• We should now be fully online following an overnight outage. Apologies for any inconvenience, we do not expect there to be any further issues.

What was that about no Afghanistan pipeline?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

SnapIT

Banned
Jul 8, 2002
4,355
1
0
Originally posted by: Astaroth33
Originally posted by: hagbard
Originally posted by: Astaroth33
So.. Assuming stability is restored, are you saying it's unethical for businesses to move in and profit?

See, its already starting. The same will be the case after the Iraqi conquest.

Businesses, even American ones, can and do act independently of government. You can bet people look for opportunity everywhere, and take advantage of any favorable political situation. It's not a US conspiracy to rule the world, it's simple economic reality. Unless you're a granola-eating unwashed environmentalist or a pinko commie, if you see an opportunity to make money you'll take it. So yes, if and when Saddam is taken out and a stable government favorable to the West is installed, there will be lots of interest in foreign investment, and there will be lots of money made. Economic reality. Get over it.

The question is, will US benefit greatly from a US friendly government in Irak.... look at the question, is there more than one answer to that question?

Sure, you can pretend that it is to save those poor people, or because Saddam is a threat, but in the end, the cash in your pocket is what makes the difference between war and peace...
 

SnapIT

Banned
Jul 8, 2002
4,355
1
0
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: SnapIT
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: SnapIT
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: hagbard
Originally posted by: etech
Originally posted by: hagbard
Originally posted by: ElFenix
Originally posted by: coolVariable
Well, it's just one more economical war, boy.

An American Oil/Gas company wants to make a profit ... call in the marines.

But keep hiding from the truth Mr. etech-D!ckhead.

it says that the US company is no longer involved in the project.

It was also argued here that there was NO pipeline. Period. I'm sure these guys will come up with rationalizations when the US does control the tool of Iraqi oil in manipulating the countries in that region for their, and their friends, benefit. Sheep.

You fool, it has been argued that there were no plans for an OIL pipeline. Natural gas is not OIL.

No, gas. Why would they announce an oil pipeline before they've conquered Iraq? That will come less than a year after and you'll be rationalizing that too.

Natural gas.

A natural gas pipeline thru afganistan has been proposed by many different companies and countries over the past 20 years. None have made it past the idea stage, due the lack of political stability in the region. However, a pipeline deal did get signed in december, with no US companies being involved.

Since this deal got signed, it would seem political stability is ahead in afganistan.

WOW, that's strange, we use natural gas here.... maybe we just have an idea that works...

Check your facts before you speak up...

eh? What facts are wrong?

Figure it out, it isn't all that hard to do... i bet if you try real hard you can do it....

Is it possible for us to be the consumers of some of that natural gas? Yes that is possible, but we have pretty decent natural gas reserves in the US.


But no US oil companies are involved in the pipeline. If you disagree, please show proof.

*sighs*
 

etech

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
10,597
0
0
Originally posted by: SnapIT
Originally posted by: Astaroth33
Originally posted by: hagbard
Originally posted by: Astaroth33
So.. Assuming stability is restored, are you saying it's unethical for businesses to move in and profit?

See, its already starting. The same will be the case after the Iraqi conquest.

Businesses, even American ones, can and do act independently of government. You can bet people look for opportunity everywhere, and take advantage of any favorable political situation. It's not a US conspiracy to rule the world, it's simple economic reality. Unless you're a granola-eating unwashed environmentalist or a pinko commie, if you see an opportunity to make money you'll take it. So yes, if and when Saddam is taken out and a stable government favorable to the West is installed, there will be lots of interest in foreign investment, and there will be lots of money made. Economic reality. Get over it.

The question is, will US benefit greatly from a US friendly government in Irak.... look at the question, is there more than one answer to that question?

Sure, you can pretend that it is to save those poor people, or because Saddam is a threat, but in the end, the cash in your pocket is what makes the difference between war and peace...

What does that have to do with a natual gas pipeline in Afghanistan?



Afghanistan: the pipeline war?

In brief, then, considerations of economic and political influence will undoubtedly play a part in western strategies in Afghanistan.

It would be strange if they did not. But the argument that these are the main motivations behind US actions, not the desire to stamp out international terrorism, will probably find support mainly among those who already have a fondness for conspiracy theories.

 

UltraQuiet

Banned
Sep 22, 2001
5,755
0
0
Originally posted by: etech
Originally posted by: SnapIT
Originally posted by: Astaroth33
Originally posted by: hagbard
Originally posted by: Astaroth33
So.. Assuming stability is restored, are you saying it's unethical for businesses to move in and profit?

