Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Hugo Chavez on February 07, 2007, 12:22:42 PM
-
Well, someone may be destroying countries but it ain't Chavez. There are Socialist countries that hardly qualify as destroyed... Iraq on the other hand has pretty much been obliterated and Iran/Syria are next...
Socialism doesn't destroy countries, bombs destroy countries... :D
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070207/pl_nm/venezuela_usa_rice_dc
-
Does venezuela go $200 million into debt each day in a losing war effort?
Cause THAT is how you wreck a country!
-
rice sucks, she never belonged in the big leagues
-
Does venezuela go $200 million into debt each day in a losing war effort?
Cause THAT is how you wreck a country!
At least we have our priorities straight!
-
At least we have our priorities straight!
List them :)
1. Engage in stalemate in Afghanistan
2. Engage in stalemate in Iraq
3. Ramp up to stalemate in Iran (tougher war than Afgh. and iraq combined!)
To me, shedding troops blood in losing battles isn't a major priority. Pulling them out of the cities and letting iraqis defend their own turf while we defend the borders - that is my priority.
-
List them :)
1. Engage in stalemate in Afghanistan
2. Engage in stalemate in Iraq
3. Ramp up to stalemate in Iran (tougher war than Afgh. and iraq combined!)
To me, shedding troops blood in losing battles isn't a major priority. Pulling them out of the cities and letting iraqis defend their own turf while we defend the borders - that is my priority.
The solution.............
(http://i39.photobucket.com/albums/e196/Intenseone/mushroom.jpg)
-
I don't have a problem with the nationalisation of Venezuela's oil resources. In fact, I fully support that.
It seems only fair that Venezuelan interests and not foreign companies should get rich from the natural resources of Venezuela.
However, I believe that Rice is right when she voices the concerns of how Chavez brings down Venezuela.
He's running Venezuela like a one man show, and that ain't right. Venezuela needs full democracy, just like any other country.
-Hedge
-
I don't have a problem with the nationalisation of Venezuela's oil resources. In fact, I fully support that.
It seems only fair that Venezuelan interests and not foreign companies should get rich from the natural resources of Venezuela.
However, I believe that Rice is right when she voices the concerns of how Chavez brings down Venezuela.
He's running Venezuela like a one man show, and that ain't right. Venezuela needs full democracy, just like any other country.
-Hedge
I don't think so... why do we care about Venezuelans anyway? I don't... Let Chavez do whatever he wants to, and when his people get tired of it, they get to revolt... Worked in Russia... Let's move on.
-
I don't think so... why do we care about Venezuelans anyway? I don't... Let Chavez do whatever he wants to, and when his people get tired of it, they get to revolt... Worked in Russia... Let's move on.
Can I get an "amen" for Holmes?
-
I don't think so... why do we care about Venezuelans anyway? I don't... Let Chavez do whatever he wants to, and when his people get tired of it, they get to revolt... Worked in Russia... Let's move on.
why do the US care about Venezuela?
Oil my friend... anything that has to do with Oil is of interest for the US government.
-
At least we have our priorities straight!
Knowing what your priorities are, and having your priorities straight can be two entirely different things.
-
I don't have a problem with the nationalisation of Venezuela's oil resources. In fact, I fully support that.
It seems only fair that Venezuelan interests and not foreign companies should get rich from the natural resources of Venezuela.
However, I believe that Rice is right when she voices the concerns of how Chavez brings down Venezuela.
He's running Venezuela like a one man show, and that ain't right. Venezuela needs full democracy, just like any other country.
-Hedge
How does that differ from a certain other country in North America? (Canada excluded) ;)
That 'leader' has been trying to be a one-man-show for the past 6 yrs.
Chavez may run Venezuela like a one-man show, but at least he has the love, support, & respect of his people.
...besides, it's Venezuela, not the USA. Rice doesn't have a say (Thank Goodness for Venezuelans)
-
The solution.............
(http://i39.photobucket.com/albums/e196/Intenseone/mushroom.jpg)
You're in A 1 Class Idiot...
-
How does that differ from a certain other country in North America? (Canada excluded) ;)
That 'leader' has been trying to be a one-man-show for the past 6 yrs.
Chavez may run Venezuela like a one-man show, but at least he has the love, support, & respect of his people.
