The Gaming Den

Kaelik wrote:Now most sane people, IE not Lich Loved, will probably say that it is an incorrect judgment call to choose to shoot people on a single vaguely possibly menacing action amongst many harmless ones, and that they should not have done that.

Yep.

Zinegata, PL's descriptions are not conspiracies. Insofar as people have denied these actions, sure. But none of their actions or results are hidden or unknown.

We know this is what they want and what they're doing. Sure, they say it's not why they're doing things... But like the shooting of the journalist, shouldn't we look at results rather than words?

-Crissa

Crissa wrote:Zinegata, PL's descriptions are not conspiracies. Insofar as people have denied these actions, sure. But none of their actions or results are hidden or unknown.

We know this is what they want and what they're doing. Sure, they say it's not why they're doing things... But like the shooting of the journalist, shouldn't we look at results rather than words?

-Crissa

Crissa, note that I'm not even denying that Cheney is a corrupt SOB. Nor am I denying that there are corrupt SOBs in the government.

What I'm saying is that PL is a looney for claiming the entire US government is engaging in a massive misdirection campaign to build a pipeline as opposed to whacking the guy who is the self-proclaimed mastermind of 9-11.

What is more reasonable? There are three possibilities:

1) The entire government - including both Republicans and Democrats - are fooling the entire American people for the sake of a pipeline?

2) A few people are fooling the entire government into going to war?

3) The argument that fulfills Occam's Razor the best - the US government, for the most part, went to Afghanistan to whack the Taliban and Osama. And that some people are merely taking advantage of this for the purpose of personal profit?

Cheney for one doesn't seem to care if he gets money from oil or from government contracts kickbacks.

Neither of you have established causality. And the first two options are frankly lunacy. The first is conspiracy theory talk. The second is the same sort of "Hitler made me do it" whitewashing.

Also, stop this "their actions are known" bullshit. Name the people involved. Who got what bribes. So far all we have are statements from Cheney and a lot of "But there are so many corrupt people!" bullshit speculation.

An argument where variables are intentionally kept vague is not rational.


Edit: Also, one last thing that makes the whole "pipeline through Afghanistan" thing an even bigger idiocy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baku%E2%80 ... n_pipeline

Yeah, there's already a pipeline from the Caspian sea going to west... that doesn't go through any politically sensitive countries, costing less than half the Afghan pipeline.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Caspian_Oil_Pipeline

There are more proposed pipelines along the same route.

Also, thirdly, and most importantly, the Afghan pipeline doesn't lead to any "friendly" port outside of Pakistan. Seriously, the whole point of a fucking international pipeline is to get the oil to a port so it can get loaded unto tankers. Afghanistan has no neighbors with access to the ocean except fucking Iran and Pakistan. Does it make any sense to build a pipeline leading to Pakistan rather than Turkey, especially when the Turkey route is shorter?

In fact, on closer inspection the Afghan pipeline seems to be another one of Cheney's no-bid pipe dreams (like his KBR contracts) whose main purpose is to spend money in the most incompetent manner possible to maximize the parent company's profits but providing zero services to the US Government. KBR has already conned the government into paying them for stuff that never gets properly built. This looks like another 7.6 billion con job.

Did I at any point SAY that these were numerous bribes. I said campaign contributions and pointed out the actual honest to god support for these policies WITHOUT the need for bribes.

Because all that shit is documented and real and above the board. It's not some mega secret conspiracy that I'm imagining. It's the way things actually work. In public. In the open. No secrets, no criminal briber.

Your claim that it is about getting Osama because the Taliban wouldn't hand him over is A LIE. And you would rather declare that the public record of the political process in the USA doesn't exist rather than admit to that.

Further you don't even follow the basic geopolitics of this.

There are more proposed pipelines along the same route.

No. There was a second DIFFERENT route considered, and then abandoned due to obstructing mountains.

There was a second project on the SAME route considered, by the Taliban that would exclude all American economic interests. Unsurprisingly THAT was a major turning point in US policy towards the Regime.

Seriously, the whole point of a fucking international pipeline is to get the oil to a port so it can get loaded unto tankers.

No. The whole point is to sell it to Pakistan and India and reap a lion's share of the profits.

While generally giving Russia the finger.

PhoneLobster wrote:Did I at any point SAY that these were numerous bribes. I said campaign contributions and pointed out the actual honest to god support for these policies WITHOUT the need for bribes.

Campaign contributions are not bribes? What a naive concept.

