Home | Community | Message Board


This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder, Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

Jump to first unread post Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | Next >  [ show all ]
Anonymous

Re: For In(di)go [Re: Rono]
    #1467026 - 04/17/03 11:28 AM (20 years, 11 months ago)

Wait!  I just got here!  :grin:

It is an interesting read and all but at the moment I am too busy doing politics (primary election time) than reading or posting about it here.

My only comment is that I love reason.  That should clarify my view.  I applaud those that use it and have disdain for those who don't.

I don't have time to read much in here but from what I saw it looks like you are doing a stellar job as usual!

Keep up the good work! :smile:

Cheers, 

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 2 months
Re: For In(di)go [Re: Xlea321]
    #1467045 - 04/17/03 11:36 AM (20 years, 11 months ago)

Alex123 writes:

There is more oil in the caspian sea than Saudi Arabia.

Source?

You need a pipeline through Afghanistan to get it out.

Incorrect. First of all, remember that the proposed trans-Afganistan pipeline is a natural gas pipeline, not an oil pipeline. This is because the starting point of the pipeline in Turkmenistan is not near any oil deposits of significance.

Second, there is already a consortium planning an oil pipeline form the Caspian oilfields to the Black Sea port of Novorossiysk. A brief look at an atlas will show the advantages of Novorossiysk as a shipping port to serve European markets compared to Gwadar in Pakistan -- let alone the fact that the distance is shorter over land less rugged and does not have to cross a wartorn country littered with old Soviet landmines and infested with warring factions of Islamic tribesmen.

Give it time for public opinion to settle down.

It's not a question of public opinion. It's the fact that no company its right mind is willing to undertake the construction of a fragile, easily attacked pipeline carrying highly flammable gas (orders of magnitude more explosive than crude oil) across a country that has been at war for the last 23 years.

What else is he going to say?

GazzBut claimed that the human rights motivation was never mentioned "untill they realised they couldnt find any WMD". I pointed out that his claim was incorrect. You then (as always) jumped in with an irrelevant aside.

I think the Iraqi's were more concerned about the violation of their rights through "genocidal sanctions"

What you think is meaningless. What matters is what the Iraqis think. What matters is that one of the conditions of the surrender agreement Hussein signed called for him to cease violating the rights of Iraqis.

As for the sanctions, you can whine and moan and froth and gibber about them all you want, but the truth of the matter is that the sanctions were imposed as the direct result of Hussein's actions, and that Hussein could at any time have had them lifted by the simple act of fulfilling the terms of the agreement he signed in order to save his ass. You must also know by now that Bush has called upon the UN to lift the sanctions.

Not according to the UN weapons inspectors.

You're the only one on this forum who still believes this. The UN weapons inspectors said no such thing. Their reports said no such thing. Even your heroic Scott Ritter said no such thing.

pinky



--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Anonymous

Re: For In(di)go [Re: Phred]
    #1467386 - 04/17/03 01:32 PM (20 years, 11 months ago)

i must say that my favorite part of this forum is when pinksharkmark and alex go head to head.

it's rather amusing.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: For In(di)go [Re: Phred]
    #1467611 - 04/17/03 02:36 PM (20 years, 11 months ago)

It's the fact that no company its right mind is willing to undertake the construction of a fragile, easily attacked pipeline carrying highly flammable gas (orders of magnitude more explosive than crude oil) across a country that has been at war for the last 23 years.

Hang on pink, Unocal have already spent 10 million on this and spent years romancing the taliban, inviting them to america, treating them like kings, only for the Taliban to refuse them permission. Clearly 23 years of civil war didn't put them off then.

GazzBut claimed that the human rights motivation was never mentioned "untill they realised they couldnt find any WMD".

Which is correct. The reason for invading Iraq was always WMD. Once none were found it was quickly dropped.

What matters is what the Iraqis think.

And how many Iraqis supported sanctions?

What matters is that one of the conditions of the surrender agreement Hussein signed called for him to cease violating the rights of Iraqis.

Are sanctions violating the rights of Iraqis or not?

You must also know by now that Bush has called upon the UN to lift the sanctions.

No shit! You mean american corporations will be allowed to sell as much oil as they like? I'm stunned...