See, its already starting. The same will be the case after the Iraqi conquest.

Businesses, even American ones, can and do act independently of government. You can bet people look for opportunity everywhere, and take advantage of any favorable political situation. It's not a US conspiracy to rule the world, it's simple economic reality. Unless you're a granola-eating unwashed environmentalist or a pinko commie, if you see an opportunity to make money you'll take it. So yes, if and when Saddam is taken out and a stable government favorable to the West is installed, there will be lots of interest in foreign investment, and there will be lots of money made. Economic reality. Get over it.

The question is, will US benefit greatly from a US friendly government in Irak.... look at the question, is there more than one answer to that question?

Sure, you can pretend that it is to save those poor people, or because Saddam is a threat, but in the end, the cash in your pocket is what makes the difference between war and peace...

What does that have to do with a natual gas pipeline in Afghanistan?



Afghanistan: the pipeline war?

In brief, then, considerations of economic and political influence will undoubtedly play a part in western strategies in Afghanistan.

It would be strange if they did not. But the argument that these are the main motivations behind US actions, not the desire to stamp out international terrorism, will probably find support mainly among those who already have a fondness for conspiracy theories.

Who's gonna benefit?

Gas
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: SnapIT
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: SnapIT
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: SnapIT
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: hagbard
Originally posted by: etech
Originally posted by: hagbard
Originally posted by: ElFenix
Originally posted by: coolVariable
Well, it's just one more economical war, boy.

An American Oil/Gas company wants to make a profit ... call in the marines.

But keep hiding from the truth Mr. etech-D!ckhead.

it says that the US company is no longer involved in the project.

It was also argued here that there was NO pipeline. Period. I'm sure these guys will come up with rationalizations when the US does control the tool of Iraqi oil in manipulating the countries in that region for their, and their friends, benefit. Sheep.

You fool, it has been argued that there were no plans for an OIL pipeline. Natural gas is not OIL.

No, gas. Why would they announce an oil pipeline before they've conquered Iraq? That will come less than a year after and you'll be rationalizing that too.

Natural gas.

A natural gas pipeline thru afganistan has been proposed by many different companies and countries over the past 20 years. None have made it past the idea stage, due the lack of political stability in the region. However, a pipeline deal did get signed in december, with no US companies being involved.

Since this deal got signed, it would seem political stability is ahead in afganistan.

WOW, that's strange, we use natural gas here.... maybe we just have an idea that works...

Check your facts before you speak up...

eh? What facts are wrong?

Figure it out, it isn't all that hard to do... i bet if you try real hard you can do it....

Is it possible for us to be the consumers of some of that natural gas? Yes that is possible, but we have pretty decent natural gas reserves in the US.


But no US oil companies are involved in the pipeline. If you disagree, please show proof.

*sighs*


Afghan pipeline signing press release There is a more detailed article on cnn somewhere, and which i posted here at the end of december.

Turkmenistan, Afghanistan and Pakistan signed an agreement on Friday to build a multi-billion dollar natural gas pipeline connecting their states, dismissing fears that regional security could threaten the project.

The 875-mile line, costed at $2.5 billion, is designed to link the vast gas reserves of Turkmenistan with Pakistan and, eventually, India, and has been a pet project of Turkmen President Saparmurat Niyazov since the mid-1990s.

But the only way to open the South Asian market to Turkmenistan's reserves, the world's third largest, is across Afghanistan, and decades of instability there kept the project on the drawing board.

Asked after the signing ceremony if the security situation in Afghanistan meant that the pipeline was now a realistic option, Afghan President Hamid Karzai replied: "Very much so -- I believe it can be considered among the best in the region. Sure."

Following the signing, a feasibility study will be drawn up, with $1.5 million in funding provided by the Asian Development Bank, and due to be presented in June 2003.

Niyazov on Friday invited Karzai and Pakistan's Prime Minister, Mir Zafarullah Khan Jamali, who also signed the accord, to return to Ashgabat next September to review the feasibility study and decide how to proceed.

If the line goes ahead -- and the issues of funding it and drawing up a consortium to develop it are far from resolved -- it will run from the Davletbad gas field in southern Turkmenistan and Herat in western Afghanistan before swinging across the country to Kandahar in the south.

From there it will run to Multan in Pakistan, with one potential future spur leading to the port of Gwadar, where a gas liquefaction plant could be built, and another to New Delhi.

MORE THAN JUST A PIPELINE

With Turkmenistan profiting from a new market and Pakistan from a new source of supply, Afghanistan stands to gain from transit fees. But Karzai said on Friday he saw far more than that coming out of the line.