...besides, it's Venezuela, not the USA. Rice doesn't have a say (Thank Goodness for Venezuelans)
Bingo Dingo :D Hedge might be overlooking what he is doing is done by majority consent. Much of what is happening to us is not by majority consent.
-
Bingo Dingo :D Hedge might be overlooking what he is doing is done by majority consent. Much of what is happening to us is not by majority consent.
Since when did majority consent consist of dissolving government, making himself a dictator and not have an opposition.
GWB is going to be gone in 2 years. Chavez plans to govern for the next 20.
-
why do the US care about Venezuela?
Oil my friend... anything that has to do with Oil is of interest for the US government.
I understand the superficial reason of course... but my statement was related to why should I care about the Venezuelan people... I don't... period. All of this is just a smokescreen to get oil, I understand that... my point is that it's wrong to just run around and mouth off because some country who doesn't like you has oil.
And I really don't care about the Venezuelan people... just like I don't care about Iraqi's or too many other people in the world... If you're doing your thing great.... If you're happy great.
The US foreign policy should not be dictated by oil and my own personal policy is "Fuck them... I've got shit at home to fix."
-
Since when did majority consent consist of dissolving government, making himself a dictator and not have an opposition.
GWB is going to be gone in 2 years. Chavez plans to govern for the next 20.
Why should I care HOW long Chavez is in charge? It's a country I don't give a shit about... I don't want their oil... fuck 'em.
-
Since when did majority consent consist of dissolving government, making himself a dictator and not have an opposition.
GWB is going to be gone in 2 years. Chavez plans to govern for the next 20.
That's fine and dandy to me. I don't think we should meddle in the affairs of countries that don't agree with our foreign policy.
You are highly critical of Chavez, but I don't see any outrage over Pakistan's military dictatorship or Saudia Arabia's monarchy. Is it because those two respective countries are in cooperation with the US?
-
That's fine and dandy to me. I don't think we should meddle in the affairs of countries that don't agree with our foreign policy.
You are highly critical of Chavez, but I don't see any outrage over Pakistan's military dictatorship or Saudia Arabia's monarchy. Is it because those two respective countries are in cooperation with the US?
Of course... No doubt about it. Personally, I don't give a crap about them either though...
-
Why should I care HOW long Chavez is in charge? It's a country I don't give a shit about... I don't want their oil... f**k 'em.
exactly, but this doesn't sit well with the rule the world crowd.
-
That's fine and dandy to me. I don't think we should meddle in the affairs of countries that don't agree with our foreign policy.
You are highly critical of Chavez, but I don't see any outrage over Pakistan's military dictatorship or Saudia Arabia's monarchy. Is it because those two respective countries are in cooperation with the US?
I am highly critical of any government that isn't a democracy.
The Saudi government feeds the Jihadist because many Muslims is Saudi Arabia are very poor and since they have no ties to royal family are not considered citizens.
As for Pakistan, that country might have elections this year, we can only hope. But I can't stand their double speak an their ability to knowingly hide terrorist and yet deny it to the world.
Same goes for Israel and their nuclear technology.
-
I am highly critical of any government that isn't a democracy.
The Saudi government feeds the Jihadist because many Muslims is Saudi Arabia are very poor and since they have no ties to royal family are not considered citizens.
As for Pakistan, that country might have elections this year, we can only hope. But I can't stand their double speak an their ability to knowingly hide terrorist and yet deny it to the world.
Same goes for Israel and their nuclear technology.
Good post.
Any country, such as Saudi Arabia eg, that isn't a democracy, is a disaster. It doesn't matter if the country is undemocratic "from the right" or the "from the left".
It's just as wrong.
That's why I think it's ridiculous to see comparisons to other countries when Venezuela and Chavez is critizised. It doesn't make Chavez any better just because others are behaving bad.
And besides, Bush is no where near the same kind of one man show that Chavez is. jaguar is, as usual, not to be taken serious.
The Western civilized world has a big responsibility, we are the enlightened ones.
-Hedge
-
Good post.
Any country, such as Saudi Arabia eg, that isn't a democracy, is a disaster. It doesn't matter if the country is undemocratic "from the right" or the "from the left".
It's just as wrong.
That's why I think it's ridiculous to see comparisons to other countries when Venezuela and Chavez is critizised. It doesn't make Chavez any better just because others are behaving bad.
