Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums

Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: BRUCE on January 22, 2007, 03:32:17 PM

Title: The Better Candidate - Obama or Clinton?
Post by: BRUCE on January 22, 2007, 03:32:17 PM
I'm leaning towards Barack, who's your Democratic candidate of choice??
Title: Re: The Better Candidate - Obama or Clinton?
Post by: Hedgehog on January 22, 2007, 03:45:56 PM
Both these candidates needs to show a political agenda.

John Edwards had a political agenda: Doing something about the poverty.

But these two, they're more or less like two void papers.

Nothing on them to critisise, but also no ideas.

Clinton has moved herself towards the most conservative and moderate Democrats.

Obama - nothing yet IMO. Would love to see some action from him soon though, a political initiative, it would stir the pot a little.

-Hedge
Title: Re: The Better Candidate - Obama or Clinton?
Post by: Dos Equis on January 22, 2007, 03:48:49 PM
Both these candidates needs to show a political agenda.

John Edwards had a political agenda: Doing something about the poverty.

But these two, they're more or less like two void papers.

Nothing on them to critisise, but also no ideas.

Clinton has moved herself towards the most conservative and moderate Democrats.

Obama - nothing yet IMO. Would love to see some action from him soon though, a political initiative, it would stir the pot a little.

-Hedge

Completely agree.  Don't have enough information yet. 

But I doubt it matters, because it's Hillary's nomination to lose. 
Title: Re: The Better Candidate - Obama or Clinton?
Post by: MidniteRambo on January 22, 2007, 04:04:31 PM
The weakness in the question is that the candidate best positioned to win the primary may not be (and is unlikely to be) the candidate best positioned to win the primary.  Which race is the question geared towards?
Title: Re: The Better Candidate - Obama or Clinton?
Post by: Mr. Intenseone on January 22, 2007, 04:08:49 PM
Both these candidates needs to show a political agenda.

John Edwards had a political agenda: Doing something about the poverty.

But these two, they're more or less like two void papers.

Nothing on them to critisise, but also no ideas.

Clinton has moved herself towards the most conservative and moderate Democrats.

Obama - nothing yet IMO. Would love to see some action from him soon though, a political initiative, it would stir the pot a little.

-Hedge

I'm leaning toward Obama, but now that Richardson has thrown his hat in, I'd make a push for him and Hillary is a non-issue for me. Besides, where is their political agenda when it comes to the war........I've heard basically nothing new from them since the elections and thats what they based their agenda on..............same ol, same ol with them isn't it, promises with nothing to deliver!
Title: Re: The Better Candidate - Obama or Clinton?
Post by: Camel Jockey on January 22, 2007, 04:53:23 PM
Obama because he opposed the war from the start.
Title: Re: The Better Candidate - Obama or Clinton?
Post by: Mr. Intenseone on January 22, 2007, 05:04:35 PM
Obama because he opposed the war from the start.

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!
Title: Re: The Better Candidate - Obama or Clinton?
Post by: Hedgehog on January 22, 2007, 05:17:48 PM
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!


Where has Camel Jockey claimed that he wanted to do nothing?

-Hedge
Title: Re: The Better Candidate - Obama or Clinton?
Post by: 240 is Back on January 22, 2007, 05:22:24 PM
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!

Weird - I thought all those dems supported invading afghanistan.


Joe, which dems didn't want to invade Afghanistan for killing 3,000 people on 9/11?


Name them :)
Title: Re: The Better Candidate - Obama or Clinton?
Post by: BRUCE on January 22, 2007, 05:24:17 PM
Weird - I thought all those dems supported invading afghanistan.


Joe, which dems didn't want to invade Afghanistan for killing 3,000 people on 9/11?


Name them :)


I'd say John Kerry, but he was for the war before he was against it, uh I mean for.... against...... ah forget it :-X
Title: Re: The Better Candidate - Obama or Clinton?
Post by: Hedgehog on January 22, 2007, 05:25:05 PM
Weird - I thought all those dems supported invading afghanistan.


