UN wants new global currency to replace dollar

blackascoal said:
Inevitable outcomes from ignorant policies are something most here can't deal with.

They'd rather joust about like idiots then face reality.

Why should the world remain hostage to a failed American economy and leadership?

Anyone have that answer?
Click to expand...

We don't have to care what the world thinks. Haters shouldn't be listend to.
 
blackascoal said:
Do you have that answer?
Click to expand...

Most people understand tha bankers are the enemy, like the rallies at the summits and stuff. People know what's up.

A global currency only forms their already vast power into a monolithic force.

Most people realize that would be bad idea.

Why are you for it?
 
K Asshat, what do we do to reverse the "inevitable" decline?
And do we have the will to do it?
That is the clincher for my argument.
 
blackascoal said:
:0)

Sometimes I enjoy talking to really dumb people.

I misspoke .. didn't mean envoy .. meant the executive .. vice-president .. I spoke of is John J. Maresca .. appointed as Ambassador to Afghanistan. Was he an Afghan too?

-December 1997: Unocal Establishes Pipeline Training Facility Near bin Laden’s Compound Unocal pays University of Nebraska $900,000 to set up a training facility near bin Laden’s Kandahar compound, to train 400 Afghan teachers, electricians, carpenters and pipe fitters in anticipation of using them for their pipeline in Afghanistan. One hundred and fifty students are already attending classes.

December 4, 1997: Taliban Representatives Visit Unocal in Texas Taliban representatives in Texas, 1997.

-Representatives of the Taliban are invited guests to the Texas headquarters of Unocal to negotiate their support for the pipeline. Future President George W. Bush is Governor of Texas at the time. The Taliban appear to agree to a $2 billion pipeline deal, but will do the deal only if the US officially recognizes the Taliban regime. The Taliban meet with US officials. According to the Daily Telegraph, “the US government, which in the past has branded the Taliban’s policies against women and children ‘despicable,’ appears anxious to please the fundamentalists to clinch the lucrative pipeline contract.” A BBC regional correspondent says that “the proposal to build a pipeline across Afghanistan is part of an international scramble to profit from developing the rich energy resources of the Caspian Sea.”

-Early 1998: US Official Meets with Taliban; Promote Afghan Pipeline Bill Richardson, the US Ambassador to the UN, meets Taliban officials in Kabul. (All such meetings are illegal, because the US still officially recognizes the government the Taliban ousted as the legitimate rulers of Afghanistan.) US officials at the time call the oil and gas pipeline project a “fabulous opportunity” and are especially motivated by the “prospect of circumventing Iran, which offers another route for the pipeline.”

-February 12, 1998: Unocal VP Advocates Afghan Pipeline Before Congress Unocal Vice President John J. Maresca—later to become a Special Ambassador to Afghanistan—testifies before the House of Representatives that until a single, unified, friendly government is in place in Afghanistan, the trans-Afghan pipeline will not be built. He suggests that with a pipeline through Afghanistan, the Caspian basin could produce 20 percent of all the non-OPEC oil in the world by 2010.

I made all this up, right? Then debunk it.

The US does not engage in wars for oil, right?

Oil and pipelines have no place ijn US foreign policy, right?

... dummy

UNOCOL executives and a consultant are appointed as Ambassador AND Envoy AND President.

Just business as usual, right?

.. dummy
Click to expand...

If you are going to ask questions, the least you could do is actually READ the responses. But I know... you ignore any responses that might disrupt your idiotic conspiracy theories.


Again... YES, Unocol wanted to build a pipeline in Afghanistan. PRIOR to the taliban take over. After the Taliban took over, Unocol tried to work with the Taliban to do the same. After meeting with them and witnessing hostilities increase between the US and Bin Laden (who was training in Afghanistan) and the Taliban who supported him, Unocol STOPPED their efforts to build the pipeline.

It was over for them. Do you comprehend this now idiot?

You continue to cling to statements made in 1998 and ignore the fact that they are no longer valid. The only pipeline talk since then has come from Karzai and that was for NAT GAS. The Caspian oil is going to go through Azerbaijan and Georgia and link up to existing pipelines in Turkey or to local ports in Georgia.