And besides, Bush is no where near the same kind of one man show that Chavez is. jaguar is, as usual, not to be taken serious.
The Western civilized world has a big responsibility, we are the enlightened ones.
-Hedge
oh ya, ...the folly in Iraq is just living proof of the west's 'enlightenment'
-
Since when did majority consent consist of dissolving government, making himself a dictator and not have an opposition.
GWB is going to be gone in 2 years. Chavez plans to govern for the next 20.
If memory serves me correctly, ...didn't Chavez recently call a recall referendum on his own government?
I'd love to see Bush do that. {lol}
-
Has anybody been keeping up on the very real food shortages in Venezuela due to strict government price controls?
-
oh ya, ...the folly in Iraq is just living proof of the west's 'enlightenment'
I am very critical of the Bush Administration, and the way it has hurt the stability in the world, among other things.
But an enemy's enemy isn't my friend, ie Chavez doesn't get my support just because he opposes Bush.
Chavez lacks democratic credibility.
I used to have a more positive opinion of him before he directed changes in Venezuela such as limiting the freedom of press and freedom of speech.
Totally unacceptable.
You keep on mentioning Bush for some reason when Chavez is critisized.
Face it, Chavez is no hero.
USA needs to deal with Chavez in a responsible way. An active diplomacy, and creating good relations with Chavez, could perhaps get him to turn to democracy again.
-Hedge
-
I don't think so... why do we care about Venezuelans anyway? I don't... Let Chavez do whatever he wants to, and when his people get tired of it, they get to revolt... Worked in Russia... Let's move on.
tu_holmes,
Maybe because Venezuela is what, the third US oil supplier? If Venezuela decides to stop selling oil to the US and sell it to China instead, as Chavez threatens to do, then you and all Americans can say good bye to the life style that you are used to. The US economy would be affected tremendously. That affects you at a personal level.
Maybe because Chavez does everything that Castro tells him to do. So if Castro tells Venezuela to buy a bunch of missiles from North Korea and Russia and install them in Cuba, then you have another Cuban missile crisis where you have nuclear weapon just a few miles away from you, on enemy soil pointed at you. That affects you at a personal level.
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/2006/07/venezuela-buying-su30s-helicopters-et-al-from-russia/index.php
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4682488.stm
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2004-11/27/content_395320.htm
Maybe because Chavez is just as dumb, if not dumber than people say Bush is. However, Chavez is very rich. Castro on the other hand is very smart and dangerous, but very poor. Put to the two together and you have a lethal combination.
Castro is not dead yet.
-
Well, someone may be destroying countries but it ain't Chavez. There are Socialist countries that hardly qualify as destroyed... Iraq on the other hand has pretty much been obliterated and Iran/Syria are next...
Socialism doesn't destroy countries, bombs destroy countries... :D
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070207/pl_nm/venezuela_usa_rice_dc
Is Cuba socialist? No, it is Communist. That's where Venezuela is headed. Chavez wants Venezuela to be like Cuba, except Venezuela would be a lot more dangerous and destructive than Cuba because Chavez would have more money than Castro ever had. Have you asked a Venezuelan? People are starving in Venezuela, crime rate is through the roof, you openly criticise or make fun of Chavez or his government and you are dead. If they think you might be against Chavez or the government, even if you are not, they will arrest, torture and kill you.
-
tu_holmes,
Maybe because Venezuela is what, the third US oil supplier? If Venezuela decides to stop selling oil to the US and sell it to China instead, as Chavez threatens to do, then you and all Americans can say good bye to the life style that you are used to. The US economy would be affected tremendously. That affects you at a personal level.
Maybe because Chavez does everything that Castro tells him to do. So if Castro tells Venezuela to buy a bunch of missiles from North Korea and Russia and install them in Cuba, then you have another Cuban missile crisis where you have nuclear weapon just a few miles away from you, on enemy soil pointed at you. That affects you at a personal level.
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/2006/07/venezuela-buying-su30s-helicopters-et-al-from-russia/index.php
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4682488.stm
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2004-11/27/content_395320.htm
Maybe because Chavez is just as dumb, if not dumber than people say Bush is. However, Chavez is very rich. Castro on the other hand is very smart and dangerous, but very poor. Put to the two together and you have a lethal combination.
Castro is not dead yet.