Joe, which dems didn't want to invade Afghanistan for killing 3,000 people on 9/11?


Name them :)


You got a point - there is no connection between Osama Bin Laden and Iraq.

He's reported to have been in Afghanistan though.

-Hedge
Title: Re: The Better Candidate - Obama or Clinton?
Post by: 240 is Back on January 22, 2007, 05:34:46 PM
I'd say John Kerry, but he was for the war before he was against it, uh I mean for.... against...... ah forget it :-X

Did you know that the invasion of Afghanistan in oct 2001, following 9/11, was actually a different war than the one in iraq?
Title: Re: The Better Candidate - Obama or Clinton?
Post by: 240 is Back on January 22, 2007, 05:36:01 PM
I think I know which 42% we have in here...
Title: Re: The Better Candidate - Obama or Clinton?
Post by: BRUCE on January 22, 2007, 05:39:30 PM
Did you know that the invasion of Afghanistan in oct 2001, following 9/11, was actually a different war than the one in iraq?

Did you know I didn't refer to any particular war in that comment?  Lighten up, Robert, I thought you were a Republican anyway - you should join me in my mockery of Kerry.  ;)
Title: Re: The Better Candidate - Obama or Clinton?
Post by: 240 is Back on January 22, 2007, 05:43:42 PM
Did you know I didn't refer to any particular war in that comment?  Lighten up, Robert, I thought you were a Republican anyway - you should join me in my mockery of Kerry.  ;)

Kerry is a jellyfish but I think think he'll get the nomination.
Title: Re: The Better Candidate - Obama or Clinton?
Post by: 240 is Back on January 22, 2007, 05:44:49 PM
Did you know I didn't refer to any particular war in that comment?  Lighten up, Robert, I thought you were a Republican anyway - you should join me in my mockery of Kerry.  ;)

yeah, ya did refer to a particular war, actually :) 

Kerry's flipflop was about Iraq.  he absolutely endorsed bombing the shit out of those oil thieves the taleban.
Title: Re: The Better Candidate - Obama or Clinton?
Post by: BRUCE on January 22, 2007, 05:46:22 PM
Kerry is a jellyfish but I think think he'll get the nomination.

Do you believe he is a worthwhile choice for the Democrats?  
Title: Re: The Better Candidate - Obama or Clinton?
Post by: 240 is Back on January 22, 2007, 05:51:55 PM
Do you believe he is a worthwhile choice for the Democrats?  

Nah.  But if you recall his college affiliation, he has a puuurty good advantage.

Remember that Kerry was a distant 4th during all of 2002 and 2003, then magically had a 20 point swing overnight to win the nod.

This was actually consistent with the Alex-Jones led conspiracy group which said for 18 months before, that because of his college club, Kerry would win the nod no matter what.



Dude, understand, the men selected as nominees are selected from a small pool of people who will work with the powers that be, who will play ball, to ensure long term US viability.

They won't let a guy walk in and pull us out of iraq.  Why?  Cause in order for the US to prosper, we have a master plan which goes beyond any one president.  We were plotting on that oil pipeline since 1993/95.  The one we won't have active until 2015.  No way do they let some airhead fck that up along the way.

Liebermann and Cheney were the same man.  Bush and kerry were the same guy.  ideologically and the way they'd play ball with the higher controllers.

Clinton will play ball.  as will kerry and edwards.  obama won't.  he won't get the nod, even if 80% of dems want him.  we'll have another magic overnight plunge like Dean had.
Title: Re: The Better Candidate - Obama or Clinton?
Post by: Hedgehog on January 22, 2007, 06:03:39 PM
Clinton will play ball. 

I agree.

Ever since her move to NY, Clinton has signaled that she's now part of the nomenclatura, the same elite group of politicians that Kerry, Kennedy and Bush are.