Because all that shit is documented and real and above the board. It's not some mega secret conspiracy that I'm imagining. It's the way things actually work. In public. In the open. No secrets, no criminal briber.

Except you have not named names other than Cheney, nor have you actually shown that the majority of the US government is involved other than people who you still fail to specify, documents you still fail to link, statements you still fail to corroborate.

You're a tinfoil hat conspiracy nut and it shows.

Further you don't even follow the basic geopolitics of this.

There are more proposed pipelines along the same route.

No. There was a second DIFFERENT route considered, and then abandoned due to obstructing mountains.

And yet you completely ignore the fact that a Turkey route pipeline is cheaper, shorter, and most importalty, already exists, meaning it can be replicated. Which is why there are plans for MORE Turkey-route pipelines as opposed to your fucking idiot notion that an Afghan pipeline is a huge money-maker.

Again, a Turkey pipeline already exists. It was cheaper to build. And it doesn't go through any war zones. Where the fuck is the sense in building an Afghan pipeline other than to screw money out of the government? KBR's fucking modus operandi in Iraq is to get money from big contracts that never materialize.

Shut up dude. You are a hack. You don't know shit. You're trying to argue using the issue of government corruption, when you don't know how Cheney's documented modus operandi (via Haliburton and KBR) actually works.

There was a second project on the SAME route considered, by the Taliban that would exclude all American economic interests. Unsurprisingly THAT was a major turning point in US policy towards the Regime.

No. The whole point is to sell it to Pakistan and India and reap a lion's share of the profits.

While generally giving Russia the finger.

Right. The Americans bombed the Taliban so that they could sell oil to Pakistan.

Even though the Taliban, pre 9-11, was a Pakistani Ally. They had easy access to oil anyway even without your pipedream pipeline because they're a Muslim-centric state only a short sail away from the Middle East. And the Pakistanis only went along grudgingly with taking out the Taliban

Cheney wanting to sell oil India is an even more mind-bogglingly stupid speculation on your part. A pipeline from the Caspian, to Afghanistan, needs to go through fucking Pakistan before it reaches India. Yes, you are proposing to sell oil to the Indians via a route controlled by their worst historic enemies.

You are a fucking idiot. Geopolitics is a word too complicated for your idiot mind to understand.

PL, frankly, shut up. Your lack of knowledge is embarassing. You still haven't established casuality. And you are now simply citing every half-assed speculation that can even remotely support your point even though a few quick wiki links proves your position to be nothing more than conspiracy nut posturing.

You're full of shit. It's a fact. Shut up and stop embarassing yourself.

Zinegata wrote:What I'm saying is that PL is a looney for claiming the entire US government is engaging in a massive misdirection campaign to build a pipeline as opposed to whacking the guy who is the self-proclaimed mastermind of 9-11.

It's not looney. It's true. This is what happened. This is what the facts say. This is what they said they were going to do, and given a chance (cover) they did it. None of their military efforts were based upon actually capturing bin Laden. This is fact. This is history. This isn't speculation.

They got the trifecta, remember?

-Crissa

Crissa wrote:Ganbare, why are you quoting yourself

Thanks. Fixed in original post.

Crissa wrote:

Zinegata wrote:What I'm saying is that PL is a looney for claiming the entire US government is engaging in a massive misdirection campaign to build a pipeline as opposed to whacking the guy who is the self-proclaimed mastermind of 9-11.

It's not looney. It's true. This is what happened. This is what the facts say. This is what they said they were going to do, and given a chance (cover) they did it. None of their military efforts were based upon actually capturing bin Laden. This is fact. This is history. This isn't speculation.

They got the trifecta, remember?

-Crissa

They disagree with you - therefore, you are a looney, a psycho, a war criminal, and the like. Facts are meaningless. Fun stuff!

Juton wrote:One mistake I see a lot of people make IRL, not necessarily here, is they think that the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are only about accomplishing one thing: getting oil. In reality there are a bunch of different things, power projection in the region, putting pressure on Iran and maybe radical elements in Pakistan, how currency is used for reserves, yes oil and a bunch of other things.

If the US just wanted to kill terrorists, pretty much the stated reason for the Afghan war, they would have used a bunch of bombs and special forces unit. Now they have a slew of bases in the area and they have Iran locked in a pincer, if the US wanted to it could bomb Iran effectively and with impunity from three sides. The US is also swaying some of the former soviet satellites in the area, which in turn puts pressure on Russia which some of the older generals still have a hate on for.

So the moral of the story is geopolitics is complicated, and describing any action in the middle east as having nothing to do with oil, or everything to do with oil is a massive oversimplification that obfuscates the truth.