So you're saying we should attempt to control what ever other country in the world does? I'm sorry, but I don't agree with that... If the Venezuelan's don't want to sell oil to us... fine... let them sell it to someone else.
It's NOT our job to control that... I think we have PLENTY of places we can get oil... Alaska anyone?
If someone wants to be our enemy and not our friend, that means we should immediately attack them?
-
So you're saying we should attempt to control what ever other country in the world does? I'm sorry, but I don't agree with that... If the Venezuelan's don't want to sell oil to us... fine... let them sell it to someone else.
It's NOT our job to control that... I think we have PLENTY of places we can get oil... Alaska anyone?
If someone wants to be our enemy and not our friend, that means we should immediately attack them?
Nope, not saying any of that. Just saying that it is a problem which will affect you at a personal level and that something needs to be done.
-
Nope, not saying any of that. Just saying that it is a problem which will affect you at a personal level and that something needs to be done.
Then what would you do?
-
So you're saying we should attempt to control what ever other country in the world does? I'm sorry, but I don't agree with that... If the Venezuelan's don't want to sell oil to us... fine... let them sell it to someone else.
If venez refuses to sell us oil, we WILL invade them. It will give our enemies a strategic advantage. We do not allow this. Remember - Iraq dropped the dollar in 2002 and we invaded. Bush and Snow both said the war was required to ensure thye didn't refuse to send us oil.
It's NOT our job to control that... I think we have PLENTY of places we can get oil... Alaska anyone?
No. ALaska is our last reserve. we don't have plenty of places to get oil.
If someone wants to be our enemy and not our friend, that means we should immediately attack them?
That is the policy, yes. If you refuse to work with us economically, we discover a reason to invade you. Taleban rejected our pipeline in 2001 and we invaded in 2001. Iraq refused the dollar in 2002 and we invaded in 2002.
What do you think would happen if Hugo stopped selling us oil, and prices skyrocketed?
-
Then what would you do?
A good start would be to see it for what it is, a big problem that requires immediate attention. Then get some smart people in government to seriously talk about it, consider the options, diplomacy, etc. I tell you what I wouldn't do, sit around and do nothing about it hoping nothing bad will happen and hoping that the problem will go away on its own.
-
If venez refuses to sell us oil, we WILL invade them. It will give our enemies a strategic advantage. We do not allow this. Remember - Iraq dropped the dollar in 2002 and we invaded. Bush and Snow both said the war was required to ensure thye didn't refuse to send us oil.
No. ALaska is our last reserve. we don't have plenty of places to get oil.
That is the policy, yes. If you refuse to work with us economically, we discover a reason to invade you. Taleban rejected our pipeline in 2001 and we invaded in 2001. Iraq refused the dollar in 2002 and we invaded in 2002.
What do you think would happen if Hugo stopped selling us oil, and prices skyrocketed?
How about we open up those oil fields that have been capped in Texas for 20+ years? There is TONS of oil there... but we cap it off waiting to use everyone elses?
If this oil situation is SO bad, then how about we figure out alternative methods of fuels? Interesting how Brazil can be completely off of oil, yet for some reason, we remained fucked...
There is ALWAYS another answer... too bad no one is really looking for one.
-
tu,
Oil is the backbone of our econonmy, but more importantly, it limits other empires from growing. If China had Iraqi/Iranian/Afghan oil, do ya know what the world would look like in ten year?
Yikes!
Not defending it at all - it's just the reality of the sitation.
-
There isn't any oil in Afghanistan.
America won't invade Venezuela. can imagine thought that there will be a large scale trade embargo if Venezuela starts to seize American assets through national socialism.
I don't feel bad for Venezuela though they have oil and will be ok. Places like Ecuador and Peru are going to be really screwed if they decide to nationalize their country. They have very little to export and rely greatly on American trade and financial subsidies. I am sure that Venezuela will make up the difference, just like the middle east has bailed out the Palestinians after financial aid was cut off. ::)
America is already cutting of financial aid, because of Venezuela's poor performance on the war on drugs.
-
There isn't any oil in Afghanistan.
Not oil, the pipeline for oil and gas.
You do acknowledge that we negotiated with the taleban from 95 to 2001, even having them visit TX and giving them $40 mil before they reneged and we invaded, don't ya?
-
Not oil, the pipeline for oil and gas.
