The Gaming Den

Actually, Zinegata, looking at all those articles you linked, and at some of the sources for those articles, it appears that the Taliban government flipflopped on their handing over bin laden stance, like the shittily organized, feuding power-struggle of a roiling failure of a government that they were. I'm sure it didn't help that the US was about as subtle with it's threats of going to war as a bull in a china shop.

Also, Zinegata, i'd like to say that you've lowered my opinion of you considerably in this thread. None of your initial points have been backed up by any sources whatsoever, and yet any time anyone presents a point of view that disagrees with your own, you've immediately called them on their lack of sources. Not to mention calling them insane, 'anti-war nuts' and a number of other completely useless ad hominem attacks that simply make me want to stop reading what you're writing. You've also misread what some people have said so consistently that I almost have to question if you're doing it on purpose. You've backpedaled on a lot of points, and then accused others of backpedaling, usually calling them nasty names while you do. As for sources.. you've drawn some rather shaky conclusions from data that I would say doesn't actually support the conclusion you've drawn. You've repeatedly ignored sections of articles or information that you have linked, focusing only on what proves your points. Furthermore, you've passed over reputable sources that came up at least on my google searches - presumably because they didn't further your point of view.

I have no problem with you holding a point of view on the subject, Zin. That's a reasonable thing to have and do. What I have a problem with is the hypocrisy in the way you're doing it, the irrationality, and the personal attacks. I know this is the Den and you can totally tell someone to suck a barrel of cocks through a thin straw if you want to, but the way you're insulting PL and Crissa feels nasty. Furthermore, it's weird how you seem to be insulting Crissa with a lot more vehemence than PL - I don't see anything functionally different in the way that they are disagreeing with you. Pre-existing enmity, perhaps?

As for the actual situation and what you're arguing about, let's settle this with logic.

There's a guy, who has committed a very bad crime, and all of america wants him dead. A lot of them want him tortured first. So, thinking about this logically, what would your options be? Just off the top of my head, here's a few.

- Have the CIA kidnap this man.

- Have the CIA assassinate this man.

- Bomb the shit out of where he lives.

- Supply one of his enemies with weapons and have him kidnap this man for you.

- Get the country he's hiding in to capture him and hand him over/cut his head off.

- Hire a group of plucky ragtag adventurers to storm his secret lair and bring him to justice.

- Bring in some Marines/SAS/SBS/'dudes' and capture the shit out of his poorly defended shithole of a secret base.


These are all viable options. They all have different costs, and different chances of success. You know what I didn't list? The pants on head retarded options. Here's a few, off the top of my head.

- Fund a manned mission to Mars.

- Nuke the old soviet union bloc nations.

- Lead a full invasion of the civil authority of the country this guy is hiding in, prompting him to flee the country, and go into hiding, reducing your chances of capturing him considerably.

I mean, holy shit, what the fuck. Why in gods name would you ever invade a country to capture one man? That is the most retarded piece of crap I have ever heard. That's like using a sledgehammer to kill an ant. That is currently on the windscreen of your porsche. I mean, I can't think of a single country that would be able to hinder a snatch and grab operation undertaken by an intelligence network like the CIA if it was given nigh unlimited resources. And if I had to pick a country, I wouldn't pick fucking afghanistan. And even then, it would never be easier to invade a country than to get one guy out of it. If you can't get one guy out of a country, how in the name of god would you invade it?

And as you've switched the focus now to other reasons to invade afghanistan, such as 'terrorist training camps'... there are 'terrorist training camps' all over the middle east, north africa, and some parts of the balkans. Oh yeah. And there are 'militias' scattered throughout the american midwest. Who own weapons, train with them, and have goals that range between 'black people aren't human and we need to protect white people from them', 'we must prepare to fight on the day of the rapture', and 'the south will rise again'. Which are functionally identical to the manifestoes a lot of those 'terrorist training camps' work under. A lot of them are simply religious splinter groups that believe that they have to armed and ready to protect their religion. Which isn't really a viewpoint that is that odd in the middle fucking east where everyone and their dog has an ak47, if not a case of grenades and a fucking antiaircraft missile launcher.