+1. Hell make it +2. These are even better than some of the reasons I gave. These have nothing to do with moral reasons, but they are good reasons because they are plausibly if not likely true.

Crissa wrote:

Zinegata wrote:What I'm saying is that PL is a looney for claiming the entire US government is engaging in a massive misdirection campaign to build a pipeline as opposed to whacking the guy who is the self-proclaimed mastermind of 9-11.

It's not looney. It's true. This is what happened. This is what the facts say. This is what they said they were going to do, and given a chance (cover) they did it. None of their military efforts were based upon actually capturing bin Laden. This is fact. This is history. This isn't speculation.

They got the trifecta, remember?

-Crissa

Again, lots of unsubstantiated comments with no evidence.

Here's your tinfoil hat too.

Ganbare Gincun wrote:

Crissa wrote:Ganbare, why are you quoting yourself

Thanks. Fixed in original post.

Crissa wrote:

Zinegata wrote:What I'm saying is that PL is a looney for claiming the entire US government is engaging in a massive misdirection campaign to build a pipeline as opposed to whacking the guy who is the self-proclaimed mastermind of 9-11.

It's not looney. It's true. This is what happened. This is what the facts say. This is what they said they were going to do, and given a chance (cover) they did it. None of their military efforts were based upon actually capturing bin Laden. This is fact. This is history. This isn't speculation.

They got the trifecta, remember?

-Crissa

They disagree with you - therefore, you are a looney, a psycho, a war criminal, and the like. Facts are meaningless. Fun stuff!

Accusations are not facts. But you can't tell a difference anyway, so you fire off more 25mm pack of lies as usual.

I'm not accusing anyone.

Have you actually bothered to debunk any of PL's claims?

No.

Mine?

No.

*sigh*

-Crissa

Crissa wrote:I'm not accusing anyone.

Have you actually bothered to debunk any of PL's claims?

No.

Mine?

No.

*sigh*

-Crissa

This is what is called an irrational argument. Someone makes a claim without producing any evidence to support it. They then claim the other person has failed to debunk their claim.

Let me be clear again: Neither you nor PL have presented any evidence backing up your claim that the whole War on Terror is, in fact, a fabrication by the entire US government just to give Cheney lots and lots of oil money.

No matter how many times you repeat what you say is the truth, you have not posted one link, quoted one statement in verbatim, nor have you produced any documents proving your case that has not been subsequently debunked as something that is demonstrably false.

And now you are asking me to disprove something that has not been proven?

That's sleazy debating, and it ignores the cardinal principle of Occam's Razor: Which is that for a theory to be tested, all variables must be ones that can be EVALUATED. You have NOT shown any evidence except for Cheney's comments, which, as I have demonstrated, is probably just yet another one of his corrupt KBR dealings, but is in no way indicative of America, the nation as a whole.

In short, you remain an idiot with a tin foil hat. Screaming other people are blind to the evidence is a simple lie, because you haven't even shown ANY evidence that can actually be examined. And what evidence HAS been shown (the "Afghan Pipeline", "Cheney's Oil Deals") have been demonstrated to be not indicative of US policy as a whole.

So do the world a favor, and shut up. You are an embarassment to the anti-war movement, because your arguments only further the view that anyone who is again the war is, in fact, an irrational idiot who is just as dumb as an Apache gunner who shoots before confirming the presence of civilians in the area.

In fact, all you're doing is making yourself feel good that you're "proving that the right wing idiots can't be reasoned with!". When in fact you're just turning off reasonable people from your arguments because you're not proving anything except that you're silly and shrill.

So stop your own ideological maturbating. It's blatantly obvious. And it's embarassing to do it in public.

Wait a minute, Zinegata, are you arguing the America as a whole is, or needs to be, participatory for there to be a plan that lets some leaders and businesses profit from a global conflict? Additionally, you also seem to be saying that if such support isn't present, then the worst case scenario is that such profiteering is incidental and doesn't factor into any decision-making at all? Are you serious?

Ganbare Gincun wrote:The video speaks for itself. I think that most reasonable people that watch and listen realize that their excuse for gunning down these people is a deliberate falsehood that was further compounded by a cover up.

This is retarded, and yet you keep repeating. Today a journalist from the ABC specifically said that they have specific training to avoid wherever possible putting cameras and tripods over there shoulder because of the chance of it being mistaken for an RPG if they are posted to countries like Iraq.

This is considered so probable, that there is specific training not to do it, and yet you say 'any reasonable person wouldn't make that mistake'

Why do they train against it then? Argh. You very fundamental point is completely fucking incorrect.