You do acknowledge that we negotiated with the taleban from 95 to 2001, even having them visit TX and giving them $40 mil before they reneged and we invaded, don't ya?
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/afghan.html (http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/afghan.html)
240 you keep saying Afghan oil. They don't have any. There are also other routes for Caspian oil that don't go through Afghanistan.
One would go through Pakistan to India.
The one open in 2005 goes through Turkey and Georgia.
-
joker,
do you want to put $ down we won't be seeing an afghan oil pipeline inside of 6 or 7 years?
I bet $5 internet dollars.
-
joker,
do you want to put $ down we won't be seeing an afghan oil pipeline inside of 6 or 7 years?
I bet $5 internet dollars.
I'll take that bet.
I don't even think Afghanistan will be secure in 6-7 years.
-
so weird that the taleban was able to control the place, and stop all drug flow, in 2 years, and we can do it in 5.5 years.
I know, the terrain, yada yada. But with all the US satellites and forces on grounds, we can't burn a majority of the poppy fields?
Smells shady.
okay $5 internet bucks it is. Or 200 pushups, in case the dollar nosedives or becomes the Amero :)
-
so weird that the taleban was able to control the place, and stop all drug flow, in 2 years, and we can do it in 5.5 years.
I know, the terrain, yada yada. But with all the US satellites and forces on grounds, we can't burn a majority of the poppy fields?
Smells shady.
okay $5 internet bucks it is. Or 200 pushups, in case the dollar nosedives or becomes the Amero :)
The truth is fear works quicker than democratic progress.
If someone threatens to kill you if you do something wrong, then you probably won't do it, We don't police that way.
In Afghanistan no one is afraid of the west. We don't have the same sense of human life.
We could burn all of their fields, but then the population would rise up against us. The Taleban didn't care about such thing, they would just shoot them.
-
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/afghan.html (http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/afghan.html)
240 you keep saying Afghan oil. They don't have any. There are also other routes for Caspian oil that don't go through Afghanistan.
One would go through Pakistan to India.
The one open in 2005 goes through Turkey and Georgia.
That's funny. I never actually looked into whether there is a "pipeline" going through Afghanistan. Just accepted that representation as true. Geeze. How incompetent is the U.S. government? Started a war in Afghanistan to steal oil and/or manage a "pipeline," when they don't have any oil or a pipeline. Plan B!
-
There's well established history of the taliban being in the way of any pipelines. They tried to get an oil pipeline going in the late 90's and that fell to shit.
http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/12.30A.afgh.pipe.htm
-
Has anybody been keeping up on the very real food shortages in Venezuela due to strict government price controls?
clearly an attempt at sabotaging the Chavez government. It happened on many levels.
The government’s response was to send the National Guard to seize hoarded food, a practice that is illegal in Venezuela. The government also threatened to nationalize companies found hoarding. After negotiations, though, the ministry agreed to a 60% price increase for some of the price controlled food categories.
looks like people got fired over it.
http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/news.php?newsno=1902
-
There's well established history of the taliban being in the way of any pipelines. They tried to get an oil pipeline going in the late 90's and that fell to shit.
http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/12.30A.afgh.pipe.htm
That article is factually inaccurate the pipeline was frozen by the Taleban , after Clinton attacked Al Qaeda with cruise missiles.
The new government of Afghanistan has been trying to get the pipeline started because they expect to make about $300 million a year due to shipping costs,
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/afghan.html (http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/afghan.html)
Afghanistan as an Energy Transit Route
Due to its location between the oil and natural gas reserves of the Caspian Basin and the Indian Ocean, Afghanistan has long been mentioned as a potential pipeline route, though in the near term, several obstacles will likely prevent Afghanistan from becoming an energy transit corridor. During the mid-1990s, Unocal had pursued a possible natural gas pipeline from Turkmenistan's Dauletabad-Donmez gas basin via Afghanistan to Pakistan, but pulled out after the U.S. missile strikes against Afghanistan in August 1998. The Afghan government under President Karzai has tried to revive the Trans-Afghan Pipeline (TAP) plan, with periodic talks held between the governments of Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Turkmenistan on the issue, but little progress appears to have been made as of early June 2004 (despite the signature on December 9, 2003, of a protocol on the pipeline by the governments of Afghanistan, Pakistan and Turkmenistan). President Karzai has stated his belief that the project could generate $100-$300 million per year in transit fees for Afghanistan, while creating thousands of jobs in the country.