You're the only one on this forum who still believes this

Pardon? You and a few rabid right-wing mates are not "the forum". No WMD have been found. Every passing day makes it more and more obvious that the UN weapons inspectors like Ritter were absolutely accurate.

It really doesn't matter whether you and your mates want to "believe" it or not.


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 2 months
Re: For In(di)go [Re: Xlea321]
    #1467734 - 04/17/03 03:17 PM (20 years, 11 months ago)

Alex123 writes:

Unocal have already spent 10 million on this and spent years romancing the taliban, inviting them to america, treating them like kings, only for the Taliban to refuse them permission. Clearly 23 years of civil war didn't put them off then.

And again we are treated to the daily spectacle of Alex's inability to distinguish past from present. Unocal withdrew from the Centgas consortium in 1998, and has no plans to either rejoin or to bid on the Afghan pipeline. See the thread Afghani Oil for more detail. You should remember this, Alex -- you posted in that thread yourself.

This habit of yours of having your claims thoroughly shredded, then proclaiming the exact same ones a week later in a new thread in the hopes that all the readers of this forum have a memory as short as your own is really becoming exceedingly tedious.

Which is correct.

No, his statement is incorrect. Human rights violations of Iraqis were mentioned from the beginning.

The reason for invading Iraq was always WMD. Once none were found it was quickly dropped.

Incorrect. The reason for invading Iraq was Hussein's refusal to fulfill even a single condition of the surrender agreement he signed. One of the conditions was that he provide credible proof of the destruction of the prohibited weaponry he admitted to having. Another condition was that he cease the violation of the rights of Iraqis.

And how many Iraqis supported sanctions?

Irrelevant to the point under discussion. Your usual attempt to sidetrack the issue. When will you realize that tactic doesn't work with me, and that you only succeed in making yourself look foolish by continuing to attempt it?

No WMD have been found. Every passing day makes it more and more obvious that the UN weapons inspectors like Ritter were absolutely accurate.

Again, your oft-demonstrated inability to comprehend even your own statements, let alone those of others. I said that Hussein had failed to provide credible proof of his destruction of prohibited weapons. You then claimed that the UN inspectors had received such proof. They didn't, as all their reports to the UN have stated. Even Scott Ritter has never claimed such a thing. The fact that as of yet, no biochem weaponry has been found by US troops currently in Iraq does not alter the fact that

a) Hussein never provided credible proof of their destruction

b) no UN inspector (including Ritter) has ever claimed that he has

pinky


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSkikid16
fungus fan

Registered: 06/27/02
Posts: 5,666
Loc: In the middle of the nort...
Last seen: 18 years, 11 months
Re: For In(di)go [Re: Xlea321]
    #1467743 - 04/17/03 03:19 PM (20 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

What matters is that one of the conditions of the surrender agreement Hussein signed called for him to cease violating the rights of Iraqis.

Are sanctions violating the rights of Iraqis or not?



Dude, the point is, as pink pointed out, Hussein could have lifted the sanctions himself if he complied with the surrender agreement. Why the hell is it the US, or the UN's place to lift them when the terms of the agreement weren't met?


Quote:

You must also know by now that Bush has called upon the UN to lift the sanctions.

No shit! You mean american corporations will be allowed to sell as much oil as they like? I'm stunned...



You've been bitching about sanctions for as long as I've been here, now that they are lifted, you're bitching at who will do business. You really have nothing to offer other than hatred for America, do you? I don't love this country or its leadership, but I can admit when they've done something good.


--------------------
Re-Defeat Bush in '04

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: For In(di)go [Re: Phred]
    #1467810 - 04/17/03 03:43 PM (20 years, 11 months ago)

You should remember this, Alex -- you posted in that thread yourself.

Pink, at least try and make some sense. You have just stated no oil company would be interested in an oil pipeline in a country with 23 years of civil war. If no oil company is interested in a country with 23 years of civil war why were UNOCAL inviting the taliban over in 1996 asking if they could build the pipeline?

Now pause for a moment to digest this fact. Try and THINK before you post again.

(why do i get the feeling i'm wasting my time...)

No, his statement is incorrect. Human rights violations of Iraqis were mentioned from the beginning.

No, his statement is correct. UN resolution 1441 which was given as the reason for invasion, was concerned solely with disarmament. Not human rights violations. Another of your arguments utterly dismantled. This is getting boring.

