging Washington to soften its stance toward Iran, and in particular to abandon the Iran and Libya Sanctions Act of 1996. But until Washington is sure it can control ensure the safety of its own oil interests in Saudi Arabia and other conservative Gulf states, there is little likelihood of Washington supporting a major Iranian pipeline for Caspian Sea Basin gas. The Southeastern Route: Afghanistan to Pakistan For gas exporters, cost rises with length of pipeline. The shortest and cheapest export route for Turkmenistan oil and for its vast gas reserves is through Afghanistan, and serious planning for both oil and gas pipeline construction by US companies has long been in place. Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Afghanistan and Pakistan agreed in 1997 to build a large Central Asian Gas pipeline through the less mountainous southern parts of Afghanistan to Pakistan, and then possibly on to the growing market of India. The Central Asian Gas Pipeline Consortium was made up of Unocal (US, 47% share), Delta Oil (Saudi Arabia, 15%), Government of Turkmenistan (7%), Itochu Oil Exploration (Japan, 6.5%), Indonesia Petroleum [INPEX] (Japan, 6.5%), Hyundai Engineering and Construction (5%), and the Crescent Group (Pakistan, 3.5%). Unocal was the lead developer, much encouraged by the US government. In December 1997, senior officials of the US Department of Energy meeting in Washington with Taliban ministers put their blessing on the enterprise.
View Quote
(continued)
Link Posted: 9/29/2002 7:39:51 AM EDT
The $1.9 billion Centgas pipeline is to be 120 cm. in diameter, and to run 1271 kilometers from the Afghanistan-Turkmenistan border, due south and then east, generally following the Herat – Kandahar road, then cross the Pakistan border at Quetta, terminating at Mulat. The Turkmenistan government has agreed to build a short pipeline to the huge Dauletabad gas field. 20 billion cubic meters of natural gas per year will flow down the pipeline, and the Turkmenistan government has guaranteed to deliver 708 billion cubic meters of gas to the consortium – equivalent to the entire reserves of the Dauletabad field. Just how much the consortium stands to make depends on many factors, especially fluctuations in the price and demand for natural gas in the markets of East and Southeast Asia. But there are clearly huge profits to be made. And for Pakistan and Turkmenistan, as well as Afghanistan, the project would be immensely beneficial. For Afghanistan it would be the first major foreign investment since the Soviet invasion in 1979. For Pakistan it could be a key to the next stage of industrialization. Just how much the Centgas consortium agreed to pay the Taliban for transit rights is unknown. But Unocal’s competitor in the race to build an oil pipeline from Turkmenistan through western Afghanistan to the Arabian Sea coast of Pakistan -- the Argentinian company, Bridas -- was reported to have offered the Taliban $1 billion in transit fees, plus a considerable amount of railroad track, road construction, and a police post building every 20 km. along the pipeline to by garrisoned by Taliban troops. The US government pressured Turkmenistan to give preference to the Unocal-led Centgas consortium over Bridas. In 1997 Centgas got the gas pipeline contract, but by the time it was ready to commence work, the political situation in Afghanistan that had looked promising to US eyes in the mid-1990s had deteriorated. Civil war continued, the Taliban’s cultural extremism and hostility to women had exploded in the world media, and Afghanistan had become a major terrorist base. In August 1998, the US attacked bin Laden’s Afghanistan camps, and four months later, Unocal pulled out of Centgas. The combination of instability, pressure from the US government and attacks from shareholders and women’s groups in the US was too much. With Afghanistan at war with itself and the United States, the alluring Centgas project was on hold, despite repeated efforts to re-start the consortium by the governments of Pakistan, Turkmenistan and Afghanistan. With the profits to be made so enormous, Unocal was reported to be trying to edge back into the project last year. But in addition to its obvious problems in Afghanistan, Unocal is being sued in a US court for use of Burmese forced labour over its Thailand-Burma project. (If this case succeeds, it will be the first occasion in which a US court has held a US corporation legally responsible for foreign human rights violations related to its profit-making activities; Unocal could face many millions in damage awards.) And the United States government imposed economic sanctions on Myanmar, banning new investment, largely because of the domestic reaction to Unocal’s exploitation of Burmese forced labour organized by the Myanmar dictatorship. Meanwhile Unocal remains the lead developer on the consortium to build a 105-cm diameter 1700 kilometer-long oil pipeline from northern Turkmenistan through Afghanistan to a Pakistani port on the Arabian Sea. A Unocal spokesman boasted to Congress that it would compare with the giant (and environmentally risky) Trans-Alaska Pipeline. Unocal – and Japanese - executives regard this $2.5 billion plan as by far the cheapest and least difficult way of bringing Turkmenistan’s oil to the sea, where it can be loaded onto supertankers bound for Japan and Korea, and possibly China.. Oil and gas are not the direct causes of the war in Afghanistan, but understanding the motives of long-term US policy towards that country is important. The pursuit of hydrocarbon interests has been a constant of US policy in the region for more than half a century. Having created the mujahadin resistance to fight the Soviets during the Cold War, the US then lost interest in the country, and allowed its former clients to destroy it. In order to gain the stability necessary for oil and gas operations, it flirted with the Taliban, until finally the whirlwind its earlier support for the mujahadin had created came blowing back home as a terrorist horror. [There is a great map of all the Central Asian pipelines at the end of the following file: US Dept of Energy, Caspian Sea Region Oil and Natural Gas Reserves http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/caspgrph.html#TAB2 Other useful links: Trade and Environment Database: Turkmen Oil and Gas http://www.american.edu/projects/mandala/TED/turkmen.htm Central Asia Newsnet http://www.centralasianews.net US Dept of Energy, Afghanistan page http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/afghan.html US Dept of Energy, Caspian Sea Region page http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/caspian.html Michael Ratner home page, for information on the suit against Unocal over Burmese forced labour http://www.humanrightsnow.org Institute of War and Peace reporting, Central Asia http://www.iwpr.net/index.pl?centasia_index.html MERIP: Middle East Research and Information Report.
View Quote
Link Posted: 9/29/2002 7:47:45 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/29/2002 7:54:41 AM EDT by satcong]
I'm not going to name names, or tell you who or what I represent," [thinking](mysteriously), "Except to say -- you're close, you're closer than you think ..... [smoke] One hint...The smoking man..... two hint: The organizing principle of any society is for war....
Link Posted: 9/29/2002 8:09:36 AM EDT
You just get me elected, and I'll give you your damned war. [smoke]
Top Top