The Better Candidate - Obama or Clinton?

[Dos Equis]

No.

I think we should pull our forces out of the cities and abandon that "we're helping them" bullshit.

We should set up our 14 to 20 bases along that sexy oil pipeline and let a lot of GIs sit idly in the sand playing cards safely.  Give the cities back to the Iraqis and let them handle it.  Kill without prejuidice anything which comes within 2 miles of the pipeline.  We give them their profits, the US manages the resources as planned for the last 12 years (if not longer).

Thoughts?

That makes no sense, in part because the "U.S." isn't managing any pipeline.  Halliburton and/or any other company involved with construction aren't government entities. 

[240 is Back]

That makes no sense, in part because the "U.S." isn't managing any pipeline.  Halliburton and/or any other company involved with construction aren't government entities. 

no, but govt entities do sign agreements to allow the US to manage resources and issue Iraq a check.

You're new to this, huh?

[Dos Equis]

no, but govt entities do sign agreements to allow the US to manage resources and issue Iraq a check.

You're new to this, huh?

Quit making stuff up.  Again.  You don't know what the heck you're talking about.  Again.  Remember, 240, you have zero credibility.  I accept very little of what you say at face value.

The fact is you don't know squat about the contracts between private companies and the Iraqi government.  You haven't read them, you don't know who the parties are, you don't know what the precise subject matter of the contracts are, you don't what the remedies for breach of the contracts are, you don't know where and by whom disputes would be resolved.  You know nothing.  But that has never stopped you from just making stuff up.  Carry on . . . . .

[240 is Back]

Quit making stuff up.  Again.  You don't know what the heck you're talking about.  Again.  Remember, 240, you have zero credibility.  I accept very little of what you say at face value.

The fact is you don't know squat about the contracts between private companies and the Iraqi government.  You haven't read them, you don't know who the parties are, you don't know what the precise subject matter of the contracts are, you don't what the remedies for breach of the contracts are, you don't know where and by whom disputes would be resolved.  You know nothing.  But that has never stopped you from just making stuff up.  Carry on . . . . .

Way to dispute zero percent of anything I said and resorting to personal insults in the face of your inability to understand infrastructure contracts with nations possessing no revenue but mucho resources.

Or,

 

[Hedgehog]

no, but govt entities do sign agreements to allow the US to manage resources and issue Iraq a check.

You're new to this, huh?

The goal was to put a US friendly government in place, that way secure oil.

Not occupying and defending a "US" pipeline.

Show me one analysis that speaks of this scenario.

-Hedge

[240 is Back]

The goal was to put a US friendly government in place, that way secure oil.
Not occupying and defending a "US" pipeline.
Show me one analysis that speaks of this scenario.
-Hedge

They're not really soemthing that is talked about.  Kucinich brought it up and his mike was cut, on Tucker.   The US pipeline has been in the works for quite some time. 

[BRUCE]

No.

I think we should pull our forces out of the cities and abandon that "we're helping them" bullshit.

We should set up our 14 to 20 bases along that sexy oil pipeline and let a lot of GIs sit idly in the sand playing cards safely.  Give the cities back to the Iraqis and let them handle it.  Kill without prejuidice anything which comes within 2 miles of the pipeline.  We give them their profits, the US manages the resources as planned for the last 12 years (if not longer).

Thoughts?

I'm a bit more Disneyland (to use a Three Kings quote).  Even if our initial intention in Iraq wasn't to bring liberation to its people, it is nonetheless a noble cause now.  We can debate the semantics of entering the war ad nauseum without agreeing.  I believe we should use Iraq's oil to help them rebuild their nation and eventually become a peaceful and prosperous free nation.  It's deeply within our own best interests now to ensure this occurs, and not leave before it has.

[240 is Back]

1991-1997: Oil Investment in Central Asia Follows Soviet CollapseThe Soviet Union collapses in 1991, creating several new nations in Central Asia.

1995-November 2001: US Lobbies India Over Enron Power PlantEnron’s $3 billion Dabhol, India power plant runs into trouble in 1995 when the Indian government temporarily cancels an agreement.

September-October 1995: Unocal Obtains Turkmenistan Pipeline DealOil company Unocal signs an $8 billion deal with Turkmenistan to construct two pipelines (one for oil, one for gas), as part of a larger plan for two pipelines intended to transport oil and gas from Turkmenistan through Afghanistan and into Pakistan.