Irrelevant to the point under discussion

So human rights violations are only important if it's saddam violating them? I see. Argument three crashes and burns...

You then claimed that the UN inspectors had received such proof.

"Iraq has been disarmed fundamentally. Their weapons programs have been eliminated. Iraq poses no threat to any of its neighbors. It does not threaten its region. It does not threaten the United States. It does not threaten the world." - Scott Ritter

The fact that as of yet, no biochem weaponry has been found by US troops currently in Iraq does not alter the fact that

This is getting bizarre. So the fact that he hasn't got any WMD doesn't alter what? Run that one past me again...

Don't you think you should have the slightest evidence that a country has WMD before you invade it on grounds that it has WMD? Or am I being too obvious?



--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 2 months
Re: For In(di)go [Re: Xlea321]
    #1468132 - 04/17/03 05:17 PM (20 years, 11 months ago)

Alex123 writes:

Unocal have already spent 10 million on this and spent years romancing the taliban, inviting them to america, treating them like kings, only for the Taliban to refuse them permission. Clearly 23 years of civil war didn't put them off then.

And again we are treated to the daily spectacle of Alex's inability to distinguish past from present. Unocal withdrew from the Centgas consortium in 1998, and has no plans to either rejoin or to bid on the Afghan pipeline. See the thread titled Afghani Oil:

http://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=Forum14&
Number=1432946&page=&view=&sb=5&o=&fpart=1&vc=1

If no oil company is interested in a country with 23 years of civil war why were UNOCAL inviting the taliban over in 1996 asking if they could build the pipeline?

Regardless of what you or I may think of the Taliban's legitimacy to speak on behalf of the Afghan people, from strictly a foreign investment point of view as long as the Taliban could convince a company that the safety of that company's workers would be guaranteed while building the pipeline and that the finished pipeline would protected as well, it would be a poor corporation indeed who failed to investigate fully such an opportunity on behalf of their shareholders. It looked for a time as if the Taliban (despite their theocratic excesses) might in fact turn out to have a tight enough grip on the populace to be a stabilizing influence on Afghanistan, the same way that the theocracy of Iran (whatever else you might think of them), had a firm grip on its populace.

Such feasibility studies by oil companies are undertaken all the time. They take time and cost money, and not every such study results in a contract. As it turned out, Unocal was not persuaded by the Taliban that their essential pre-conditions could in fact be satisified. Unocal withdrew from the Centgas consortium in 1998, wrote off their investment (again a normal procedure that happens all the time), and have continued to decline to bid on the project.

Try to think before you post again -- the fact that an oil company was exploring possibilities in 1996 does not mean that it is guaranteed to find satisfactory conditions enabling it to close the deal.

UN resolution 1441 which was given as the reason for invasion, was concerned solely with disarmament. Not human rights violations.

Repeating an inaccuracy doesn't make it more accurate, Alex. GazzBut's claim was that human rights abuses by Hussein were never mentioned as a reason for deposing Hussein. This is incorrect. Bush mentioned them in every single address he made.

As for resolution 1441, you haven't read it have you? If you had, you would have noticed this portion:

Deploring also that the Government of Iraq has failed to comply with its commitments pursuant to resolution 687 (1991) with regard to terrorism, pursuant to resolution 688 (1991) to end repression of its civilian population and to provide access by international humanitarian organizations to all those in need of assistance in Iraq, and pursuant to resolutions 686 (1991), 687 (1991), and 1284 (1999) to return or cooperate in accounting for Kuwaiti and third country nationals wrongfully detained by Iraq, or to return Kuwaiti property wrongfully seized by Iraq,

Recalling that in its resolution 687 (1991) the Council declared that a ceasefire would be based on acceptance by Iraq of the provisions of that resolution, including the obligations on Iraq contained therein,

Determined to ensure full and immediate compliance by Iraq without conditions or restrictions with its obligations under resolution 687 (1991) and other relevant resolutions and recalling that the resolutions of the Council constitute the governing standard of Iraqi compliance,

etc, etc.


So the fact that he hasn't got any WMD doesn't alter what?

Who says he hasn't got biochem weaponry? A guy who hasn't been part of an inspection team for six years? The same guy (the only one in fact) who contradicts what the head of the inspectors reported repeatedly to the UN?

Don't you think you should have the slightest evidence that a country has WMD before you invade it on grounds that it has WMD?