At the time of the afghanistan war the taliban had gained the upper hand over the northern alliance, but had power struggles going on in their ranks, had many people in their upper echelon that could be viewed as 'terrorists' (and were, by the CIA), and large parts of their armed forces counted as either terrorists or were the result of those 'terrorist training camps' mentioned on the evening news. Considering they needed their armed power base to keep all the two-bit warlords and shit loosely allied to them but waiting for the first hint of blood in the water, and considering that a lot of the people who were making the decision to say yes or no to the US about 'handing over terrorists' were people who were heading straight to Gitmo if they said yes, well. Do you think it was fucking likely they were going to agree to an arbitrary list of demands that would likely have thrown their entire country into a massive civil war (again)? If not by handing over influential parts of their government and military, then by colluding with the evil 'west' which large parts of the more militant parts of their populace (hint: the guys who would/could start a civil war) hate the shit out of?

The american govt had other options than declaring war to get their hands on one man. Most of those options had a much higher success rate than invasion.

'The Taliban started it' is bullshit. The american govt started it by handing a list of impossible demands to a divided bunch of assholes who even if they agreed with it couldn't follow through for political, religious and military reasons. The american govt fucking knew better and still did it. We know the Taliban are assholes. America is supposed to know better, and be more responsible. It wasn't. Saying it was is bullshit, because it absolutely wasn't. It came in there and picked a fight, and got one. An expensive, unequal fight that made them look bad in the eyes of the world.

-Rejakor

Rejakor->

Okay, since you are apparently easily confused, I will simply ignore all of your blatant insults and your innuendo about me, and assume them instead to be merely misconceptions.

I will also, for the moment, ignore the fact that you have pretty much repeated the same erroneous arguments Crissa and PL have been repeating again and again.

Instead, I will attempt to engage in a civilized argument.

To do that however, I will require the following:

1) A list of all my claims which you say are not backed up by evidence. I will provide links if they were not provided initially, because I freely admit I may have missed some.

2) A list of all the claims that I have "ignored" that are actually factual. I will freely admit that I may have missed some arguments, so if you think I missed a particularly important one, I will answer them.

3) I require that you retract "hiring a group of adventurers" as a way to catch a guy who committed a very bad crime and all of America wants him dead. Because that has no place in a reasonable adult discussion of the topic.

Also, if you don't want me doing personal attacks, then tell other people to be civil. I treat people accordingly. Civil people are treated civilly. I am the only person on this thread to have said the equivalent of a "Thank you". Twice.

People who act like irrational hacks are called irrational hacks. Don't tell me that my comments to Crissa and PL "feel" nasty. They are nasty. Because I don't respond to nasty with nice.

Also...

'The Taliban started it' is bullshit. The american govt started it by handing a list of impossible demands to a divided bunch of assholes who even if they agreed with it couldn't follow through for political, religious and military reasons. The american govt fucking knew better and still did it. We know the Taliban are assholes. America is supposed to know better, and be more responsible. It wasn't. Saying it was is bullshit, because it absolutely wasn't. It came in there and picked a fight, and got one. An expensive, unequal fight that made them look bad in the eyes of the world.

If they were divided assholes, please post a link outlining how they were divided. Because I have in fact, posted a source that states the Taliban very much controlled 85-90% of Afghanistan before the war, and there was no mention of internal divisions.

Note also that I do not contest that the Taliban have flip-flopped. In fact I was the one who pointed out that they flip-flopped their position three times. However, I am questioning the reason for the flip-flop being "The Taliban was divided", particularly when the US government had already asked Bin Laden be handed over since 1998, and they basically gave the US the finger.

There you go again, sidestepping someone's main point in favor of nitpicking. Rejakor stated that invading Afghanistan rather than kidnapping bin Laden is insane. He listed reasons and alternatives. You ignored them. That. Is. Bullshit.

Everyone who seriously thinks that the most powerful country in the world mobilizes a part of its military and the military of every other allied country it found on the proverbial yellow pages just to catch a man living in a cave is either retardedly naive, or plain retarded.