December 1995: Caspian Sea Said to Contain Two-Thirds of World’s Known Oil Reserves

May 1996: US Seeks Stability in Afghanistan for Unocal Pipeline

June 24, 1996: Uzbekistan Cuts a Deal with EnronUzbekistan signs a deal with Enron

August 13, 1996: Unocal, Delta Oil Plan Afghan Pipeline

September 27, 1996: Victorious Taliban Supported by Pakistan; Viewed by US, Unocal as Stabilizing Force

October 7, 1996: Future Bush Envoy to Afghanistan Wants US to Help Taliban Unify Country, Build Pipeline

October 11, 1996: Afghan Pipeline Key to ‘One of the Great Prizes of the 21st Century’

August 1997: CIA Monitors Central Asia for Oil Reserves

October 27, 1997: Halliburton Announces Turkmenistan Project; Unocal and Delta Oil Form ConsortiumHalliburton, a company headed by future Vice President Dick Cheney

November 1997: Enron and bin Laden Family Team Up for Project

December 1997: Unocal Establishes Pipeline Training Facility Near bin Laden’s Compound

December 4, 1997: Taliban Representatives Visit Unocal in Texas

Early 1998: US Official Meets with Taliban; Promote Afghan Pipeline

June 23, 1998: Future VP Cheney Raves About Caspian Sea Opportunities

August 9, 1998: Northern Alliance Stronghold Conquered by Taliban; Pipeline Project Now Looks Promising

December 5, 1998: Unocal Abandons Afghan Pipeline Project

Late 1998: Taliban Stall Pipeline Negotiations to Keep Western Powers at Bay

1999: US Ready to Fight For Oil, Especially in Persian Gulf and Caspian Regions
A top level US policy document explicitly confirms the US military’s readiness to fight a war for oil. The report, Strategic Assessment 1999, prepared for the US Joint Chiefs of Staff and the secretary of defense, states, “energy and resource issues will continue to shape international security,” and if an oil “problem” arises, “US forces might be used to ensure adequate supplies.” Oil conflicts over production facilities and transport routes, particularly in the Persian Gulf and Caspian regions, are specifically envisaged. [Sydney Morning Herald, 5/20/2003]

July 4, 1999: Executive Order Issued Against Taliban

December 20, 1999: Iran Said to Be Supporting Conflict in Afghanistan to Further Their Own Pipeline Plans

December 19, 2000: US Seeks Taliban Overthrow

January 21, 2001: Bush Administration Takes Over; Many Have Oil Industry Connections

May 16, 2001: Cheney’s Energy Plan Foresees Government Helping US Companies Expand Into New Markets

May 23, 2001: Former Unocal Employee Becomes Bush’s Special Assistant to Middle East and Central Asia

June 27, 2001: India and Pakistan Discuss Building Pipeline Project Through Iran

July 21, 2001: US Official Threatens Possible Military Action Against Taliban by October if Pipeline Is Not Pursued

August 2, 2001: US Official Secretly Meets Taliban Ambassador in Last Attempt to Secure Pipeline Deal

September 11, 2001: The 9/11 Attack

October 5, 2001: Study Reveals Significant Oil and Gas Deposits in Afghanistan

October 9, 2001: Afghan Pipeline Idea Is Revived

December 8, 2001: US Oil Companies to Invest $200 Billion in Kazakhstan
January 1, 2002: Ex-Unocal Employee Becomes US Special Envoy and ’Real President’ of Afghanistan

February 9, 2002: Pakistani and Afghan Leaders Revive Afghanistan Pipeline

February 14, 2002: US Military Bases Line Afghan Pipeline Route

May 30, 2002: Afghan, Turkmen, and Pakistani Leaders Sign Pipeline Deal

December 27, 2002: Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Turkmenistan Agree on Building Pipeline

[240 is Back]

I'm a bit more Disneyland (to use a Three Kings quote).  Even if our initial intention in Iraq wasn't to bring liberation to its people, it is nonetheless a noble cause now.  We can debate the semantics of entering the war ad nauseum without agreeing.  I believe we should use Iraq's oil to help them rebuild their nation and eventually become a peaceful and prosperous free nation.  It's deeply within our own best interests now to ensure this occurs, and not leave before it has.

we did establish democracy.  we did help them do election. we did help them kill sadaam.  we are using their oil to help them rebuild.  and to reward ourselves, we have favorable oil contracts and we are directly managing its output and selecting the parties to which that oil is sold.