As always, you have shifted the burden of proof. As the language of resolution 1441 (and all the preceding resolutions as well) makes clear, it was never the responsibility of the UN inspectors to ferret out concealed weapons -- it was up to Hussein to deliver credible and verifiable proof that the weapons he admitted to possessing had all been destroyed. The job of the inspectors was to examine the proof of their destruction -- including but not limited to investigating the sites where the destruction was claimed to have taken place -- and to declare it either acceptable proof or unacceptable fraud.

I have pointed out this easy-to-grasp distinction more than a dozen times in threads in which you have participated. Your inability to grasp the distinction is not my problem.

pinky


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: For In(di)go [Re: Phred]
    #1469163 - 04/18/03 01:04 AM (20 years, 11 months ago)

And again we are treated to the daily spectacle of Alex's inability to distinguish past from present

You stated no company is interested in building an oil pipeline in a country that has been at war for 23 years. I pointed out Unocal were interested throughout the 90's. Your point is demolished.

GazzBut's claim was that human rights abuses by Hussein were never mentioned as a reason for deposing Hussein.

Can you give us a quote where Bush states the sole reason for invading Iraq is for abuse of human rights.

Bush mentioned them in every single address he made.

But not as the main reason for invading Iraq.

If you had, you would have noticed this portion

No, I noticed that portion, it's simply way down the list. Are you trying to say 1441 was more concerned with human rights than WMD?

Who says he hasn't got biochem weaponry?

SO WHERE IS IT THEN?

it was up to Hussein to deliver credible and verifiable proof that the weapons he admitted to possessing had all been destroyed.

He'd provided enough to prove 98% had been destroyed. The question again is how do you prove a negative? So far it's clear he has no chemical or biological weapons, otherwise they would be all over the news right now. So unless we find this fabled weapons cache it is clear Ritter was correct. How can you dispute this?


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineGringoLoco
I spit in theface of peoplewho ain't cool.
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/08/01
Posts: 6,118
Loc: Monterey, CA
Last seen: 15 years, 26 days
Re: For In(di)go [Re: Phred]
    #1469238 - 04/18/03 01:45 AM (20 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

Again, your oft-demonstrated inability to comprehend even your own statements, let alone those of others. I said that Hussein had failed to provide credible proof of his destruction of prohibited weapons. You then claimed that the UN inspectors had received such proof. They didn't, as all their reports to the UN have stated. Even Scott Ritter has never claimed such a thing. The fact that as of yet, no biochem weaponry has been found by US troops currently in Iraq does not alter the fact that




Since this seems to be your "Ultimate comeback", I'd like a little clearer explanation. How do you define "credible proof". Do you mean you want to go see the weapon itself? You want a videotape of them dismantling? You can only interpret a report so much.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 2 months
Re: For In(di)go [Re: Xlea321]
    #1469974 - 04/18/03 10:30 AM (20 years, 11 months ago)

Alex123 writes:

You stated no company is interested in building an oil pipeline in a country that has been at war for 23 years. I pointed out Unocal were interested throughout the 90's.

And again we are treated to Alex's daily demonstration of his inability to distinguish past tense from present tense. The rest of us understand that "is interested" does not have the same meaning as "were interested".

Can you give us a quote where Bush states the sole reason for invading Iraq is for abuse of human rights.

Oh, so now it's not enough that I have proven GazzBut's statement to be incorrect? What is this "sole reason" crap? That was the whole point of my correction to GazzBut, Alex -- Bush has from the beginning presented multiple reasons for deposing Hussein. By an interesting coincidence, all of them were contained in the 1991 conditional ceasefire agreement which Hussein had ignored for over a dozen years, and repeated in UN resolution 1441.

No, I noticed that portion, it's simply way down the list. Are you trying to say 1441 was more concerned with human rights than WMD?

If you had bothered to read the resolution, you would see that it was concerned with Hussein's refusal to fulfill any of the conditions of the 1991 ceasefire agreement. All conditions were mentioned, and all previous resolutions mentioning those conditions were referred to repeatedly.

SO WHERE IS IT THEN?

Iraq is a big country. Hussein was not stupid enough to park prohibited weapons in the living rooms of his generals. They are well-hidden and will likely take some time to find.

He'd provided enough to prove 98% had been destroyed.

