Question about 9/12'er Teabag Protests

[Cancel 2016.2]

There is heavy competition and in the pipeline area and the USA and Canada with several other countries are still looking at the Afghan route, SF. It is a fact. The Chinese are looking at another route in the same area. There will be multiple pipelines. The US has been involved in this for a long time. Why do you think Bush said he scored the trifecta?

You and BAC keep saying that, but have provided NO evidence to support such claims.

WE are the ones behind the pipeline from the Caspian through Azerbaijan and Georgia. Why in the world would we want to create another pipeline through a region that not only is a much LONGER route, but also puts the oil away from its intended recipients?

As for the pipeline discussions that may start up again if Afghanistan stablizes, the NAT Gas pipeline would make sense from eastern Turkmenistan down through Afghanistan to Pakistan (and possibly on to India). But again, while US companies may look at building this, given the discoveries of Nat Gas within the US, it is not likely we would be interested as a country in the Nat Gas field. We have estimated supplies of over 300 years of Nat Gas that have been discovered here. We have more than enough work to do here.

The Nat Gas pipeline would benefit primarily three countries... Turkmenistan, Afghanistan and Pakistan.

As for the Chinese pipeline proposal... they were talking about building one... you are correct there, but that has nothing to do with the US and our involvement in Afghanistan. Anyway, THEIR pipeline would not be going through Afghanistan, but rather would likely go through the former Soviet republics.

 

[Cancel5]

You and BAC keep saying that, but have provided NO evidence to support such claims.

WE are the ones behind the pipeline from the Caspian through Azerbaijan and Georgia. Why in the world would we want to create another pipeline through a region that not only is a much LONGER route, but also puts the oil away from its intended recipients?

As for the pipeline discussions that may start up again if Afghanistan stablizes, the NAT Gas pipeline would make sense from eastern Turkmenistan down through Afghanistan to Pakistan (and possibly on to India). But again, while US companies may look at building this, given the discoveries of Nat Gas within the US, it is not likely we would be interested as a country in the Nat Gas field. We have estimated supplies of over 300 years of Nat Gas that have been discovered here. We have more than enough work to do here.

The Nat Gas pipeline would benefit primarily three countries... Turkmenistan, Afghanistan and Pakistan.

As for the Chinese pipeline proposal... they were talking about building one... you are correct there, but that has nothing to do with the US and our involvement in Afghanistan. Anyway, THEIR pipeline would not be going through Afghanistan, but rather would likely go through the former Soviet republics.

I don't know SF, you would have to ask the politicians, the more the better?

 

[blackascoal]

There is heavy competition and in the pipeline area and the USA and Canada with several other countries are still looking at the Afghan route, SF. It is a fact. The Chinese are looking at another route in the same area. There will be multiple pipelines. The US has been involved in this for a long time. Why do you think Bush said he scored the trifecta?

He assumes that we'd put all our eggs in one shaky basket.

There are major problems with the Georgia pipeline, including being subject to attack from Russians, and from conflicts in Azerbaijan, Georgia, and the Kurdish area of Turkey .. as well as the fact that it crosses three active earthquake faults in Azerbaijan, four in Georgia and seven in Turkey.

I'm sure he has never heard of the Silk Road Strategy

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

I don't know SF, you would have to ask the politicians, the more the better?

So again, you state that it is a "FACT" that we are looking to build more pipelines and then tell me I have to go ask someone else to show me evidence of this "fact"?????

I seriously doubt more pipelines = better. Because again... the goal is to get the Caspian oil to Europe so that they are not as reliant upon Russia and Iran. Taking the oil down through Afghanistan doesn't make sense.

 

[Cancel5]

So again, you state that it is a "FACT" that we are looking to build more pipelines and then tell me I have to go ask someone else to show me evidence of this "fact"?????

I seriously doubt more pipelines = better. Because again... the goal is to get the Caspian oil to Europe so that they are not as reliant upon Russia and Iran. Taking the oil down through Afghanistan doesn't make sense.

Well, I find a lot of what our government does, doesn't make sense.

It is the reason they need a stabilized friendly Afghanistan.

Our allies want the line and the USA isn't going to miss out on anything.

It is called TAPI. The US doesn't give up easily once it gets an idea.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Well, I find a lot of what our government does, doesn't make sense.

It is the reason they need a stabilized friendly Afghanistan.

Our allies want the line and the USA isn't going to miss out on anything.

It is called TAPI. The US doesn't give up easily once it gets an idea.

So again there is nothing concrete... the above is all supposition and speculation.

To state this is why we went into Afghanistan is nothing short of a conspiracy theory. The fact remains, Al queda hit us on 9/11. They were dwelling in Afghanistan and were protected by the Taliban leadership. In response to 9/11 we went into Afghanistan to remove the Taliban from leadership and to destroy as much of Al Queda as possible.