Zinegata wrote:Let me be clear again: Neither you nor PL have presented any evidence backing up your claim that the whole War on Terror is, in fact, a fabrication by the entire US government just to give Cheney lots and lots of oil money.

Largely because that is a strawman you are manufacturing in your hysterical denial of reality.

The thing where Cheney gets lots of money is just what Cheney is in it for.

No matter how many times you repeat what you say is the truth, you have not posted one link, quoted one statement in verbatim

Didn't think I needed to this is all on the record and you can go and educate yourself with a very few simple google searches.

I'm not doing your homework for you.

I told you the US congress has passed resolutions declaring the Caspian oil reserves to be of strategic interest.

That Cheney is on the record stating as much.

That US policy to the Taliban worsened explicitly after the Taliban attempted to exclude US interests from the pipeline project.

And that the Taliban never refused to hand over terrorists.

I even pointed out that you do not perform an extradition by destroying every authority and civil structure that could possibly assist in the extradition process. When the cops in NSW want a criminal from Victoria they do not bomb the Victorian police force into the stone age and depose the Victorian premier.

If you would just go and read a few articles on the topic or something you would find this, and all sorts of additional interesting information.

Or you can call us all liars because you refuse to become informed by yourself.

it ignores the cardinal principle of Occam's Razor: Which is that for a theory to be tested, all variables must be ones that can be EVALUATED.

Er. Dude. That isn't Occam's Razor at all.

And what evidence HAS been shown (the "Afghan Pipeline", "Cheney's Oil Deals") have been demonstrated to be not indicative of US policy as a whole.

You... don't know any American history at all do you? Because really it is actually VERY indicative of US policy as a whole.

Violently toppling 3rd world regimes to further the insane goals of their imperialist capitalist ambitions is basically the defining feature of American international relations for the last well... for it's entire history.

So do the world a favor, and shut up. You are an embarassment to the anti-war movement,

Interestingly though I am certainly against this war at no point did I ever actually state that I am against the oil pipeline motives behind it (though I am).

Many right wing political pundits and indeed politicians will use the oil pipeline motive as an actual pro war position.

So I have no idea what you are even smoking here.

In fact, all you're doing is making yourself feel good that you're "proving that the right wing idiots can't be reasoned with!".

While YOU apparently can't be reasoned with anyone using the pipeline motivation certainly can because you can simply appeal to their imperial, anti Russian and pro lots of loot desires with a better alternative policy.

because you're not proving anything except that you're silly and shrill.

Because simply pointing out that the management of strategic oil resources, including this one is official on the record and relatively sane US government policy is silly and shrill?

Congress has passed legislation on this. Are THEY silly and shrill? Is congress collectively a left wing conspiracy nut too?

So stop your own ideological maturbating. It's blatantly obvious. And it's embarassing to do it in public.

"Maturbating"? Are you typing with one hand?

violence in the media wrote:Wait a minute, Zinegata, are you arguing the America as a whole is, or needs to be, participatory for there to be a plan that lets some leaders and businesses profit from a global conflict? Additionally, you also seem to be saying that if such support isn't present, then the worst case scenario is that such profiteering is incidental and doesn't factor into any decision-making at all? Are you serious?

No. Stop being a fucking idiot and actually read what I wrote.

I am saying America as a whole is NOT participating in this profiteering. It's just some members of the government.

Zinegata wrote: No. Stop being a fucking idiot and actually read what I wrote.

Make your points clearer and more efficiently. Right now your words to meaningful content ratio is pretty low, what with all your Apaches lying about. Or was that lying Apaches flying about?

I am saying America as a whole is NOT participating in this profiteering. It's just some members of the government.

Ok. How is this fundamentally different from what PL is saying? Is your disagreement over which nebulous group of government officials are to blame for this? Is the disagreement over whether or not it was wrong for these people to do this; or that it is acceptable to do this, provided they make America "safer" by fighting "terrorists" somehow? Is it a disagreement about the specific form that the profiteering is taking?

Right here, you've said that some members of the government are profiteering from the war. Which members of the government do you think are doing this? In what ways? I'm asking for where and how you think the skullduggery is occuring, because you're only arguing against PL's theory while seemingly agreeing with him in the broadest sense.

PhoneLobster wrote:I'm not doing your homework for you.

Then you are just engaging in wild speculation without presenting evidence. Again, irrational argument.

I am not gonna argue with someone who makes dubious claims that, when challenged, retreats to "I'm not doing your home work for you".