If China offers Iraq $150 per barrel, they cannot sell it.  They have to sell it to the US at a price set by the US.

[BRUCE]

we did establish democracy.  we did help them do election. we did help them kill sadaam.  we are using their oil to help them rebuild.  and to reward ourselves, we have favorable oil contracts and we are directly managing its output and selecting the parties to which that oil is sold.

If China offers Iraq $150 per barrel, they cannot sell it.  They have to sell it to the US at a price set by the US.

Ah yes, so we did.  We are then, in my opinion, playing a noble role in creating an Iraq that we can all look forward to.

[Camel Jockey]

When did I state that I was for no action? I'm for getting Osama and everyone responsible for 9/11, but the thing here is that Iraq HAD nothing to do with 9/11. I'm not for wasting American lives, not for lies, not for having our freedoms stripped under the facade of safety from terrorism. Get my drift?

Obama opposed the war from the start and that took balls. I guess Barack saw the war for what it really was, a struggle for resources.

[BRUCE]

When did I state that I was for no action? I'm for getting Osama and everyone responsible for 9/11, but the thing here is that Iraq HAD nothing to do with 9/11. I'm not for wasting American lives, not for lies, not for having our freedoms stripped under the facade of safety from terrorism. Get my drift?

Obama opposed the war from the start and that took balls. I guess Barack saw the war for what it really was, a struggle for resources.

Perhaps not, but it did have something to do with state-funded terror.  Saddam had every intention on bringing harm to his citizens, neighbours and any other enemy within reach.  He wouldn't have thought twice about wiping Israel - one of our closest allies - off the map, and he had every intention of acquiring the weapons to do so.

In case you haven't noticed, a person's most precious right is their right to live.  Saddam was all about removing that right from people that he deemed not worthy of it.  Our freedoms and lives, and those of our allies and friends worldwide, are safer than ever since his removal and death.

[240 is Back]

people gotta stop saying the dems didn't wanna do anything about 3000 dead on 9/11.
it's just asinine.
EVERYONE wanted war with afghanistan after 9/11.


Iraq, most wanted it, even though they had nothing to do with 9/11.

I keep hearing "the dems wouldn't have done this..." when their public statements say otherwise.



Why would anyone make up hypotheticals which disagree with precedent set by fact?

[BRUCE]

people gotta stop saying the dems didn't wanna do anything about 3000 dead on 9/11.
it's just asinine.
EVERYONE wanted war with afghanistan after 9/11.


Iraq, most wanted it, even though they had nothing to do with 9/11.

I keep hearing "the dems wouldn't have done this..." when their public statements say otherwise.



Why would anyone make up hypotheticals which disagree with precedent set by fact?

True, let's not let our partisanship take precedent over the facts.

[Hugo Chavez]

You're a true Liberal......they kill 3000 of our own people on our turf and you want to do nothing, at least your consistant with your party!

Obama did support Afganistan, not Iraq... Iraq didn't do 9/11... Get off rush before you completely meltdown to  nothing...

[240 is Back]

True, let's not let our partisanship take precedent over the facts.

agreed. 
I love debating, and I've been around the party block from repub to libertarian to isolationist to realist.

But for some people here, I see the uncanny need to attack Dems for things they might have done in 2001 if they had been in charge, instead of looking fwd.  it's like telling a cop you shouldn't be arrested for killing a man, because you bet Ted Bundy would have killed ten men in 2001 if he had still been alive!

it's silly.

[Mr. Intenseone]

1991-1997: Oil Investment in Central Asia Follows Soviet CollapseThe Soviet Union collapses in 1991, creating several new nations in Central Asia.

1995-November 2001: US Lobbies India Over Enron Power PlantEnron’s $3 billion Dabhol, India power plant runs into trouble in 1995 when the Indian government temporarily cancels an agreement.

September-October 1995: Unocal Obtains Turkmenistan Pipeline DealOil company Unocal signs an $8 billion deal with Turkmenistan to construct two pipelines (one for oil, one for gas), as part of a larger plan for two pipelines intended to transport oil and gas from Turkmenistan through Afghanistan and into Pakistan.