SO to summarize Zinegata, you read the exact same sources that I read.

And you in your "brain" you replace "offered to hand him over without evidence" with... well actually you directly quote that THEN IGNORE IT.

You really are an idiot aren't you?

I suggest you shut up before you embarrass yourself with another triple post of completely ridiculous ranting stupidity.

But since you will read this post and replace it in your brain with images of fairies and sugar plums dancing around lauding you for your incredible intellect, I can imagine what you will actually do.

I might point out that Zinegata said claims of the Afghanistan government saying they would cooperate at their ability are false... Then he linked to a bunch of things, none of them actually facing that point.

So, did they say they would help or no? If not, when and where did they say this?

-Crissa

Murtak wrote:There you go again, sidestepping someone's main point in favor of nitpicking. Rejakor stated that invading Afghanistan rather than kidnapping bin Laden is insane. He listed reasons and alternatives. You ignored them. That. Is. Bullshit.

I have deliberately ignored that point in order to have a civilized dicussion, because that point is silly. As are you.

Because if kidnapping Bin laden was so simple, then Hitler should have similarly just been kidnapped and this whole "World War 2" thing was an unnecessary effort.

Similarly, they could have just kidnapped Tojo and the Emperor rather than burned every Japanese city to the ground and dropped two Atomic Bombs.

Unless of course you wish to argue that Germany and Japan have oil, hence it was necessary to conquer both countries. But it has already been proven long ago that it is not possible to have a civilized discussion with you.

PhoneLobster wrote:SO to summarize Zinegata, you read the exact same sources that I read.

And you in your "brain" you replace "offered to hand him over without evidence" with... well actually you directly quote that THEN IGNORE IT.

You really are an idiot aren't you?

I suggest you shut up before you embarrass yourself with another triple post of completely ridiculous ranting stupidity.

But since you will read this post and replace it in your brain with images of fairies and sugar plums dancing around lauding you for your incredible intellect, I can imagine what you will actually do.

Phone Lobster, you have responded to my points with "You're an idiot"... without even saying why.

This is why I have consistently claimed that you never attempt to establish causality.

You just read a point of view, compare it to yours, and if they do not match, you say they are an idiot.

But because you don't even know how causality works, you cannot even explain why the other person is an idiot other than "It's not the same as I said".

So until you start actually establishing causality, I'm gonna call you an irrational, partisan hack who fired off idiotic comments.

You're full of shit. It's a fact. And if you want to keep simply shouting that "No, YOU'RE the idiot", that's fine. Because that's like being called an idiot by Glenn Beck, who we all know is just someone who says what people who aren't thinking... are thinking.

Crissa wrote:I might point out that Zinegata said claims of the Afghanistan government saying they would cooperate at their ability are false... Then he linked to a bunch of things, none of them actually facing that point.

When did I claim that? Please quote my exact words saying this. Because I have no idea what you're talking about, and to be blunt your claim is pretty confusing.

"The claims that the Afghan government could cooperate at their ability"? I haven't claimed this to be false. I have claimed that this was not yet been provento be false.

Because what you linked was the government structure of Iran and Baron fucking Steuben.

If you can link something that actully states straight out that the Taliban was physically incapable of handing over Bin Laden due to its government structure, then do so. I will only note this make you a bitch and Phone Lobster an idiot for constantly harping that "The Taliban offered Bin Laden to the US"... when in fact they weren't capable of doing so.

I have only claimed what was said by my source - the Taliban controlled 85-90% of Afghanistan pre-911. Nowhere does it state the control was chaotic or barely functioning.

In fact, given your record in this thread, this is probably another one of your unsubstiantated lies.

Kobajagrande wrote:Everyone who seriously thinks that the most powerful country in the world mobilizes a part of its military and the military of every other allied country it found on the proverbial yellow pages just to catch a man living in a cave is either retardedly naive, or plain retarded.