All you are admitting is that you have not presented any proof in this thread yet at all, and Crissa is, in fact, a lying bitch for claiming that you have presented evidence. You've made claims, but not presented evidence. You're both full of shit.

Therefore there is no need to address any of your points until you actually grow a spine and either dig up your sources (which, I guarantee, will either directly contradict your statements, or have been misinterpreted by you in such a way that will only show that you are silly).

However, I will address these two points, because I can already show your statements are silly even if you don't publish your own homework:

I told you the US congress has passed resolutions declaring the Caspian oil reserves to be of strategic interest.

Yes. Since 1998. For the Turkish pipeline:

The BTC pipeline project gained momentum following the Ankara Declaration, adopted on 29 October 1998 by President of Azerbaijan Heydar Aliyev, President of Georgia Eduard Shevardnadze, President of Kazakhstan Nursultan Nazarbayev, President of Turkey Süleyman Demirel, and President of Uzbekistan Islom Karimov. The declaration was witnessed by the United States Secretary of Energy Bill Richardson, who expressed strong support for the BTC pipeline.

Yes, that's right. The United States government supported building the Turkish Pipeline and acknowledged the Caspian Sea as a key oil area since 1998 during the Clinton Administration, well before Cheney became VP and well before the Afghan pipeline pipedream you keep spouting.

------

Also:

And that the Taliban never refused to hand over terrorists.

Right out lie:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban

Money quote regarding the Taliban's final stand on Bin Laden before the war actually began:

On 7 October 2001, before the onset of military operations, the Taliban ambassador to Pakistan offered to "detain bin Laden and try him under Islamic law" if the United States made a formal request and presented the Taliban with evidence

They didn't offer to hand him over. They offered to try him using their own courts. Which would most likely have been a show trial considering their courts abuses women for not wearing a fucking veil and consider the following to be crimes:

One Taliban list of prohibitions included:

“ pork, pig, pig oil, anything made from human hair, satellite dishes, cinematography, and equipment that produces the joy of music, pool tables, chess, masks, alcohol, tapes, computers, VCRs, television, anything that propagates sex and is full of music, wine, lobster, nail polish, firecrackers, statues, sewing catalogs, pictures, Christmas cards.

And yet blowing yourself up to kill some dirty Jews or Christians is conspicuously not on the list of prohibitions.

-------

Only in the first reply did they say they would hand Bin Laden over to the US if the US "could provide evidence". Every subsequent statement by the Taliban demanded that Bin Laden be tried either in a "neutral" country (Pakistan) or by their own courts.

In short, you decided to take only part of the Taliban's first response the the US ultimatum. Ignoring the fact this was subsequently overidden by the Taliban's demand to have, what is in effect, their own puppet trial.

And yet the only view that you are putting forward is that "The Taliban are innocent! They offered to give up Bin Laden but the US was bloodthirsty for war!"

You're full of shit. And a liar.

violence in the media wrote: Make your points clearer and more efficiently. Right now your words to meaningful content ratio is pretty low, what with all your Apaches lying about. Or was that lying Apaches flying about

Then I ask that you also don't be a smartass in replying and don't make assumptions. Read what I actually wrote or ask for a clarification instead of making insinuations.

Ok. How is this fundamentally different from what PL is saying? Is your disagreement over which nebulous group of government officials are to blame for this? Is the disagreement over whether or not it was wrong for these people to do this; or that it is acceptable to do this, provided they make America "safer" by fighting "terrorists" somehow? Is it a disagreement about the specific form that the profiteering is taking?

This all started when Crissa said that the US only attacked people if they had oil.

I disagreed and said that serving national interest was a bigger reason for starting wars - because as many posters have pointed out wars are NOT simple and only idiots claim it is all about oil.

PL is then making the claim that the Afghan War is an oil war because Cheney wanted to build a pipeline running through Afghanistan. And that he single-handedly fooled/led the entire country into committing to the war for the sake of this pipeline.

My point is that PL is a looney for saying this, and the country as a whole went to war in Afghanistan to whack Bin Laden and the Taliban for blowing up the WTC. Cheney merely took advantage of this to enrich himself.

Right here, you've said that some members of the government are profiteering from the war. Which members of the government do you think are doing this? In what ways? I'm asking for where and how you think the skullduggery is occuring, because you're only arguing against PL's theory while seemingly agreeing with him in the broadest sense.

Here's the thing. PL thinks that Cheney is gonna make money by building a pipeline and charging for the oil that goes through it. Based on what happened in Iraq though, that's not what actually happens.