December 1995: Caspian Sea Said to Contain Two-Thirds of World’s Known Oil Reserves

May 1996: US Seeks Stability in Afghanistan for Unocal Pipeline

June 24, 1996: Uzbekistan Cuts a Deal with EnronUzbekistan signs a deal with Enron

August 13, 1996: Unocal, Delta Oil Plan Afghan Pipeline

September 27, 1996: Victorious Taliban Supported by Pakistan; Viewed by US, Unocal as Stabilizing Force

October 7, 1996: Future Bush Envoy to Afghanistan Wants US to Help Taliban Unify Country, Build Pipeline

October 11, 1996: Afghan Pipeline Key to ‘One of the Great Prizes of the 21st Century’

August 1997: CIA Monitors Central Asia for Oil Reserves

October 27, 1997: Halliburton Announces Turkmenistan Project; Unocal and Delta Oil Form ConsortiumHalliburton, a company headed by future Vice President Dick Cheney

November 1997: Enron and bin Laden Family Team Up for Project

December 1997: Unocal Establishes Pipeline Training Facility Near bin Laden’s Compound

December 4, 1997: Taliban Representatives Visit Unocal in Texas

Early 1998: US Official Meets with Taliban; Promote Afghan Pipeline

June 23, 1998: Future VP Cheney Raves About Caspian Sea Opportunities

August 9, 1998: Northern Alliance Stronghold Conquered by Taliban; Pipeline Project Now Looks Promising

December 5, 1998: Unocal Abandons Afghan Pipeline Project

Late 1998: Taliban Stall Pipeline Negotiations to Keep Western Powers at Bay

1999: US Ready to Fight For Oil, Especially in Persian Gulf and Caspian Regions
A top level US policy document explicitly confirms the US military’s readiness to fight a war for oil. The report, Strategic Assessment 1999, prepared for the US Joint Chiefs of Staff and the secretary of defense, states, “energy and resource issues will continue to shape international security,” and if an oil “problem” arises, “US forces might be used to ensure adequate supplies.” Oil conflicts over production facilities and transport routes, particularly in the Persian Gulf and Caspian regions, are specifically envisaged. [Sydney Morning Herald, 5/20/2003]

July 4, 1999: Executive Order Issued Against Taliban

December 20, 1999: Iran Said to Be Supporting Conflict in Afghanistan to Further Their Own Pipeline Plans

December 19, 2000: US Seeks Taliban Overthrow

January 21, 2001: Bush Administration Takes Over; Many Have Oil Industry Connections

May 16, 2001: Cheney’s Energy Plan Foresees Government Helping US Companies Expand Into New Markets

May 23, 2001: Former Unocal Employee Becomes Bush’s Special Assistant to Middle East and Central Asia

June 27, 2001: India and Pakistan Discuss Building Pipeline Project Through Iran

July 21, 2001: US Official Threatens Possible Military Action Against Taliban by October if Pipeline Is Not Pursued

August 2, 2001: US Official Secretly Meets Taliban Ambassador in Last Attempt to Secure Pipeline Deal

September 11, 2001: The 9/11 Attack

October 5, 2001: Study Reveals Significant Oil and Gas Deposits in Afghanistan

October 9, 2001: Afghan Pipeline Idea Is Revived

December 8, 2001: US Oil Companies to Invest $200 Billion in Kazakhstan
January 1, 2002: Ex-Unocal Employee Becomes US Special Envoy and ’Real President’ of Afghanistan

February 9, 2002: Pakistani and Afghan Leaders Revive Afghanistan Pipeline

February 14, 2002: US Military Bases Line Afghan Pipeline Route

May 30, 2002: Afghan, Turkmen, and Pakistani Leaders Sign Pipeline Deal

December 27, 2002: Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Turkmenistan Agree on Building Pipeline

I haven't been on for a while and haven't read all the posts, but from what I can see by this post is you think this was all conjured up for oil....right?

[240 is Back]

I haven't been on for a while and haven't read all the posts, but from what I can see by this post is you think this was all conjured up for oil....right?

The war in Afghanistan would have happened exactly as it did, even if 9/11 had never happened.

The motive was there- the taliban completely fucked us over in 1998 after we put them into power.  They came to TX, agreed to let Unocal put in a pipeline, took our money, then told us to piss off.

We gave them dozens of warnings - we needed that oil to retain american supremacy in the world.

joe, the invasion of afghan. would have happened how it did, when it did, even if 9/11 had never happened.  9/11 was - either by coincidence or conspiracy - the rallying event which got the USA behind the war.  But our govt - and perhaps RIGHTLY SO - had decided way before then, told our allies, and had assembled the war infrastructure in the region.

i actually support war in afghanistan - we need those resources so CHINA doesn't get them.  And not oil - but a dual pipeline (one oil, one gas) to connect the regions, thru afghanistan to empty the caspian sea.