"It will also facilitate the construction of highways, it will improve communications, it will eventually lead to the construction of railways in the region...It's a major undertaking for our region."

Most Turkmen gas exports now go to Russia, with much of the volume onsold to Ukraine, although there is also a small line running to Iran. Ashgabat has long wanted to develop new markets.

But instability in Afghanistan since the Soviet invasion of 1979, followed by civil war and the advent of the hard-line Taliban regime, made the project untenable.

The Taliban's fall in late 2001 and the arrival of the Karzai administration swiftly put the plan back on the agenda, and Niyazov, Karzai and Pakistan's President Pervez Musharraf have held several meetings to push the pipeline forward.

Despite widespread cynicism over security in Afghanistan and the plausibility of nuclear rivals India and Pakistan agreeing to allow reliable gas flows across their heavily-armed border, all parties were upbeat on Friday.

"This will increase our economic cooperation in the region and help the security situation," Niyazov told his fellow signatories.

Any questions? Notice the lack of US involvement? Notice the involvement of asian banks and bordering countries.

Now who needs to check their facts?
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,562
9
81
hag "I-hate-the-US-and-make-sh!t-up-just-to-start-a-flame-war" bard has been pretty quiet. Where'd you go, Fool?
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: BoberFett
hag "I-hate-the-US-and-make-sh!t-up-just-to-start-a-flame-war" bard has been pretty quiet. Where'd you go, Fool?

It looks like hagbard and snapit have been shut up on this thread.
 

Dudd

Platinum Member
Aug 3, 2001
2,865
0
0
Originally posted by: BoberFett
hag "I-hate-the-US-and-make-sh!t-up-just-to-start-a-flame-war" bard has been pretty quiet. Where'd you go, Fool?

*sound of crickets in the backround*
 

FrancesBeansRevenge

Platinum Member
Jun 6, 2001
2,181
0
0
ROFL.

I love watching hagbard stumble and trip all over himself trying while trying to further his agenda.
Amazingly, and sadly, he actually seems to end up destroying his own argument with his stupidity.
 

etech

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
10,597
0
0
Originally posted by: Dudd
Originally posted by: BoberFett
hag "I-hate-the-US-and-make-sh!t-up-just-to-start-a-flame-war" bard has been pretty quiet. Where'd you go, Fool?

*sound of crickets in the backround*

crickets are still chirping. No fools saying "oil pipeline" to be seen.

 

Mill

Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
28,558
3
81
I am sure he will be back to say that he doesn't spend his life on the computer and that is why he didn't reply. Mark my words.
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: etech
Originally posted by: Dudd
Originally posted by: BoberFett
hag "I-hate-the-US-and-make-sh!t-up-just-to-start-a-flame-war" bard has been pretty quiet. Where'd you go, Fool?

*sound of crickets in the backround*

crickets are still chirping. No fools saying "oil pipeline" to be seen.

Lots of crickets tongiht.
 

Kadarin

Lifer
Nov 23, 2001
44,296
16
81
Originally posted by: SnapIT
Originally posted by: Astaroth33
Originally posted by: hagbard
Originally posted by: Astaroth33
So.. Assuming stability is restored, are you saying it's unethical for businesses to move in and profit?

See, its already starting. The same will be the case after the Iraqi conquest.

Businesses, even American ones, can and do act independently of government. You can bet people look for opportunity everywhere, and take advantage of any favorable political situation. It's not a US conspiracy to rule the world, it's simple economic reality. Unless you're a granola-eating unwashed environmentalist or a pinko commie, if you see an opportunity to make money you'll take it. So yes, if and when Saddam is taken out and a stable government favorable to the West is installed, there will be lots of interest in foreign investment, and there will be lots of money made. Economic reality. Get over it.

The question is, will US benefit greatly from a US friendly government in Irak.... look at the question, is there more than one answer to that question?

Sure, you can pretend that it is to save those poor people, or because Saddam is a threat, but in the end, the cash in your pocket is what makes the difference between war and peace...

Of course the US would benefit from a US-friendly government in Iraq.. duh! But you make no sense asking if there's more than one answer to a yes or no question, so what are you talking about?

Both you and hagbard advocate a logical fallacy when you assume that because corporate profit was the result of military action, that it was also the reason for that military action.
 