See, Cheney's corporate ally is Haliburton. He was CEO of Haliburton for a while. This is a well known fact, and it's safe to say he gets a lot of campaign contributions from them. It is also well known that Haliburton is an "oil company".

Here's the thing though: Haliburton does not actually get most of its money by selling oil. It gets money by building and maintaining the infrastructure needed to extract and transport oil.

Repeat after me if it's getting complicated. Haliburton does NOT sell oil (for the most part). It sells the EQUIPMENT that makes oil production possible.,

See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halliburton . Money quote:

Products: Products and services to the energy industry [3]

By comparison, here is Exxon Mobile:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exxon_Mobile

Which actually DOES sell oil. And note that this company is worth 300 BILLION in revenue as opposed to 18 for Haliburton.

--------

So how does Haliburton (and its subsidiary, KBR) actually profit off the war?

Step 1: They are awarded contracts from the government. Which are NOT bidded out to their competitors. And these are often "plus X" contracts, which means you are given an X% margin regardless of your cost.

(Note: Many suspect Cheney influenced this process to ensure that there was no competitive bidding, and GAO is investigating this).

Step 2: Screw the government over by doing little to no work stipulated in the contract, but getting paid anyway.

From the wiki article again:

From 1995–2002, Halliburton Brown & Root Services Corp was awarded at least $2.5 billion but has spent considerably less to construct and run military bases, some in secret locations, as part of the Army's Logistics Civil Augmentation Program. This contract was a cost plus 13% contract and BRS employees were trained on how to pass GAO audits to ensure maximum profits were attained. It was also grounds for termination in the Balkans if any BRS employee spoke of Dick Cheney being CEO. BRS was awarded and re-awarded contracts termed "non-competitive" due to BRS being the only company capable to pull off the missions.

Bold areas were marked for emphasis.

And yes, Haliburton - a fucking oil refinery builder - was asked to build military bases for the government under no-bid contracts. KBR also built stuff like military bases and detention camps for the military, and they were so bad that people got electrocuted by faulty wiring:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kellogg,_Brown_and_Root

Professional negligence
KBR's maintenance work in Iraq has been criticized after reports of soldiers electrocuted from faulty wiring.[28] Specifically, KBR has been charged by the Army for improper installation of electrical units in bathrooms throughout U.S. bases

On top of all that, there is this:

Halliburton’s $2.5 billion "Restore Iraqi Oil" (RIO) contract[38] was supposed to pay for itself as well as reconstruction of the entire country. Had the contract been fulfilled correctly, Iraq would be able to export much more oil from its northern oil fields. Instead, the oil fields are barely usable and access to international markets is severely limited. Halliburton’s work on the pipeline crossing the Tigris river at Al Fatah was a critical failure. Against the advice of its own experts, Halliburton tried to dig a tunnel through a geological fault zone. The underground terrain was a jumble of boulders, voids, cobblestones and gravel impossible for the kind of drilling Halliburton planned. "No driller in his right mind would have gone ahead," said Army geologist Robert Sanders when the military finally sent people to inspect the work.

Note: the 2.5 billion dollars was supposed to have been paid REGARDLESS if the oil pipeline was restored (no-bid thing). And since they are supposedly the ONLY contractor who can repair pipelines... they were probably expecting another no-bid contract to fix the pipelines they screwed up in the first place.

Which is why I suspect the Afghan pipeline was never supposed to be completed in the first place. It was just a way for Haliburton to get 7 billion dollars while doing nothing. Why? Because there is an EXISTING pipeline to the Caspian sea that goes through Turkey. And it was built at HALF the price of the proposed Afghan one, and it doesn't involve building an oil terminal in fucking Pakistan.

*whew*

So there, in a nutshell, is how Cheney and Haliburton screwed the American taxpayer of a couple of billion dollars. And note: Many of these cases are already being investigated by the GAO. These aren't Internet accusations. These are actual fucking cases filed with the Government Accounting Office.


[Edit] Finally, forgot to mention one last thing about this entire setup:

You don't need to do this in an oil country for Cheney and Halliburton to get their money.

KBR for instance had built no-bid military bases in the Balkans, which have zero significant oil wealth, and are far from the Russian pipelines.