You know, one thing I noticed is that people keep saying "They attacked Afghanistan just to whack Bin Laden. I admit this may be partly my mistake. Still, I've noted several times the demands of the US against the Taliban:

1.Deliver to the US all of the leaders of Al-Qaeda;
2.Release all imprisoned foreign nationals;
3.Close immediately every terrorist training camp;
4.Hand over every terrorist and their supporters to appropriate authorities;
5.Give the United States full access to terrorist training camps for inspection

So the claim you're sending the most powerful man "after one man" is actually a blatantly false claim. As is every person on this board. There's also the terrorist training camps and facilities.

It's also an issue that the Taliban did not even respond to, meaning they intended to keep the camps open. They didn't even deny they had the camps.

Unless of course you wish to claim that the Taliban never harbored terrorist camps and the US and its Allies were bombing empty plots of land.

Now, I'm sure Phone Lobster is gonna claim I'm "squirming away" from the topic, because I pointed out facts outside of his precious "It's stupid to send the military after Bin laden" theory. Here's the thing though: I'm just adding facts to the equation. I'm not denying anything... except the fantasy the military was only after Bin Laden, and it's feasible to simply "kidnap" him.

So ladies and gentlemen who have reasonable minds, to quickly recap the thread so far:

Round 1: "The Afghan War is an Oil War - A Myth"

1) Crissa claimed that the US only attacked countries because they had oil. This has proven to be false, and not just by me. The US attacks other countries to serve its own national interests, and oil does not always factor to this.

2) Phone Lobster came to the defense of the above argument by claiming that Cheney planned to build an oil pipeline through Afghanistan that gave people access to Caspian Sea Oil.

3) I noted that it's silly to build a pipeline through Afghanistan... when a cheaper pipeline was already built through Turkey that supplies the world with Caspian Sea Oil.

4) I also noted that Cheney's modus operandi so far was to award big no-bid contracts to Halliburton to build silly things. Because Halliburton is actually a construction company.

5) PL insists that Cheney went to war for the sake of the pipeline despite of #2 and #3. He also ignored the more likely theory that Cheney simply took advantage of the war to award more no-bid contracts to Halliburton to line his own pockets. Because Halliburton earns a lot of money building military bases (billions, in fact) even if they're in the oil-less Balkans, and these contracts are already being investigated as fraudulent by the GAO.

In short, Cheney is a war profiteer, not the Shadow Government Controlling the US.

Round 2 - "The Taliban are the Good Guys Who WisheD to Prevent War - Another Myth"

1) I have claimed that the main reason for the US attack on Afghanistan was to whack Bin Laden. This was incomplete and I apologize to everyone except Crissa and PL if this caused any confusion. They attacked Afghanistan to both capture Bin Laden and shut down the terrorist training camps.

2) PL and Crissa both initially claimed that the Taliban had offered to give up BIn Laden. However, the US apparently refused this offer because GWB and Cheney are war-mongering monster. This ignores the fact that:

-> a) It was the US Government who initiated a diplomatic solution - which was to demand the Taliban hand over Bin Laden, his cronies, and to shut down the terrorist camps. This would not have involved the loss of a single life

-> b) The Taliban changed the offer three times ("flip-flopped"), and the final offer did not even involve turning Bin Laden over to the US. It also never discussed closing the terrorist camps.

-> c) PL, Crissa, and Martuk all claim that the Taliban had the right not to hand over Bin Laden because "there was no evidence". Ignoring the fact that the US government had already presented evidence since 1998 (before the Bush Administration) demanding that Bin Laden be handed over. The Taliban basically said "fuck you" in 1998, and there was no reason to believe they would do the same now.

3) Since I have presented the facts in #7, PL and Crissa have ceased citing "The Taliban offered to hand over Bin Laden", and instead claim that the Taliban didn't have the capability to hand him over. This means:

-> a) The Taliban was negotiating in bad faith, because all of their offers require that Osama be under their custody one way or the other.

-> b) They were royally stupid and should have said "We don't have him in custody, but if you really want to catch him we can help you".

However, no evidence has been shown directly proving the Taliban didn't have the capability to turn over Bin Laden. So we can hold off on saying the Taliban are royally stupid and acting in bad faith for now.