Bignate603

Lifer
Sep 5, 2000
13,897
1
0
What is wrong with bringing construction jobs, tax revenue for the gas moving through the country, and the ability for the country to also use the gas? Wouldn't that be good for it? You want aid for Afghanistan so it can rebuild? Why not have foriegn companies come in, pay workers to build it, and then pay taxes on shipping gas through the country at no cost to the Afghani government. It seems like a really good idea to me as long as the pipeline's safety can be assured.
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: Bignate603
What is wrong with bringing construction jobs, tax revenue for the gas moving through the country, and the ability for the country to also use the gas? Wouldn't that be good for it? You want aid for Afghanistan so it can rebuild? Why not have foriegn companies come in, pay workers to build it, and then pay taxes on shipping gas through the country at no cost to the Afghani government. It seems like a really good idea to me as long as the pipeline's safety can be assured.

Nothing wrong with it.
 

etech

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
10,597
0
0
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: Bignate603
What is wrong with bringing construction jobs, tax revenue for the gas moving through the country, and the ability for the country to also use the gas? Wouldn't that be good for it? You want aid for Afghanistan so it can rebuild? Why not have foriegn companies come in, pay workers to build it, and then pay taxes on shipping gas through the country at no cost to the Afghani government. It seems like a really good idea to me as long as the pipeline's safety can be assured.

Nothing wrong with it.


Be the best thing that could happen to Afghanistan. Jobs, jobs training, revenue, natural gas to use instead of trees(see link to deforestation I posted earlier).

It has nothing to do with why the US went to war in Afghanistan except in the minds of a few idiots.
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: etech
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: Bignate603
What is wrong with bringing construction jobs, tax revenue for the gas moving through the country, and the ability for the country to also use the gas? Wouldn't that be good for it? You want aid for Afghanistan so it can rebuild? Why not have foriegn companies come in, pay workers to build it, and then pay taxes on shipping gas through the country at no cost to the Afghani government. It seems like a really good idea to me as long as the pipeline's safety can be assured.

Nothing wrong with it.


Be the best thing that could happen to Afghanistan. Jobs, jobs training, revenue, natural gas to use instead of trees(see link to deforestation I posted earlier).

It has nothing to do with why the US went to war in Afghanistan except in the minds of a few idiots.


Those idiot must also want the poor people of afganistan to continue to live without power. A guy at the office worked in afganistan for the UN for 5 years. THe first 3 years was without power or running water. I guess hagbard and snapit would like to keep the afgan people living in these conditions.
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,562
9
81
According to his profile, the assmunch logged in early this morning, 1/21/2003 12:20 AM. Maybe he forgot to bring the proof as to how this is just another evil move by evil Amerika. I guess he'll be back later.

Oh yeah, and *bump* for the morning shift.
 

hagbard

Banned
Nov 30, 2000
2,775
0
0
Originally posted by: etech
Originally posted by: Dudd
Originally posted by: BoberFett
hag "I-hate-the-US-and-make-sh!t-up-just-to-start-a-flame-war" bard has been pretty quiet. Where'd you go, Fool?

*sound of crickets in the backround*

crickets are still chirping. No fools saying "oil pipeline" to be seen.

What's your point? They will build an oil pipeline through Afghanistan after they deal with Iraq and Iran to reach South Asian markets. You think its stupid, so what. Time will tell.


 

DaveSimmons

Elite Member
Aug 12, 2001
40,730
670
126
Originally posted by: hagbard
Originally posted by: etech
crickets are still chirping. No fools saying "oil pipeline" to be seen.

What's your point? They will build an oil pipeline through Afghanistan after they deal with Iraq and Iran to reach South Asian markets. You think its stupid, so what. Time will tell.
And so you admit you have nothing to back up your belief that there will be an oil pipeline. OK, I say they'll build a BEER pipeline! And a talking-watch conveyor belt! Time will tell.
 

Lonyo

Lifer
Aug 10, 2002
21,938
6
81
If there was any US involvement, you could still hardly complain, because it will bring benifits to the US. No matter who is involved, the benifits will be reaped by Afghanistan, and given recent events, that can't really be a bad thing.
 

Mandrill

Golden Member
Feb 7, 2000
1,009
0
0
Originally posted by: hagbard
Originally posted by: etech
Originally posted by: Dudd
Originally posted by: BoberFett
hag "I-hate-the-US-and-make-sh!t-up-just-to-start-a-flame-war" bard has been pretty quiet. Where'd you go, Fool?

*sound of crickets in the backround*

crickets are still chirping. No fools saying "oil pipeline" to be seen.

What's your point? They will build an oil pipeline through Afghanistan after they deal with Iraq and Iran to reach South Asian markets. You think its stupid, so what. Time will tell.


That will happen right after monkey's fly out of my butt. Boy you are REALLY streatching it now. You were better off not posting at all. What you just posted was absolutely rediculous.