Here husband never was though IMO. He won, because he simply just was too good in campaigning and as a rhetoric, and a master of setting the agenda.

-Hedge
Title: Re: The Better Candidate - Obama or Clinton?
Post by: Hugo Chavez on January 22, 2007, 06:05:02 PM
without any doubt Obama... I'm ready for new blood, out with all the same ol bullshit.  Guiliani and we'll be 9/11'd to death... We'll acutally become walking zombies twitching "911....911....he... he... 911... 911... he... he..." Clinton and we're in for more years of reliving everything wrong or made up about the clintons.  McCain = Old World Dinosaur Wannabe Goldwater.  Oh brother, I'm done with Kings presidents.  This shit is becoming a bad scifi pre-American flashback...
Title: Re: The Better Candidate - Obama or Clinton?
Post by: 240 is Back on January 22, 2007, 06:10:44 PM
I don't think anyone can deny...

911 is a question mark.

Guiliani cannot run on 9/11 (as perhaps was the original plan).  he'll always be America's mayor, but his presence would seriously motivate the 911 truth movement.

whether you believe it was an inside job, or you believe the official story completely, it cannot be denied that the 911 talk will be very loud.
Title: Re: The Better Candidate - Obama or Clinton?
Post by: 240 is Back on January 22, 2007, 06:12:19 PM
Ever since her move to NY, Clinton has signaled that she's now part of the nomenclatura, the same elite group of politicians that Kerry, Kennedy and Bush are.

yeah.  and since the power elite group isn't going to change, perhaps a pendulum swing to the leftish, from neocon to moderate, is overdue.
Title: Re: The Better Candidate - Obama or Clinton?
Post by: Eyeball Chambers on January 22, 2007, 06:16:02 PM
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!

Iraq did? DAMN thats news to me.  :o
Title: Re: The Better Candidate - Obama or Clinton?
Post by: BRUCE on January 22, 2007, 07:14:15 PM
Nah.  But if you recall his college affiliation, he has a puuurty good advantage.

Remember that Kerry was a distant 4th during all of 2002 and 2003, then magically had a 20 point swing overnight to win the nod.

This was actually consistent with the Alex-Jones led conspiracy group which said for 18 months before, that because of his college club, Kerry would win the nod no matter what.



Dude, understand, the men selected as nominees are selected from a small pool of people who will work with the powers that be, who will play ball, to ensure long term US viability.

They won't let a guy walk in and pull us out of iraq.  Why?  Cause in order for the US to prosper, we have a master plan which goes beyond any one president.  We were plotting on that oil pipeline since 1993/95.  The one we won't have active until 2015.  No way do they let some airhead fck that up along the way.

Liebermann and Cheney were the same man.  Bush and kerry were the same guy.  ideologically and the way they'd play ball with the higher controllers.

Clinton will play ball.  as will kerry and edwards.  obama won't.  he won't get the nod, even if 80% of dems want him.  we'll have another magic overnight plunge like Dean had.

I'm sure you've clarified this before elsewhere, but do you believe we should be exiting Iraq? If so, when?
Title: Re: The Better Candidate - Obama or Clinton?
Post by: 240 is Back on January 22, 2007, 07:30:29 PM
I'm sure you've clarified this before elsewhere, but do you believe we should be exiting Iraq? If so, when?

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?
Title: Re: The Better Candidate - Obama or Clinton?
Post by: Dos Equis on January 22, 2007, 07:39:15 PM
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. 
Title: Re: The Better Candidate - Obama or Clinton?
Post by: 240 is Back on January 22, 2007, 07:43:06 PM
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?
Title: Re: The Better Candidate - Obama or Clinton?
Post by: Dos Equis on January 22, 2007, 07:50:44 PM
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 . . . . .
Title: Re: The Better Candidate - Obama or Clinton?
Post by: 240 is Back on January 22, 2007, 07:56:06 PM
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,