Round 3: Let's Kidnap Bin Laden like how The Allies kidnapped Hitler

1) Some people are claiming they should have just kidnapped Bin Laden. Which I am ignoring for the sake of having a civilized discussion. Because:

-> a) That's not the only reason the US went to war (More complicated than "It's an oil war", I know. But it's much more constructive)

-> b) If it were that easy they should have just kidnapped Hitler or Tojo.

Also, fun fact: Hitler had dozens of attempts on his life. It wasn't just the Allies who were trying. Senior people who worked under him tried numerous times to off him. The best-known attempt was by a guy named Stauffenberg who met Hitler on a regular basis.

Yet they all failed. Should we therefore conclude that World War 2 was a fabrication created for the sake of burning Germany and Japan to the ground?

Kidnapping or killing one particular person is not easy. It takes a lot of luck and very good intel. And it also still leaves the terrorist camps intact.

------

Thank you for your time. Please use this post as a reference before making snide comments. Thank you!

So did I call it or what? Multiple ranting posts of total nonsense.

You Zinegata are an embarrassment to people who publicly embarrass themselves.

PhoneLobster wrote:So did I call it or what? Multiple ranting posts of total nonsense.

You Zinegata are an embarrassment to people who publicly embarrass themselves.

If you have a point you wish to counter, I have already created a summary of the situation thus far.

All you're doing is called "mocking", which in the context of TGDMB... means nothing.

I can do it too you know. *points to PL and laughs at him for not having a brain*

Strangely, Hitler was the head of one of the top ten economies and leader of the largest armies in his day. He was the first guy with radar night interceptors, short and mid range strategic missiles, jet fighters, helicopters, and the 'lightning' combined arms tactics.

bin Laden was an exiled member of a rich clan, to be sure, but his bank accounts were locked down and his military power was limited to a handful of guys with small arms, IEDs, and maybe a decades' old cache of Stinger missiles.

Hitler probably has more followers today than bin Laden does.

Hardly a comparison.

-Crissa

PS: Does anyone but Zinegata know where I made the crazy claims he said I made?

Zinegata wrote:Round 1: "The Afghan War is an Oil War - A Myth"

1) Crissa claimed that the US only attacked countries because they had oil. This has proven to be false, and not just by me. The US attacks other countries to serve its own national interests, and oil does not always factor to this.

2) Phone Lobster came to the defense of the above argument by claiming that Cheney planned to build an oil pipeline through Afghanistan that gave people access to Caspian Sea Oil.

3) I noted that it's silly to build a pipeline through Afghanistan... when a cheaper pipeline was already built through Turkey that supplies the world with Caspian Sea Oil.

How the fuck does "I think that building fossil fuel pipelines through Afghanistan is silly" refute the fact that the proposal to buld the damn things was real?

I mean, they have their own fucking Wikipedia Pages.

[utl=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Afghanistan_Pipeline]Afghanistan Gas Pipeline[/url]
Afghanistan Oil Pipeline

These weren't crazy conspiracy theories by hippies, these were real financial plans. Drawn up and seriously proposed by Unocal and the Asian Development Bank.

These projects have been put on hold because the American invasion failed to stabilize the region, not because Zinegata thinks they are a silly idea. Saying "we failed to get the oil!" does not refute the assertion that the war was intended to get the oil in the first place.

-Username17

Zinegata wrote:Now, I'm sure Phone Lobster is gonna claim I'm "squirming away" from the topic, because I pointed out facts outside of his precious "It's stupid to send the military after Bin laden" theory. Here's the thing though: I'm just adding facts to the equation. I'm not denying anything... except the fantasy the military was only after Bin Laden, and it's feasible to simply "kidnap" him.

Okay, your pattern of thought intrigued me. How old are you?

FrankTrollman wrote:

Zinegata wrote:Round 1: "The Afghan War is an Oil War - A Myth"

1) Crissa claimed that the US only attacked countries because they had oil. This has proven to be false, and not just by me. The US attacks other countries to serve its own national interests, and oil does not always factor to this.

2) Phone Lobster came to the defense of the above argument by claiming that Cheney planned to build an oil pipeline through Afghanistan that gave people access to Caspian Sea Oil.