No, he didn't. Scott Ritter is not a credible source, and he is the only ex-inspector who uses that figure. Further, as I pointed out to you earlier, even if he did destroy 98% (which he didn't) that leaves 160 tons of biochem -- 160 tons of stuff that can kill in amounts the size of a raindrop.

So far it's clear he has no chemical or biological weapons...

It is far from clear.

So unless we find this fabled weapons cache it is clear Ritter was correct.

Which Ritter? The Ritter who was giving interviews to anyone who would listen on the day of his resignation claiming vociferously that Iraq was far from disarmed? The Ritter who testified under oath to the US Senate that Iraq was far from disarmed and retained the capability to replace any of its destroyed biochem stocks in a matter of weeks? The Ritter who repeatedly banged heads with his superiors because he felt that the US and UN were not supporting the inspectors?

Or the Ritter who, once he had left the program and therefore had no new information regarding the progress of the inspections, suddenly reversed his stance 180 degrees?

pinky


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 2 months
Re: For In(di)go [Re: GringoLoco]
    #1470038 - 04/18/03 10:44 AM (20 years, 11 months ago)

GringoLoco writes:

How do you define "credible proof". Do you mean you want to go see the weapon itself? You want a videotape of them dismantling? You can only interpret a report so much.

I can't say for sure. I am not a weapons inspector. The point is, whatever criteria the UN had set up to determine what constituted credible proof, Iraq failed to meet it. I imagine that somewhere on the UN website, there is a detailed list outlining what they will accept as proof.

Videotapes would likely be part of it, as well as records stating something like "On the 15 of July 1992, 340,000 liters of VX were poured into a pit at location X and set afire. Here are the transportation records, here are the co-ordinates of the pit, here is a videotape of the process. This particular batch of VX we are destroying here today was produced at Factory Y. The machinery used to produce the VX was dismantled and removed from that factory. The components of the assembly line were then run through this auto compactor, set on fire, and buried at this location, Z."

Inspectors then visit sites X, Y, and Z, run chemical analyses on the soil looking for breakdown products of VX, and examine the mangled debris to see if it is in fact likely to be the debris of a chemical production line.

pinky


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: For In(di)go [Re: Phred]
    #1470064 - 04/18/03 10:52 AM (20 years, 11 months ago)

And again we are treated to Alex's daily demonstration of his inability to distinguish past tense from present tense

An insult? Well i never expected that!

The rest of us understand that "is interested" does not have the same meaning as "were interested".

Hang on pink, you said no-one would be interested in building the pipeline in a country like Afghanistan which has been at war for 23 years. We've established Unocal WERE interested. The deal hasn't gone ahead yet. Why not is anyones guess. Maybe Unocal don't want to start such a huge project just yet. There could be a dozen reasons. Why do you think it must be down to "because of the civil war for the last 23 years"? There was still civil war in Afghanistan in the 90's when Unocal were interested wasn't there?

Bush has from the beginning presented multiple reasons for deposing Hussein.

Sorry pink but I only saw WEAPONS INSPECTORS sent into Iraq. I didn't see HUMAN RIGHTS INSPECTORS. Did i miss them?

They are well-hidden and will likely take some time to find.

You mean to tell us the US hasn't the foggiest idea where weapons might be stored? What happened to the US intelligence that insisted they "knew" where the weapons were?

Scott Ritter is not a credible source

If he proves to be right, which is looking more and more likely every day, he is the most credible source on earth. Certainly more credible than Shrub's insistence that Iraq was a "threat".

that leaves 160 tons of biochem

Nope, biochem weapons have shelf-lives. Stuff from 1991 would have degraded and been useless after 2-3 years.

Which Ritter?

Scott.


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: For In(di)go [Re: Phred]
    #1470071 - 04/18/03 10:53 AM (20 years, 11 months ago)

Videotapes would likely be part of it

And you really think that would have impressed Shrub and powell? They'd just have said "We have no idea what they were videotaping and neither did the UN inspectors. Lets bomb the sand niggers anyway".


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 2 months
Re: For In(di)go [Re: Xlea321]
    #1470150 - 04/18/03 11:23 AM (20 years, 11 months ago)

Alex123 writes:

An insult? Well i never expected that!