You have NOTHING after 1998 to support your idiocy. NOTHING.
 
Superfreak said:
If you are going to ask questions, the least you could do is actually READ the responses. But I know... you ignore any responses that might disrupt your idiotic conspiracy theories.


Again... YES, Unocol wanted to build a pipeline in Afghanistan. PRIOR to the taliban take over. After the Taliban took over, Unocol tried to work with the Taliban to do the same. After meeting with them and witnessing hostilities increase between the US and Bin Laden (who was training in Afghanistan) and the Taliban who supported him, Unocol STOPPED their efforts to build the pipeline.

It was over for them. Do you comprehend this now idiot?

You continue to cling to statements made in 1998 and ignore the fact that they are no longer valid. The only pipeline talk since then has come from Karzai and that was for NAT GAS. The Caspian oil is going to go through Azerbaijan and Georgia and link up to existing pipelines in Turkey or to local ports in Georgia.

You have NOTHING after 1998 to support your idiocy. NOTHING.
Click to expand...

Actually sf, you'd have to be stupid to think it WASN"T about oil.
 
Superfreak said:
The fact that Asshat agrees with you BAC should tell you exactly how legit your idiotic conspiracy theory really is.
Click to expand...

You assume that I would rather have you agreeing with me than Asshat.

You assume that I don't think you are as loony as he is.

You assume too much.

I have much much more plain as day right in your face evidence that extends beyond 1998 .. but you could no more "debunk" that evidence than you have this evidence or for that matter, any evidence.

Question: Does 2002 come before or after 1998?

Afghanistan plans gas pipeline

May 13, 2002

Afghanistan hopes to strike a deal later this month to build a $2bn pipeline through the country to take gas from energy-rich Turkmenistan to Pakistan and India. Afghan interim ruler Hamid Karzai is to hold talks with his Pakistani and Turkmenistan counterparts later this month on Afghanistan's biggest foreign investment project, said Mohammad Alim Razim, minister for Mines and Industries told Reuters.

"The work on the project will start after an agreement is expected to be struck at the coming summit," Mr Razim said.

The construction of the 850-kilometre pipeline had been previously discussed between Afghanistan's former Taliban regime, US oil company Unocal and Bridas of Argentina.

The project was abandoned after the US launched missile attacks on Afghanistan in 1999.

US company preferred

Mr Razim said US energy company Unocal was the "lead company" among those that would build the pipeline, which would bring 30bn cubic meters of Turkmen gas to market annually.

Unocal - which led a consortium of companies from Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Turkmenistan, Japan and South Korea - has maintained the project is both economically and technically feasible once Afghan stability was secured.

"Unocal is not involved in any projects (including pipelines) in Afghanistan, nor do we have any plans to become involved, nor are we discussing any such projects," a spokesman told BBC News Online.

The US company formally withdrew from the consortium in 1998.

"The Afghan side assures all sides about the security of the pipeline and will take all responsibilities for it," Mr Razim said.

Reconstructing

Afghanistan plans to build a road linking Turkmenistan with Pakistan parallel to the pipeline, to supply nearby villages with gas, and also to pump Afghan gas for export, Mr Razim said.

The government would also earn transit fees from the export of gas and oil and hoped to take over ownership of the pipeline after 30 years, he said.

The Asian Development Bank (ADB) has been surveying routes for transferring local gas from northern Afghan areas to Kabul, and to iron ore mines at the Haji Gak pass further west.

"ADB will announce its conclusion soon," Mr Razim said.

The pipeline is expected to be built with funds from donor countries for the reconstruction of Afghanistan as well as ADB loans, he said.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/1984459.stm

ONOCAL .. surprise, surprise

QUESTION: Does 2009i come before or after 1998?

Afghanistan and the new great game

Prized pipeline route could explain West's stubborn interest in poor, remote land

August 12, 2009

Why is Afghanistan so important?

A glance at a map and a little knowledge of the region suggest that the real reasons for Western military involvement may be largely hidden.