3) I noted that it's silly to build a pipeline through Afghanistan... when a cheaper pipeline was already built through Turkey that supplies the world with Caspian Sea Oil.

How the fuck does "I think that building fossil fuel pipelines through Afghanistan is silly" refute the fact that the proposal to buld the damn things was real?

I mean, they have their own fucking Wikipedia Pages.

[utl=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Afghanistan_Pipeline]Afghanistan Gas Pipeline[/url]
Afghanistan Oil Pipeline

These weren't crazy conspiracy theories by hippies, these were real financial plans. Drawn up and seriously proposed by Unocal and the Asian Development Bank.

These projects have been put on hold because the American invasion failed to stabilize the region, not because Zinegata thinks they are a silly idea. Saying "we failed to get the oil!" does not refute the assertion that the war was intended to get the oil in the first place.

-Username17

I didn't deny the proposal didn't exist. I am merely saying it's silly to believe it was the primary motive for war for the entire country. Again, note the conclusion:

"5) PL insists that Cheney went to war for the sake of the pipeline despite of #2 and #3. He also ignored the more likely theory that Cheney simply took advantage of the war to award more no-bid contracts to Halliburton to line his own pockets. Because Halliburton earns a lot of money building military bases (billions, in fact) even if they're in the oil-less Balkans, and these contracts are already being investigated as fraudulent by the GAO. "

Did I say the plan didn't exist? No, I did not. I only said it's a silly plan and it's most likely another Halliburton no-bid bullshit project.

Crissa wrote:Strangely, Hitler was the head of one of the top ten economies and leader of the largest armies in his day. He was the first guy with radar night interceptors, short and mid range strategic missiles, jet fighters, helicopters, and the 'lightning' combined arms tactics.

bin Laden was an exiled member of a rich clan, to be sure, but his bank accounts were locked down and his military power was limited to a handful of guys with small arms, IEDs, and maybe a decades' old cache of Stinger missiles.

Oh, finally, you're actually responding to points as opposed to calling others idiots.

Yes, of course Hitler had more resources. But that doesn't change the fact that the Allies - and Germans - in fact tried to assassinate him. That they failed does not mean the Allies were intentionally letting him live so they get to burn Germany to the ground.

That the US has tried - i.e. bombing his farm - but failed to get him is also not proof that they're not actually trying to defeat Osama. I've already said they're doing it incompetently. But you don't have proof they're not actually trying.

-------

Also, note that it's often hard to kill one man even if they have limited resources.

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

Che Guvera took two years to capture and execute, even though he was operating in US-friendly Bolivia. And he was pretty much leading another shoe-string revolutionary movement.

So no, you're not proving anything. Again, no causality.

Zinegata wrote:Did I say the plan didn't exist? No, I did not. I only said it's a silly plan and it's most likely another Halliburton no-bid bullshit project.

But that's just factually wrong. It's a project by Unocal (Chevron) and the Asian Development Bank. It's supposed to cost 2.5 billion dollars and provide for the shipment of one million barrels of oil a day. It will pay its literal production costs off in a few months. If, and only if, someone can get Afghans to stop shooting at it.

The only silly part of the plan is the part where the invasion as devised by Rumsfeld was never going to work, and the allies that Bush chose to work with were unreliable opium smugglers instead of any of the competent factions with actual interests in stabilizing the region.

It's not all about shoveling money to Haliburton. It's also about shoveling money to Exxon and Chevron. Cheney personally gets kickbacks from building oil infrastructure. But Bush's friends often get money from selling actual oil. Iraq was not invaded to get more oil out of it. It was invaded to drive the price of oil up. But yes, it was extremely specifically part of the plan of invading Afghanistan to funnel oil to American oil companies instead of to Russian oil companies. That was black and white in the original proposals.

And you come off as weirdly fixated on the whole Haliburton connection when you deny that fact.

-Username17

Kobajagrande wrote:

Zinegata wrote:Now, I'm sure Phone Lobster is gonna claim I'm "squirming away" from the topic, because I pointed out facts outside of his precious "It's stupid to send the military after Bin laden" theory. Here's the thing though: I'm just adding facts to the equation. I'm not denying anything... except the fantasy the military was only after Bin Laden, and it's feasible to simply "kidnap" him.