Given the obstacles to development of a natural gas pipeline across Afghanistan, it seems unlikely that such an idea will make any progress in the near future, and no major Western companies have expressed interest in reviving the project. The security situation in Afghanistan remains an obvious problem, while tensions between India and Pakistan make it unlikely that such a pipeline could be extended into India and its large (and growing) gas market. Financial problems in the utility sector in India, which would be the major consumer of the natural gas, also could pose a problem for construction of the TAP line. Finally, the pipeline's $2.5-$3.5 billion estimated cost poses a significant obstacle to its construction.
-
ENJOY!
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
-
That article is factually inaccurate the pipeline was frozen by the Taleban , after Clinton attacked Al Qaeda with cruise missiles.
The new government of Afghanistan has been trying to get the pipeline started because they expect to make about $300 million a year due to shipping costs,
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/afghan.html (http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/afghan.html)
Afghanistan as an Energy Transit Route
Due to its location between the oil and natural gas reserves of the Caspian Basin and the Indian Ocean, Afghanistan has long been mentioned as a potential pipeline route, though in the near term, several obstacles will likely prevent Afghanistan from becoming an energy transit corridor. During the mid-1990s, Unocal had pursued a possible natural gas pipeline from Turkmenistan's Dauletabad-Donmez gas basin via Afghanistan to Pakistan, but pulled out after the U.S. missile strikes against Afghanistan in August 1998. The Afghan government under President Karzai has tried to revive the Trans-Afghan Pipeline (TAP) plan, with periodic talks held between the governments of Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Turkmenistan on the issue, but little progress appears to have been made as of early June 2004 (despite the signature on December 9, 2003, of a protocol on the pipeline by the governments of Afghanistan, Pakistan and Turkmenistan). President Karzai has stated his belief that the project could generate $100-$300 million per year in transit fees for Afghanistan, while creating thousands of jobs in the country.
Given the obstacles to development of a natural gas pipeline across Afghanistan, it seems unlikely that such an idea will make any progress in the near future, and no major Western companies have expressed interest in reviving the project. The security situation in Afghanistan remains an obvious problem, while tensions between India and Pakistan make it unlikely that such a pipeline could be extended into India and its large (and growing) gas market. Financial problems in the utility sector in India, which would be the major consumer of the natural gas, also could pose a problem for construction of the TAP line. Finally, the pipeline's $2.5-$3.5 billion estimated cost poses a significant obstacle to its construction.
I thought I said in the late 90's ;) blame clinton, I don't care... The fact that oil pipeline has been talked about, planned for in some fashion and there is a gas pipeline deal that was signed and as far as I know constructed or being constructed was my only point... It wasn't happening under the taliban ;)
-
(and these are all from mainstream sources - read the complete story on each at http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&before_9/11=pipelinePolitics )
As you can read, we put the Taleban into power so they could give us this pipeline deal, then they reneged. We needed it for longterm US interests (China and Rus didn't get it), and they punked out on the deal. So bombing them and taking it was possibly justifiable.
-
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
Just admit your wrong. The pipeline deal stalled as soon as America attacked Afghanistan the First time.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/Afghanistan/Full.html (http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/Afghanistan/Full.html)
This is as recent as this year
The Asian Development Bank has sponsored a feasibility study of the project by the British firm Penspen, which was completed in January 2005. The study indicates that the TAP is promising. The study envisions a 56-inch diameter pipeline, with a design capacity of 1.16 Tcf per year. The pipeline would start in Turkmenistan and run 1,043 miles through Afghanistan and Pakistan, terminating at Fazilka, a frontier station on the Indian border. The feasibility study estimated a cost of $3.3 billion. At this point, the TAP needs sponsors, if it is to move forward.
-
Dude,
You do know the value of the resources and the path are greater than 3.3 B, right?
-
You are highly critical of Chavez, but I don't see any outrage over Pakistan's military dictatorship or Saudia Arabia's monarchy. Is it because those two respective countries are in cooperation with the US?
No, it is because the alternative to dictatorship in the two countries you mention is radical theocracy, probably the only form of government there is that is worse than brutal dictatorship.
That's not the case in Venezuela, where the most likely alternative to dictatorship is democracy, and theocracy is not even a realistic possibility.