It's not an insult, it's an observation. It's something you do on a daily basis. As a matter of fact, you do it again in this post --

Hang on pink, you said no-one would be interested in building the pipeline in a country like Afghanistan which has been at war for 23 years.

No, Alex, I didn't say no-one would be interested, I said: "...no company its right mind is willing to undertake the construction of a fragile, easily attacked pipeline carrying highly flammable gas (orders of magnitude more explosive than crude oil) across a country that has been at war for the last 23 years."

Those of us with a grasp of your mother tongue are able to differentiate between "is willing" and "would be interested".

We've established Unocal WERE interested.

"Interested" does not mean "committed to". They had some interest from 1996 to 1998. They have had no interest since, and they continue to have no interest today. I have now repeated this (with links to my sources) about eight times in this thread and the thread called "Afhgani Oil" I linked to. You may continue to exhibit your inability to grasp reality, but I will not waste my time stating and restating the obvious in increasingly simpler terms so that it may finally penetrate your consciousness.

pinky


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 2 months
Re: For In(di)go [Re: Xlea321]
    #1470169 - 04/18/03 11:27 AM (20 years, 11 months ago)

Alex123 writes:

And you really think that would have impressed Shrub and powell?

I have no idea. The point is, there was no such proof ever presented to the UN inspectors. Since the UN itself wasn't satisfied (hence the never-ending series of resolutions culminating in 1441), it was a moot point whether any single member nation was.

pinky


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: For In(di)go [Re: Phred]
    #1470175 - 04/18/03 11:29 AM (20 years, 11 months ago)

It's not an insult, it's an observation

Ok pink. Whatever you say. It doesn't make it any less boring tho.

no company its right mind is willing to undertake the construction of a fragile, easily attacked pipeline carrying highly flammable gas (orders of magnitude more explosive than crude oil) across a country that has been at war for the last 23 years."

I see...so they spent 10 million exploring the project over several years, invited members of the Taliban to the US to talk about it...but they never had any interest whatsoever in building it. It was all just pretend.

There's no future in this argument is there pink. You think companies piss away millions exploring projects they're certain they've no intention of doing it anyway, I don't. We'll have to agree to differ.





--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: For In(di)go [Re: Phred]
    #1470182 - 04/18/03 11:32 AM (20 years, 11 months ago)

Since the UN itself wasn't satisfied

Well, under intense pressure from the US, they were prepared to send in more weapons inspectors to check. But as shrub found to his cost the UN was unconvinced that the theoretical possibility of WMD in Iraq posed sufficient threat to invade.


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Anonymous

Re: For In(di)go [Re: Xlea321]
    #1470186 - 04/18/03 11:33 AM (20 years, 11 months ago)

alex. he saying that the company DID have an interest, but that they no LONGER DO.

capiche?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: For In(di)go [Re: ]
    #1470203 - 04/18/03 11:39 AM (20 years, 11 months ago)

Well, he's actually saying "...no company its right mind is willing to undertake the construction of a fragile, easily attacked pipeline carrying highly flammable gas (orders of magnitude more explosive than crude oil) across a country that has been at war for the last 23 years."

Now Unocal did want to build this pipeline right? They spent millions trying to get the project off the ground. Agreed? If the Taliban had been willing would they have built the pipeline? My guess is yes. So where does that leave his point?

Y'follow?


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | Next >  [ show all ]

Shop: Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder, Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Something's Rotten In England Ellis Dee 917 6 05/30/02 10:37 AM
by wingnutx
* Only in England.... Phred 1,025 17 03/27/04 08:50 PM
by Edame
* Legal sales of magic shrooms in England!! min 1,078 14 08/18/03 03:15 PM
by elbiochemica
* An experiment for the Democratic party
( 1 2 all )
rommstein2001 2,118 30 11/08/03 01:57 PM
by Evolving
* Direct Democracy: Interactive Experiment TheShroomHermit 826 11 08/16/03 07:43 PM
by TheShroomHermit
* coppers arpage23 487 2 06/12/02 01:34 AM
by Innvertigo
* Oh no he di'ent! retread 495 7 10/02/04 01:04 PM
by Phred
* Dis-Integration RonoS 650 6 03/01/03 09:54 AM
by carbonhoots

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
8,499 topic views. 1 members, 5 guests and 26 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.037 seconds spending 0.014 seconds on 15 queries.