Iraq and Afghanistan .

[Syzygys]

Secret meetings of the Bush administration 101:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/15/AR2005111501842.html

"The document, obtained this week by The Washington Post, shows that officials from Exxon Mobil Corp., Conoco (before its merger with Phillips), Shell Oil Co. and BP America Inc. met in the White House complex with the Cheney aides who were developing a national energy policy, parts of which became law and parts of which are still being debated.

In a joint hearing last week of the Senate Energy and Commerce committees, the chief executives of Exxon Mobil Corp., Chevron Corp. and ConocoPhillips said their firms did not participate in the 2001 task force. The president of Shell Oil said his company did not participate "to my knowledge," and the chief of BP America Inc. said he did not know."

"Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.), who posed the question about the task force, said he will ask the Justice Department today to investigate. "The White House went to great lengths to keep these meetings secret, and now oil executives may be lying to Congress about their role in the Cheney task force," Lautenberg said."

Wannsee anyone? I meant, want to see, anyone?

 

[RickyH]

...and these are not arguments just opinions, without some kind of logical or factual back up.



Why don't you share it with us?



What is the cost of printing a 100 dollar bill? About 50 cents or so. Not to mention the Chinese and other foreigners financing the US debt. On the other hand, oil and gas actually can be used for making energy.

You have no logical or factual back up. That's the point. You refered to time machines, and nazis hiding secret evidence that was never recorded but also destroyed, but there's some memo out there that says there was a meeting. That's what this argument is based of Syz. No one is gonna fuckin' believe that.

The taliban are mostly concerned with keeping the land, and people protected. If America wanted to come in and use their oil, they'd just have them pay money to them. A lot of the factions in the taliban work solely off of money for americans. Most meetings with them are to discuss how much they need, what do they need and how soon.


What the fuck are you talking about? America can go broke, it has gone broke and it's likely it will get worse. China is helping us, because the export so much to America it'd damage their economy badly if they don't help us.

It still makes no sense anyways, in any single one logically thinking mind to go to Afghanistan for oil, and fight the whole damned country to do it. It's cost is measured in the trillions Syz.

 

[iceaura]

If the US really wanted oil and natural gas, there are plenty of other, less dangerous places to get them. Oh, and how you account for 9/11? Did we just get lucky and get hit by the country we wanted to occupy for resources?

An interesting consideration.

Because we did not get hit by Afghanistan, or Iraq, on 9/11. But they are important countries for access to resources, and W&Co had long wanted to occupy them, especially Iraq. So we didn't need much luck, after all.

And there's the ever-slippery nature of this "we" - apparently, we are to assume that whoever is paying for these wars and dying in these wars, the people for whom these places are "dangerous", are the same people who would be benefiting from the control of the resources obtained by these wars (if successful), according to the conspiracy theories,

which are thereby debunked, since these people have not benefited and had little hope of benefiting even in the beginning.

But the conspiracy theories make no such assumption.

 

[Syzygys]

Ricky, you have to start paying attention more carefully...

You have no logical or factual back up.

Sure I don't. Documented plans for a pipeline didn't exist. Making a pipeline isn't logical.

You refered to time machines,

It is a fucking ANALOGY for God's sake, learn how to understand them.

No one is gonna fuckin' believe that.

your belief is not my concern. Believe what you want, I know what I do.

If America wanted to come in and use their oil, they'd just have them pay money to them.

The Taliban has no oil, the Kazakh do. Thus the pipeline. I also quoted that there was a disagreement between the US and the Taliban about how the business should go, thus there was no business, thus the occupation.

Haven't you been paying attention? Obviously not...

What the fuck are you talking about?

Finance? Could be too complex to understand.

..to go to Afghanistan for oil, and fight the whole damned country to do it.

One more time, it is GAS and Afghanistan is just the transfer route.

Also, have you ever considered that the planners thought it would be a cakewalk? Taking over the country took what, a month? But establishing ORDER, now that is the hard thing, because they didn't understand the Afghan mindset.

But if you are trying to tell us that the US (the most powerful country EVER in history) needs more time to subdue a few thousands Taliban and terrorists, more time than winning against Japan and Germany, well, I am a buyer for that story...