You don't really want me to look up some of the more amusing US laws, do you? You don't want me to go look up incidents where the US tried their own and found no guilt, do you? And saying "look what is missing from this list" is utter bullshit. Mainly because some bullshit compiled list does not mean items not on that list is not also a crime. Secondly because that list is obviously too short for a complete list of crimes. And additionaly because, as far as I know, the Quoran is pretty severe on murderers - summary execution, no exceptions or something like that. And all of these are damn obvious. So either you are too dumb to realize that a partial (yes, wikipedia says "the list included") 24-item list, that specifically lists law changes the Taliban introduced, is not in fact a complete list of laws or you are a lying shithead. Take your pick.


That said, there is an obvious course of action the US could have taken that you seem to have missed. They could have let the Taliban try Osama bin Laden under their law. With him basically admitting full responsibility on public record that should guarantee an execution. If that did not happen you were still free to invade. But the US basically said "fuck the government of Afghanistan, we would rather bomb a country to the stone age than wait for a trial". The most tame reading of that is, that the Bush administration thought they were forced to do something to appease the masses and deemed the lives of tens of thousands less important than their own poll ratings. A more damning interpretation is that they had other interests in invading Afghanistan and merely used bin Laden as a convenient excuse.


Seeing as the following Iraq war was completely and admittedly manufactured I am leaning towards the second version.

Murtak wrote:That said, there is an obvious course of action the US could have taken that you seem to have missed. They could have let the Taliban try Osama bin Laden under their law. With him basically admitting full responsibility on public record that should guarantee an execution. If that did not happen you were still free to invade.

You're a fucking idiot.

What if the Taliban, after a long and lengthy trial, found Bin Laden innocent?

And then Bin Laden suddenly publishes his 2004 tape admitting he was the mastermind?

You would, in effect, have given the Taliban a couple of years to prepare for a US attack. And given them to the chance to tell the world "People who kill Americans deserve to go unpunished!"

You're simply being stupid and your entire fantasy is based on the idea that the Taliban are actually nice and honorable people, even though they are perfectly fine with using suicide bombers and consider punishing women for not wearing a veil as an opportunity for shits and giggles.

Repeat after me: Leaders of Rogue States are the first to cry about international justice and rights when they are about to be slapped hard, even as they are busy violating the rights of their own citizens.

Also, thank you at least for admitting that PL was a liar when he said that the Taliban offered to give him up, when what they offered in fact was to try Bin Laden in an Islamic court.

And yeah, the US has some silly laws. Still, they don't fucking stone you to death for not wearing a carpet just because you're a woman or for having a bloody Christmas card.

Zinegata wrote:What if the Taliban, after a long and lengthy trial, found Bin Laden innocent?

And then Bin Laden suddenly publishes his 2004 tape admitting he was the mastermind?

You would, in effect, have given the Taliban a couple of years to prepare for a US attack. And given them to the chance to tell the world "People who kill Americans deserve to go unpunished!"

So you prefer to kill, say, 50,000 innocents, rather than risk looking naive, but goodwilled. You prefer to kill your own soldiers, rather than risk maybe getting attacked again. You prefer war to looking weak. Sponsoring warlords to upholding the law. Great.

Zinegata wrote:You're simply being stupid and your entire fantasy is based on the idea that the Taliban are actually nice and honorable people, even though they are perfectly fine with using suicide bombers and consider punishing women for not wearing a veil as an opportunity for shits and giggles.

Yeah, the US just kills them.

Damnit, of course the Taliban are scum. But that does not justify an invasion. Not that the US invaded to liberate the people of Afghanistan. By your own words the invasion happened to capture someone you are pretty sure of being a bad guy. And why the fuck do you claim the Taliban "used suicide bombers"? That is an outright lie.

Zinegata wrote:Also, thank you at least for admitting that PL was a liar when he said that the Taliban offered to give him up, when what they offered in fact was to try Bin Laden in an Islamic court.

What the fuck? Am I PLs attorney now? Talk to him about what he said and to me about what I said. This is not a team sport, dipshit.

Zinegata wrote:And yeah, the US has some silly laws. Still, they don't fucking stone you to death for not wearing a carpet just because you're a woman or for having a bloody Christmas card.

No, they just jail you for weed and fuck you over for life for having consenting sex if both you and your partner are 16. Oh, and they will kill you for being black while suspicious, or for being a dirty towelhead while in the wrong country. And all of that shit is immaterial anyway. If you kill people just for being scum who kills people, what does that make you? Oh, right - scum.

Murtak wrote:So you prefer to kill, say, 50,000 innocents, rather than risk looking naive, but goodwilled. You prefer to kill your own soldiers, rather than risk maybe getting attacked again. You prefer war to looking weak. Sponsoring warlords to upholding the law. Great.