Then Bush began the FUBAR.... going into Iraq before Afghanistan was done. Losing focus on the goal. The very fact that this occurred when, as you mentioned, Cheney and Rumsfeld were involved, suggests that the conspiracy is wrong. If their primary goal was a pipeline and all about the oil, then they would not have lost focus so easily.

 

[Cancel5]

So again there is nothing concrete... the above is all supposition and speculation.

To state this is why we went into Afghanistan is nothing short of a conspiracy theory. The fact remains, Al queda hit us on 9/11. They were dwelling in Afghanistan and were protected by the Taliban leadership. In response to 9/11 we went into Afghanistan to remove the Taliban from leadership and to destroy as much of Al Queda as possible.

Then Bush began the FUBAR.... going into Iraq before Afghanistan was done. Losing focus on the goal. The very fact that this occurred when, as you mentioned, Cheney and Rumsfeld were involved, suggests that the conspiracy is wrong. If their primary goal was a pipeline and all about the oil, then they would not have lost focus so easily.

It is only speculation to you, because you don't look at what is being written by the people that know.also

Iraq had oil that Cheney wanted, but, they didn't get to privatize it like they wished.

A lot of things went bad for the Bush organization, they didn't do their homework and now Obama is following suit. A real disappointment.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

It is only speculation to you, because you don't look at what is being written by the people that know.also

Iraq had oil that Cheney wanted, but, they didn't get to privatize it like they wished.

A lot of things went bad for the Bush organization, they didn't do their homework and now Obama is following suit. A real disappointment.

LMAO... again you state that people are writing about this that "know". please show me one that has any sort of evidence to back up the assertion.

Again... WE HAVE THE OIL from the Caspian... we did not need to go to war in Afghanistan to get it. This is just made up bullshit from those who want to make every single war about oil so that they can bash big oil a bit more. This war had nothing to do with oil.

 

[Cancel5]

LMAO... again you state that people are writing about this that "know". please show me one that has any sort of evidence to back up the assertion.

Again... WE HAVE THE OIL from the Caspian... we did not need to go to war in Afghanistan to get it. This is just made up bullshit from those who want to make every single war about oil so that they can bash big oil a bit more. This war had nothing to do with oil.

SF, we have a very large appetite for oil and China does, too. We are in a race and oil is the prize.

We are in Afghanistan for the oil, just like Iraq, but noone in the government is going to admit it, just like Iraq.

I fault Obama for staying the course.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
1. Are you insinuating that those stupid sled dogs led by Freedomworks are "patriots" and the rest of America is not? Why, because they wore 3 point hats? Exactly what in the last 7 months has drastically changed so much besides their side LOSING IN A FAIR ELECTION? Let's see: their roads are still being paved, their water being purified, their supermarkets still magically filling up with food, their tv's, radios still working, newspapers still working, their Medicare, Medicaid still available, those with other health insurance coverage still have it (if they're lucky), the banks and Wall St. that screwed them over still operating. So what is so "patriotic" about protesting a gov't push to regulate insurance companies from screwing over their customers and making more health coverage available to Americans that don't have it? I mean, if the little dopes don't mind corporated welfare or "socialism" for banks and investors, why does some poor bastard getting medical treatment instead of dying disturbing them so?

2. You do realize that the GOP held sway in the congress and/or senate for more than 12 years in the last 40, don't you? I mean, you aren't actually trying to infer that our current dilemas are solely the fault of Democrats, are you? I mean, just in the last 28 years it was Reagan/Bush/Clinton/Bush. And to stop your mental diarrhea, this side note DOES NOT change the FACT that the lastest TeaBag mindfart is yet another neocon GOP machine puppet show. But then again, dodges are all you have. Carry on.

I don't "insinuate" anything So you're stating as fact that those who did not participate in the latest Freedomworks Tea Party are un-American? Hmmm, I don't recall you saying that the Patriot Act was un-American, or that the Shrub's bail out of Wall St. using YOUR tax dollars was un-American, or that outing a CIA agent was un-American. But yet you do here with this quote: "The gathering of "patriots" in DC over the weekend..." What would make the teabaggers more patriotic than anyone else (as I asked earlier)? .....my post usually say what I mean, but I have omitted some data at times to save time..... Bull-fucking-shit! It's documented on these threads how you waste huge space and time with your rants and diatribes, and how you go on forever with a multitude of quotes, opinions, assertions, etc., against someone you disagree with. Bottom line: you were caught flat footed being either a willing neocon dupe or just plain wrong....and you're too much of a coward to admit it. but I've never been affected by "brain lock" How would you know, you nit?....that seems to be a liberal sickness...

Liberals are afflicted with a sense of truth at any cost and justice for all....which is like sunlight to a vampire for intellectually impotent neocon parrots like yourself. But I digress...you were wrong. Stop being a wussy and deal with it.