 

[RickyH]

Provide accurate documents, prove your fianance, tell me how the taliban isn't involved in anything to do with the countries economy before the war, and explain why people who helped afghanistan hold of russia, and knew they held off britain would be a cake walk in anyones mind.

 

[superstring01]

1. Just because something at the time is a SPECULATION that doesn't mean it is not TRUE.

No shit, Syz. But just because something is speculation, doesn't make it true either. Moverove, JUST AS OFTEN IN LIFE, speculations end up being un-true. Or have you, again, failed to consider that fact? All things considered--and based upon what you've claimed--you are still required to prove your speculation. If you can't, then leave.

2. Let me give you a historical analogy about speculation and documentation. Ladies and gentlemen, please enter my Timemachine:

The year is 1944 and String and Syz are sitting in a London coffe house talking about German plans about the Jews.

Syz: I think they decided to exterminate the whole nationality/religion.
String: Hogwash, where do you get such an idea?

Blah blah blah........

YAAAAAAWN. Do you have a point, or is this just more witless ramblings of a person who's failed to prove his point?

See, we aren't discussing WWII. We aren't discussing any other matter. What we are discussing is you and your claims regarding the causes of the Afghanistan invasion. Care to prove them? Or will we end up with you rambling on about something that has no bearing on it?

See, this is just a big dramatic opportunity for you to distract away from the fact that you have absolutely no clue what you're talking about.

~String

 

[superstring01]

Oh, come on String.

Perhaps I should have said, commissioned officers. And from what I've read, the good fortune extends, especially regionally, to noncoms.

And as for Defense spending. I disagree. Cutting defense spending during times of peace DID happen in the late 90's to little political backlash. Right now, it just won't happen, war or no war. It's pumping too much into the economy.

~String

 

[superstring01]

Secret meetings of the Bush administration 101:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/15/AR2005111501842.html

"The document, obtained this week by The Washington Post, shows that officials from Exxon Mobil Corp., Conoco (before its merger with Phillips), Shell Oil Co. and BP America Inc. met in the White House complex with the Cheney aides who were developing a national energy policy, parts of which became law and parts of which are still being debated.

In a joint hearing last week of the Senate Energy and Commerce committees, the chief executives of Exxon Mobil Corp., Chevron Corp. and ConocoPhillips said their firms did not participate in the 2001 task force. The president of Shell Oil said his company did not participate "to my knowledge," and the chief of BP America Inc. said he did not know."

"Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.), who posed the question about the task force, said he will ask the Justice Department today to investigate. "The White House went to great lengths to keep these meetings secret, and now oil executives may be lying to Congress about their role in the Cheney task force," Lautenberg said."

Wannsee anyone? I meant, want to see, anyone?

Riiiiight. And you know they were discussing Afthanistan, how?

 

[S.A.M.]

An interesting consideration.

Because we did not get hit by Afghanistan, or Iraq, on 9/11. But they are important countries for access to resources, and W&Co had long wanted to occupy them, especially Iraq. So we didn't need much luck, after all.

And there's the ever-slippery nature of this "we" - apparently, we are to assume that whoever is paying for these wars and dying in these wars, the people for whom these places are "dangerous", are the same people who would be benefiting from the control of the resources obtained by these wars (if successful), according to the conspiracy theories,

which are thereby debunked, since these people have not benefited and had little hope of benefiting even in the beginning.

But the conspiracy theories make no such assumption.

Not necessarily, both Zalmay Khalilzad and Hamid Karzai are ex-employees of Unocal. I'd say Karzai is doing pretty well. And Khalilzad doesn't seem to be doing too bad either Curiously Condoleeza Rice was on the board of directors of Chevron, which absorbed Unocal

 

[iceaura]

Not necessarily,

? I believe you are agreeing with me, and posting supporting evidence.

 

[S.A.M.]

Ah yes sorry, I misread your stance.

 

[Syzygys]

Do you have a point,

You obviously didn't get it. Should I spell it out for you? The point was, oh hell, read it again, maybe for the second try.