Okay, your pattern of thought intrigued me. How old are you?

What does it matter? I could claim I'm ten years old and I can claim I'm ninety-two. It doesn't matter.

If you wanna mock me, you don't need to know my age. If you wanna praise me, you don't need to know my age.

Zinegata wrote: What does it matter?

Because I want to know how old of a man you are to think the way you do.

FrankTrollman wrote:But that's just factually wrong. It's a project by Unocal (Chevron) and the Asian Development Bank. It's supposed to cost 2.5 billion dollars and provide for the shipment of one million barrels of oil a day. It will pay its literal production costs off in a few months. If, and only if, someone can get Afghans to stop shooting at it.

Eh? Why did PL keep insisting the Afghan pipeline costs 7.6 billion dollars then and it was backed by Cheney (and by extension Halliburton, and the US government), not the ADB & Cheveron?

I don't think you're both talking about the same pipeline.

I'm fully aware that there are multiple projects trying to transport Caspian Sea oil. The pipeline to Turkey costs around 2.5 billion also. Since the one you linked is of a similar cost then it makes a lot more sense, since why would you build a pipeline that costs three times more than an existing one through a war zone?

It's not all about shoveling money to Haliburton. It's also about shoveling money to Exxon and Chevron.

See, Frank, here's the problem: PL never said anything about Exxon or Chevron. The only name he ever mentioned was Cheney. And given that his project costs 3x more than the one you linked, I don't think you're even talking about the same project.

But Bush's friends often get money from selling actual oil. Iraq was not invaded to get more oil out of it. It was invaded to drive the price of oil up.

That's a whole other issue entirely that we haven't discussed at all. Care to share the links? Because that would be an allegation seperate from mine, and possibly a plausible one.

Yeah, we know Bush has friends in the oil world. Yes, war jacks up the oil prices. But I would say that applies much more to the Iraqi war than the Afghan one.

But yes, it was extremely specifically part of the plan of invading Afghanistan to funnel oil to American oil companies instead of to Russian oil companies. That was black and white in the original proposals.

Every pipeline built recently for Caspian Sea oil has been made to benefit Western companies as opposed to Russian ones. That's true with the Turkey pipeline and the proposed Afghan Pipeline/Pipelines. I don't see how a 7.6 billion project can be anything more than a scam, when you already showed an Afghan pipeline can be built for 1/3 the cost.

Kobajagrande wrote:

Zinegata wrote: What does it matter?

Because I want to know how old of a man you are to think the way you do.

If you want to mock me, you don't need to know my age. If you want to praise me, you don't need to know my age.

Instead, what you should do is to say what you think of the way I think, so I can either say "Thank you", or "Fuck you".

No need to be obtuse.

Frank->

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

Could this be the pipeline PL is talking about? He never really posted a source. It at least costs 7.6 billion. And the reason it costs more is because it's a natural gas pipeline, not an oil one, and it requires specialized equipment to keep the natural gas under pressure.

In which case the pipeline makes sense. However, since PL keeps saying it was an oil pipeline, never provided a link, and my only other reference was the Baku pipeline, I assumed that it was simply an overly inflated price tag ala Cheney's other Halliburton shenanigans.

Nothing in the article suggests Cheney was going to directly profit from this pipeline though. Maybe his oil friends, as you suggested.

However, the "fuck Russia argument"? It doesn't really hold because all planned pipelines out of the Caspian sea are "fuck Russia" propositions:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baku-Tbili ... n_pipeline

See the politics section.

Zinegata wrote:Instead, what you should do is to say what you think of the way I think, so I can either say "Thank you", or "Fuck you".

You may have mistaken me for someone who wants to argue about politics on a Sunday morning. I want to put your opinions into context of your age. If you are ashamed of your age, think it would somehow count against you, or think that's going too much into your privacy somehow, then say so, and stop trying to wriggle out like you do, because, frankly, it makes you look petty and retarded.