 ::)
Title: Re: The Better Candidate - Obama or Clinton?
Post by: Hedgehog on January 22, 2007, 08:13:06 PM
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
Title: Re: The Better Candidate - Obama or Clinton?
Post by: 240 is Back on January 22, 2007, 08:19:46 PM
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. 
Title: Re: The Better Candidate - Obama or Clinton?
Post by: BRUCE on January 22, 2007, 08:20:26 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Better Candidate - Obama or Clinton?
Post by: 240 is Back on January 22, 2007, 08:22:21 PM
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

Title: Re: The Better Candidate - Obama or Clinton?
Post by: 240 is Back on January 22, 2007, 08:24:05 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Better Candidate - Obama or Clinton?
Post by: BRUCE on January 22, 2007, 08:38:34 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Better Candidate - Obama or Clinton?
Post by: Camel Jockey on January 22, 2007, 08:57:15 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Better Candidate - Obama or Clinton?
Post by: BRUCE on January 22, 2007, 09:05:24 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Better Candidate - Obama or Clinton?
Post by: 240 is Back on January 22, 2007, 09:07:58 PM
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?
Title: Re: The Better Candidate - Obama or Clinton?
Post by: BRUCE on January 22, 2007, 09:10:29 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Better Candidate - Obama or Clinton?
Post by: Hugo Chavez on January 22, 2007, 09:15:11 PM
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...
Title: Re: The Better Candidate - Obama or Clinton?
Post by: 240 is Back on January 22, 2007, 09:21:06 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Better Candidate - Obama or Clinton?
Post by: Mr. Intenseone on January 22, 2007, 09:44:04 PM
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?
Title: Re: The Better Candidate - Obama or Clinton?
Post by: 240 is Back on January 22, 2007, 09:54:03 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Better Candidate - Obama or Clinton?
Post by: Hedgehog on January 23, 2007, 01:19:13 AM

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
Title: Re: The Better Candidate - Obama or Clinton?
Post by: Hugo Chavez on January 23, 2007, 01:37:58 AM
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.
Title: Re: The Better Candidate - Obama or Clinton?
Post by: 240 is Back on January 23, 2007, 04:03:36 AM
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.
Title: Re: The Better Candidate - Obama or Clinton?
Post by: Hugo Chavez on January 23, 2007, 04:25:23 AM
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 ;D
Title: Re: The Better Candidate - Obama or Clinton?
Post by: 240 is Back on January 23, 2007, 05:08:14 AM
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).
Title: Re: The Better Candidate - Obama or Clinton?
Post by: Dos Equis on January 23, 2007, 07:50:54 AM
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. 
Title: Re: The Better Candidate - Obama or Clinton?
Post by: 240 is Back on January 23, 2007, 08:14:58 AM
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. 
Title: Re: The Better Candidate - Obama or Clinton?
Post by: Dos Equis on January 23, 2007, 09:40:40 AM
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. 

LOL.  You kill me.  You wax eloquent about how we went to war to obtain these "infrastructure contracts," and now you admit you have no idea what the terms of these "infrastructure contracts" are.  My goodness.  You're not the sharpest pencil in the box 240.

Now, go back to running your nickel and dime business.  Gotta pay that rent. 

Oh, and speaking of books, I am finishing up John C. Maxwell's "Ethics 101:  What Every Leader Needs to Know."  Great book.  I highly recommend it. 

I'll be reading Helter Skelter next, about the Manson murders.  I suggest you avoid that one.   :-\
Title: Re: The Better Candidate - Obama or Clinton?
Post by: 240 is Back on January 23, 2007, 09:56:37 AM
LOL.  You kill me.  You wax eloquent about how we went to war to obtain these "infrastructure contracts," and now you admit you have no idea what the terms of these "infrastructure contracts" are.  My goodness.  You're not the sharpest pencil in the box 240.

Now, go back to running your nickel and dime business.  Gotta pay that rent. 

the special ed kids are throwing their feces from the windows of the short bus again.