Now explain this to me: Just 6 months after we "win" in Afghanistan, there is this agreement signed by 3 countries for the construction of the pipeline, although the plan was abandoned with the Taliban. But now that the Taliban is out of the picture, the pipeline idea was put back immediately...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/2017044.stm

 

[RickyH]

Perhaps I should have said, commissioned officers. And from what I've read, the good fortune extends, especially regionally, to noncoms.


~String

Ex-military? Possibly from Bragg? Or just a military brat

 

[Syzygys]

Hey look what I have found. This is a direct quote from a Cheney speech as the CEO of Halliburton, from 1998:

"Dick Cheney was then CEO of Haliburton Corporation, a pipeline services vendor based in Texas. Gushed Cheney in 1998, "I can't think of a time when we've had a region emerge as suddenly to become as strategically significant as the Caspian. It's almost as if the opportunities have arisen overnight. The good Lord didn't see fit to put oil and gas only where there are democratically elected regimes friendly to the United States. Occasionally we have to operate in places where, all things considered, one would not normally choose to go. But we go where the business is.""

By the way I have several links explaining the gas pipe situation, but only for those who are willing to read and have an open mind about it...

http://www.counterpunch.org/tomenron.html

http://www.politicalfriendster.com/rateConnection.php?id1=147&id2=5288

Oh and since I am a big believer in coincidences:

"the new Afghan government's head, Hamid Karzai, formerly served as a UNOCAL consultant. Only nine days after Karzai's ascension, President Bush nominated another UNOCAL consultant and former Taliban defender, Zalmay Khalilzad, as his special envoy to Afghanistan."

UNOCAL was the company negotiating with the Taliban back in 1997...

 

[countezero]

You are on my ignore, but I made an exception out of curiosity.

Then put me back on. Based on your cockeyed theorizing, you're not worth addressing with facts.

Because we did not get hit by Afghanistan ... on 9/11.

You can say this until you are blue in the face, but you're wrong as wrong. Al Qaeda was based in Afghanistan and intimately tied to the head gang of thugs governing there. Even your boy Rashid says so.

But they are important countries for access to resources, and W&Co had long wanted to occupy them, especially Iraq. So we didn't need much luck, after all.

Sure, they are important and sure people wanted to extract resources and move them through the region. These are, after all, energy companies. What else should they want? But you could never hope to prove that the US wanted to "occupy" countries for energy purposes or that there was a "plan" to do so.

But the conspiracy theories make no such assumption.

Your theories have no proof.

 

[iceaura]

- - - Al Qaeda was based in Afghanistan and intimately tied to the head gang of thugs governing there.
- - - -
- - But you could never hope to prove that the US wanted to "occupy" countries for energy purposes or that there was a "plan" to do so.

Lessee: The presence of the main AQ base in the same country as the Taliban and with political ties to it, is proof beyond a reasonable doubt the Taliban is responsible for 9/11 - with no other evidence of even their knowledge of, let alone role in, the exploit.

Meanwhile:

The domination of the upper levels of the US government by former oil company executives, the personal involvement of current oil company execs in foreign policy and political discussions with their personal friends and acquaintances in powerful government positions, and the key roles played by oil company execs both ex and current in that government's organizing and launching of the Iraq war, on what proved "mistaken" and empty grounds apparently invented for the purpose,

coupled with the enormous and unprecedented profits made by these oil companies and the riches paid to these execs as a consequence of the Iraq invasion, with even greater payoffs possible in the longer run from the gains in access and influence over key business resources,

are not to be extrapolated into accusations of responsibility or involvement of those oil companies in the invasion and occupation of the market controlling oil fields of the planet.

That would be a wild conspiracy theory, with no proof.

Got it.

 

[countezero]

Lessee: The presence of the main AQ base in the same country as the Taliban and with political ties to it, is proof beyond a reasonable doubt the Taliban is responsible for 9/11 - with no other evidence of even their knowledge of, let alone role in, the exploit.

I never said the Taliban was responsible for 9/11, though they bear some responsibility for creating and allowing conditions where it was possible. Harboring would be the word, I believe.

My point, perhaps poorly worded, is that 9/11 originated from Afghanistan, making it incredibly fortuitous for all those shadowy types who wanted to occupy it.