Hope this helps.
-
Dude,
You do know the value of the resources and the path are greater than 3.3 B, right?
That is what the Asian development banks says.
They will know more than me. Argue with them if you think their figures are wrong.
-
Just admit your wrong. The pipeline deal stalled as soon as America attacked Afghanistan the First time.
Doesn't that make you wrong? I mean what's it matter when it stalled? If the taliban was in the way, they were in the way... Didn't negotiations with the taliban and texas oilmen fail prior to 9/11? Going from memory here...
-
Doesn't that make you wrong? I mean what's it matter when it stalled? If the taliban was in the way, they were in the way... Didn't negotiations with the taliban and texas oilmen fail prior to 9/11? Going from memory here...
240 -Posted that the pipeline deal with the Taleban was made in the summer of 2001.
The deal was finalized and then fell apart after America attacked the Al Qaeda base in 98.
The whole argument that has been going on this website is that America got screwed out of the pipeline in the summer of 2001, so America caused 9/11 to attack Afghanistan.
My evidence proves conclusively that he was wrong.
-
240 -Posted that the pipeline deal with the Taleban was made in the summer of 2001.
The deal was finalized and then fell apart after America attacked the Al Qaeda base in 98.
The whole argument that has been going on this website is that America got screwed out of the pipeline in the summer of 2001, so America caused 9/11 to attack Afghanistan.
My evidence proves conclusively that he was wrong.
But wasn't the larger point made by people that the war was to get the taliban out of the way so these pipelines could go through? Yea that's debatable but I'm not sure anything you've posted disproves that notion so you're really nitpicking semantics without disproving the larger point? The innitial agreement after we hit afganistan I think it was in 2002 was for a gas AND oil pipeline was it not?
-
But wasn't the larger point made by people that the war was to get the taliban out of the way so these pipelines could go through? Yea that's debatable but I'm not sure anything you've posted disproves that notion so you're really nitpicking semantics without disproving the larger point? The innitial agreement after we hit afganistan I think it was in 2002 was for a gas AND oil pipeline was it not?
That is the CTer view.
The Taliban has been forcefully removed from most of the country and the pipeline would go through the North part of the country.
The initial agreement was only for a gas pipeline. Since it was signed Unocal has pulled out of the agreement.
There is no pipeline development in Afghanistan.
Now the oil and gas pipelines that were going through Afghanistan is going to go through Iran and Pakistan. This deal was signed this year. The Caspian Turkish pipeline has been open since 2005.
So why are we there if there isn't a pipeline going through? Why did America start a war for a pipeline that won't be built?
That is why 240 is wrong.
-
iran is going to let the US run a pipeline thru their yard?
-
There is no pipeline development in Afghanistan.
Trans-Afghanistan Pipeline
The Trans-Afghanistan Pipeline (TAP or TAPI) is a proposed natural gas pipeline being developed by the Asian Development Bank. The pipeline will transport Caspian Sea natural gas from Turkmenistan through Afghanistan into Pakistan and then to India.
The 1,680 km pipeline will run from the Dauletabad gas field to Afghanistan. From there TAPI will be constructed alongside the highway running from Herat to Kandahar, and then via Quetta and Multan in Pakistan. The final destination of the pipeline will be the Indian town of Fazilka, near the border between Pakistan and India. The pipeline will be 1,420 mm in diameter with a working pressure of 100 atm and the capacity of 33 billion cubic meter (bcm) of natural gas annually. Six compressor stations are to be constructed along the pipeline. The cost of this international infrastructure is estimated at US$3.5 billion (2005 figures). Proponents of the project see it as a modern continuation of the Silk Road. The Afghan government is expected to receive 8% of the project's revenue.
Original project started in March 1995 when inaugural memorandum of understanding between the governments of Turkmenistan and Pakistan for a pipline project was signed. In August 1996, the Central Asia Gas Pipeline, Ltd. (CentGas) consortium for construction of pipeline, led by Unocal was formed. On 27 October 1997 CentGas incorporated in formal signing ceremonies in Ashgabat, Turkmenistan by several international oil companies along with the Government of Turkmenistan. In January 1998 the Taliban, selecting CentGas over a Brazilian competitor, signed an agreement that allowed the proposed project to proceed. In June 1998, Russian Gazprom relinquishes its 10% stake in project. Unocal withdrawn from the consortium on 8 December 1998.