Afghanistan is adjacent to Middle Eastern countries that are rich in oil and natural gas. And though Afghanistan may have little petroleum itself, it borders both Iran and Turkmenistan, countries with the second and third largest natural gas reserves in the world. (Russia is first.)

Turkmenistan is the country nobody talks about. Its huge reserves of natural gas can only get to market through pipelines. Until 1991, it was part of the Soviet Union and its gas flowed only north through Soviet pipelines. Now the Russians plan a new pipeline north. The Chinese are building a new pipeline east. The U.S. is pushing for "multiple oil and gas export routes." High-level Russian, Chinese and American delegations visit Turkmenistan frequently to discuss energy. The U.S. even has a special envoy for Eurasian energy diplomacy.

Rivalry for pipeline routes and energy resources reflects competition for power and control in the region. Pipelines are important today in the same way that railway building was important in the 19th century. They connect trading partners and influence the regional balance of power. Afghanistan is a strategic piece of real estate in the geopolitical struggle for power and dominance in the region.

Since the 1990s, Washington has promoted a natural gas pipeline south through Afghanistan. The route would pass through Kandahar province. In 2007, Richard Boucher, U.S. assistant secretary of state, said: "One of our goals is to stabilize Afghanistan," and to link South and Central Asia "so that energy can flow to the south." Oil and gas have motivated U.S. involvement in the Middle East for decades. Unwittingly or willingly, Canadian forces are supporting American goals.

The proposed pipeline is called TAPI, after the initials of the four participating countries (Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, Pakistan and India). Eleven high-level planning meetings have been held during the past seven years, with Asian Development Bank sponsorship and multilateral support (including Canada's). Construction is planned to start next year.

The pipeline project was documented at three donor conferences on Afghanistan in the past three years and is referenced in the 2008 Afghan Development Plan. Canada was represented at these conferences at the ministerial level. Thus, our leaders must know. Yet they avoid discussion of the planned pipeline through Afghanistan.

The 2008 Manley Report, a foundation for extending the Canadian mission to 2011, ignored energy issues. It talked about Afghanistan as if it were an island, albeit with a porous Pakistani border. Prime Minister Stephen Harper says he "will withdraw the bulk of the military forces" in 2011. The remaining troops will focus mostly on "reconstruction and development." Does that include the pipeline?

Pipeline rivalry is slightly more visible in Europe. Ukraine is the main gateway for gas from Russia to Europe. The United States has pushed for alternate pipelines and encouraged European countries to diversify their sources of supply. Recently built pipelines for oil and gas originate in Azerbaijan and extend through Georgia to Turkey. They are the jewels in the crown of U.S. strategy to bypass Russia and Iran.

The rivalry continues with plans for new gas pipelines to Europe from Russia and the Caspian region. The Russians plan South Stream – a pipeline under the Black Sea to Bulgaria. The European Union and U.S. are backing a pipeline called Nabucco that would supply gas to Europe via Turkey. Nabucco would get some gas from Azerbaijan, but that country doesn't have enough. Additional supply could come from Turkmenistan, but Russia is blocking a link across the Caspian Sea. Iran offers another source, but the U.S. is blocking the use of Iranian gas.

Meanwhile, Iran is planning a pipeline to deliver gas east to Pakistan and India. Pakistan has agreed in principle, but India has yet to do so. It's an alternative to the long-planned, U.S.-supported pipeline from Turkmenistan through Afghanistan to Pakistan and India.

A very big game is underway, with geopolitics intruding everywhere. U.S. journalist Steven LeVine describes American policy in the region as "pipeline-driven." Other countries are pushing for pipeline routes, too. The energy game remains largely hidden; the focus is on humanitarian, development and national security concerns. In Canada, Afghanistan has been avoided in the past two elections.

With the U.S. surge underway and the British ambassador to Washington predicting a decades-long commitment, it's reasonable to ask: Why are the U.S. and NATO in Afghanistan? Could the motivation be power, a permanent military bridgehead, access to energy resources?

Militarizing energy has a high price in dollars, lives and morality. There are long-term consequences for everyone. Canadian voters want to know: Why is Afghanistan so important?
http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/679670

Why do you think we gave one billion US taxpayer dollars to Georgia?

You assume way too much brother.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top