And to reiterate, Al Qaeda was based in Afghanistan and intimately tied to the head gang of thugs governing there. The relationship between the two, which is dealt with quite extensively by your favorite writer (Mr. Rashid) was deep and binding.

Meanwhile:

The domination of the upper levels of the US government by former oil company executives, the personal involvement of current oil company execs in foreign policy and political discussions with their personal friends and acquaintances in powerful government positions, and the key roles played by oil company execs both ex and current in that government's organizing and launching of the Iraq war, on what proved "mistaken" and empty grounds apparently invented for the purpose,

coupled with the enormous and unprecedented profits made by these oil companies and the riches paid to these execs as a consequence of the Iraq invasion, with even greater payoffs possible in the longer run from the gains in access and influence over key business resources,

are not to be extrapolated into accusations of responsibility or involvement of those oil companies in the invasion and occupation of the market controlling oil fields of the planet.

That would be a wild conspiracy theory, with no proof.

Got it.

Good. Because you have none.

Energy policy is a critical component of any nation's foreign policy (not just the US) and so to pretend like the relationships you mentioned are some how abnormal is preposterous. Do I think oil companies have too much power? Sure. But do I think they are the key component in driving US foreign policy? Fuck no. That's ignorant, anti-corporate conspiracy-mongering, and you're welcome to it.

I mean, seriously? Oil profits? Are you really going to sit here and tell me the recent spike in oil profits, which have since come down (by the way), can in some way be tied to US foreign policy? That's ignorant. The world market is based on futures and supply and demand.

Meanwhile, to return to the subject, you've got a dead pipeline deal more than a decade old. And to recall, at the time it came about, Bill Clinton paid more attention to Afghanistan's treatment of women than he did potential energy deals (see Rashid's The Taliban). Meanwhile, you've got obvious anti-proliferation and counterterrorism issues, which everyone but you and like-minded folks see. Thank god your myopia is not present in the current administration.

 

[iceaura]

I mean, seriously? Oil profits? Are you really going to sit here and tell me the recent spike in oil profits, which have since come down (by the way), can in some way be tied to US foreign policy?

Heavens, how could I possibly? Because that would be very silly of me, wouldn't it. What a wild-ass conspiracy theory that is, compared with the more sober and sensible theories that the Taliban "hit the US", on 9/11, or that Saddam was the rising Hitler of the Middle East preparing a mushroom cloud for his foes, or that Iran is building atomic weaponry for the launching of a suicidal Armageddon in its fanatical jihad against Israel.

Obviously, the motives for a bunch of oil company execs launching and governing a military occupation of the world's richest oil field would be one of those sober ones, and not some wild-ass speculative crap about hundreds of billions of dollars that just came their way by coincidence, luck of the draw, laws of supply and demand working in their mysterious ways.

 

[countezero]

Heavens, how could I possibly? Because that would be very silly of me, wouldn't it. What a wild-ass conspiracy theory that is, compared with the more sober and sensible theories that the Taliban "hit the US", on 9/11, or that Saddam was the rising Hitler of the Middle East preparing a mushroom cloud for his foes, or that Iran is building atomic weaponry for the launching of a suicidal Armageddon in its fanatical jihad against Israel.

I've advanced none of those theories. Take your babbling elsewhere.

Meanwhile, I'd love to laugh as you try to explain how oil prices (and the high or low profits derived thereof) are connected to US foreign policy. . .

Obviously, the motives for a bunch of oil company execs launching and governing a military occupation of the world's richest oil field would be one of those sober ones, and not some wild-ass speculative crap about hundreds of billions of dollars to be obtained.

Motive is one thing, proof and capability is another. As yet, you've given us neither. Did you miss that you are supposed to "use the scientific method and support your claims with verifiable facts and references. ... Making claims that cannot be supported or using work that is not properly sited will be deleted. Violators will be towed at owners expense"? You should try it sometime.

 

[superstring01]

Obviously, the motives for a bunch of oil company execs launching and governing a military occupation of the world's richest oil field would be one of those sober ones, and not some wild-ass speculative crap about hundreds of billions of dollars that just came their way by coincidence, luck of the draw, laws of supply and demand working in their mysterious ways.

You're going to need to actually support that claim, or you could just not bother posting. Your choice.

~String