The new deal on the pipeline was signed on 27 December 2002 by the leaders of Turkmenistan, Afghanistan and Pakistan and in 2005 Asian Development Bank submitted the final version of feasibility study designed by British company Penspen. Signing the agreement was made possible by the invasion of Afghanistan by United States military forces a year prior, which overthrew the Taliban government controlling most of Afghanistan. Building the pipeline was cited by some critics of the Bush administration as a motivation for the invasion. Some people have even said that if you take a map of U.S. military bases in Afghanistan and a map of the proposed pipeline they are very close together, suggesting that bases are positioned to protect natural gas interests. However, since then the project has essentially stalled; construction of the Turkmen part was supposed to start in 2006, but the overall feasibility is questionable since the southern part of the Afghan section runs through territory which continues to be under de facto Taliban control.
-
iran is going to let the US run a pipeline thru their yard?
The pipeline Unocal was proposing was to import oil to India and Pakistan not the US.
America is choked at both Pakistan and India for wanting to build a pipeline with Iran and has threatened sanctions on India if they build it.
Looks like it will probably go ahead anyway.
http://www.payvand.com/news/07/feb/1108.html (http://www.payvand.com/news/07/feb/1108.html)
-
Trans-Afghanistan Pipeline
The Trans-Afghanistan Pipeline (TAP or TAPI) is a proposed natural gas pipeline being developed by the Asian Development Bank. The pipeline will transport Caspian Sea natural gas from Turkmenistan through Afghanistan into Pakistan and then to India.
The 1,680 km pipeline will run from the Dauletabad gas field to Afghanistan. From there TAPI will be constructed alongside the highway running from Herat to Kandahar, and then via Quetta and Multan in Pakistan. The final destination of the pipeline will be the Indian town of Fazilka, near the border between Pakistan and India. The pipeline will be 1,420 mm in diameter with a working pressure of 100 atm and the capacity of 33 billion cubic meter (bcm) of natural gas annually. Six compressor stations are to be constructed along the pipeline. The cost of this international infrastructure is estimated at US$3.5 billion (2005 figures). Proponents of the project see it as a modern continuation of the Silk Road. The Afghan government is expected to receive 8% of the project's revenue.
Original project started in March 1995 when inaugural memorandum of understanding between the governments of Turkmenistan and Pakistan for a pipline project was signed. In August 1996, the Central Asia Gas Pipeline, Ltd. (CentGas) consortium for construction of pipeline, led by Unocal was formed. On 27 October 1997 CentGas incorporated in formal signing ceremonies in Ashgabat, Turkmenistan by several international oil companies along with the Government of Turkmenistan. In January 1998 the Taliban, selecting CentGas over a Brazilian competitor, signed an agreement that allowed the proposed project to proceed. In June 1998, Russian Gazprom relinquishes its 10% stake in project. Unocal withdrawn from the consortium on 8 December 1998.
The new deal on the pipeline was signed on 27 December 2002 by the leaders of Turkmenistan, Afghanistan and Pakistan and in 2005 Asian Development Bank submitted the final version of feasibility study designed by British company Penspen. Signing the agreement was made possible by the invasion of Afghanistan by United States military forces a year prior, which overthrew the Taliban government controlling most of Afghanistan. Building the pipeline was cited by some critics of the Bush administration as a motivation for the invasion. Some people have even said that if you take a map of U.S. military bases in Afghanistan and a map of the proposed pipeline they are very close together, suggesting that bases are positioned to protect natural gas interests. However, since then the project has essentially stalled; construction of the Turkmen part was supposed to start in 2006, but the overall feasibility is questionable since the southern part of the Afghan section runs through territory which continues to be under de facto Taliban control.
Thanks for agreeing.
There is no pipeline being developed, since no one is putting any money into the project.
BTW I already posted most of that information, except for the CT spin a the end.
-
No, it is because the alternative to dictatorship in the two countries you mention is radical theocracy, probably the only form of government there is that is worse than brutal dictatorship.
That's not the case in Venezuela, where the most likely alternative to dictatorship is democracy, and theocracy is not even a realistic possibility.
Hope this helps.
Dictatorship is never ok, not even "considering the alternative".
Hope this heps.
-Hedge