Congratulations on wearing the stupid hat. Given the stupidity of your comments, you will now probably wear that for the rest of your life, if you haven't been wearing it already.

You also prefer to let Bin Laden the freedom to plan another attack on America while he's under "trial"? What if he planned a dirty bomb attack next while he was under "trial" and New York ends up nuked?

You are citing facts that people eight years ago would not have known. You are bullshiting with the benefit of hindsight.

That the war did not go as well eight years down the line is a seperate issue from this. People did not say "Let's kill civilians over a naively peaceful solution!" back in 2001. They said "What do you think of us Taliban? IDIOTS?"

Zinegata wrote:Damnit, of course the Taliban are scum. But that does not justify an invasion. Not that the US invaded to liberate the people of Afghanistan. By your own words the invasion happened to capture someone you are pretty sure of being a bad guy. And why the fuck do you claim the Taliban "used suicide bombers"? That is an outright lie.

At any time, the Taliban could have handed Bin Laden over without attaching any conditions. They did not.

Why are you glossing over this fact and instead lay all the blame on the United States and all of the countries that joined in whacking the Taliban?

And again, you have an extremely mypoic view of history. You went to war with Spain over a fucking ammunition handling accident.

Also, regarding suicide bombers - My mistake. I meant they were fine with them, given that they praise Hezbollah suicide bombers and all.

What the fuck? Am I PLs attorney now? Talk to him about what he said and to me about what I said. This is not a team sport, dipshit.

Yet in the end, you chose my complete telling of the lead up to the war, as opposed to PL's abbreviated self-serving version.

Thank you at least for believing in actual evidence as opposed to PL's random ramblings.

Edit: Correction on a minor point where I made a mistake.

Murtak wrote:No, they just jail you for weed and fuck you over for life for having consenting sex if both you and your partner are 16. Oh, and they will kill you for being black while suspicious, or for being a dirty towelhead while in the wrong country. And all of that shit is immaterial anyway. If you kill people just for being scum who kills people, what does that make you? Oh, right - scum.

I'm going to ignore your claims that are frankly, false, about how evil America just kills black people and women and Arabs wantonly and address a more important point.

No murtak, you are wrong and an idiot.

If you kill people just because they kill people, you are not scum, you are a goddam hero.

If you fail to kill the right people, you aren't a hero, but yes you fucking retard, the correct response to someone murdering someone else is to murder the murderer.

That's the best possible response you could ever have.

Your brilliant plan of "Oh well, he's just a murderer with a gun, I don't need to worry about it." Is the most horrendous possible policy to have on anything.

Because you know what, if the US rolls in and kills 400,000 innocent people, and 500 guilty people, and the alternative is that the 500 guilty people would have murdered 500,000 thousand people, then the US is a net benefit.

In the specific cases of Afghanistan and Iraq, I'm not sure if the US has been a net benefit, mostly because I don't know what the future would have held for those countries, nor do I fucking care.

I don't actually care about the benefit to anyone but myself.

But for you to get on a moral high horse where you claim that it is wrong to kill murderers is fucking hilarious.

Kaelik wrote:

Murtak wrote:No, they just jail you for weed and fuck you over for life for having consenting sex if both you and your partner are 16. Oh, and they will kill you for being black while suspicious, or for being a dirty towelhead while in the wrong country. And all of that shit is immaterial anyway. If you kill people just for being scum who kills people, what does that make you? Oh, right - scum.

I'm going to ignore your claims that are frankly, false, about how evil America just kills black people and women and Arabs wantonly and address a more important point.

No murtak, you are wrong and an idiot.

If you kill people just because they kill people, you are not scum, you are a goddam hero.

If you fail to kill the right people, you aren't a hero, but yes you fucking retard, the correct response to someone murdering someone else is to murder the murderer.

That's the best possible response you could ever have.

Your brilliant plan of "Oh well, he's just a murderer with a gun, I don't need to worry about it." Is the most horrendous possible policy to have on anything.

Because you know what, if the US rolls in and kills 400,000 innocent people, and 500 guilty people, and the alternative is that the 500 guilty people would have murdered 500,000 thousand people, then the US is a net benefit.

In the specific cases of Afghanistan and Iraq, I'm not sure if the US has been a net benefit, mostly because I don't know what the future would have held for those countries, nor do I fucking care.

I don't actually care about the benefit to anyone but myself.

But for you to get on a moral high horse where you claim that it is wrong to kill murderers is fucking hilarious.

I cannot believe it, but I do believe that the hideously stupid anti-war people in this board have turned me from a Kaelik hater to a fan.