[Hedgehog]

i actually support war in afghanistan - we need those resources so CHINA doesn't get them.  And not oil - but a dual pipeline (one oil, one gas) to connect the regions, thru afghanistan to empty the caspian sea.

Oh brother.

You don't suspect waging war and invading another country, stealing their resources could be counter-productive?

240 or Bust, you've seen the results of a military aggressive policy the last few years, how it's worsened relations with other countries, potentially hurting USA's trading and resourcing needs.

How could you still be a believer in such a policy?

-Hedge

[Hugo Chavez]

I also can't stand the notion we need to grab resources to block China... I hate every aspect of this thinking, I'm really sorry 240...  This may be part of the reasoning behind some in gov but it's not correct to follow this a good.  If our country gave a real rats ass, they would have addressed Corporate America's gianthronomous dumping of unlimited funds on China in exchange for slave labor.  But no, we gave corporate America the go ahead with Favorite Trade status to China.   No stipulation on human rights or communism... The other stupid notion to this... While America may not go toward alternative energy do to influence from the big energy companies if anyone thinks this translates to China, they're making shit up in their heads... China will not give a rats ass about developing alternative energy in a heartbeat.  While we as a country run by big oil hunt down those who create alternative systems.   China will use oil and coal while it is convenient... Cutting off China from Oil will do exactly fucking zero.  stupid stupid stupid stupid....  You want to keep them from being a communist superpower bigger than America, look at the Americans that are making that happen, not oil fields.  I do not follow in this bullshit thinking that we know the president is wrong but because it's necessary we should tolerate it. nope, not coming on that train.

[240 is Back]

You don't suspect waging war and invading another country, stealing their resources could be counter-productive?

240 or Bust, you've seen the results of a military aggressive policy the last few years, how it's worsened relations with other countries, potentially hurting USA's trading and resourcing needs.

How could you still be a believer in such a policy?

I don't support it but I accept it.  It was the will of the global elite for ten years.  You cannot stop them.  it's fucked up, but it's true.

[Hugo Chavez]

I don't support it but I accept it.  It was the will of the global elite for ten years.  You cannot stop them.  it's fucked up, but it's true.

I don't think they can be stopped either but didn't you say, "It's 2007, and as I begin to learn the deeper motives behind the wars in the middle east, i am beginning to see things as necessary, however ugly they are."  I wouldn't support or accept it.  For me personally, the realist says they're going to play us like rag dolls and toss us all in the ocean when they're done and nothing will be done about it but I'm not going to ever submit to the necessity of it. half a year ago my pessimism over part of situation was corrected by you.  Hopefully I'm repaying the favor you did for me.  I wouldn't be saying jack shit about any of this if I thought it was a necessary evil or if there wasn't some small hope that we make it out of this globalist death grip.  I know Alex Jones doesn't feel this way and look how deep he's into it.  It's gotta look futile to him at times.


For America

[240 is Back]

the larger group, the global elite or whatever you call them... they're not going anywhere.  They decided the afghan pipeline would be the US source of energy in the early 2000s and they installed the taleban to facilitate this.  then the taleban changed their mind, which they deemed unacceptable.  they let the world know about the "carpet of gold/bombs",

jfk planned to disassemble the IQ arm of the clobal elite, the CIA.  And we know how they handled him   If they will disapatch JFK so easily, the taleban doesn't stand a chance. 

I understand some of it is greed and some of it is economic survival from our enemies (although the enemies aren't 15-year olds with rifles and a koran - our enemies are rival gotvs vying for LT control of the same resources that neither of us own).

[Dos Equis]

Way to dispute zero percent of anything I said and resorting to personal insults in the face of your inability to understand infrastructure contracts with nations possessing no revenue but mucho resources.

Or,

 

LOL.  Okay 240.  Tell us about these "infrastructure contracts."  Who are the parties, what are the terms, compensation, termination provisions, etc.?  Let's discuss the specifics. 

[240 is Back]

LOL.  Okay 240.  Tell us about these "infrastructure contracts."  Who are the parties, what are the terms, compensation, termination provisions, etc.?  Let's discuss the specifics. 

1. only a complete twunt would believe these terms are disclosed
2. only a complete twunt would believe US oil and infrastructure teams work for free
3. only a complete twunt would not look at the historical examples of nation rebuilding and private companies

now, time burglar, go read a fking book or something.