BS: Tony Blair Finally Tells the Truth

Subject: BS: Tony Blair Finally Tells the Truth
From: Peter T.
Date: 12 Dec 09 - 02:58 PM

As reported (see BBC News), Tony Blair (presumably covering his ass, except revealing it even more, prior to testifying) finally stated that he just felt like getting rid of Saddam Hussein, along with his American pals ("He was a threat to the region"), lies about weapons of mass destruction or not. Britain and America get to decide who is a threat, where, because their souls are pure. They get to overthrow regimes, drop bombs (now called drones) on anyone they choose, cross national boundaries, because they rule.


yours,

Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: Tony Blair Finally Tells the Truth
From: GUEST,999
Date: 12 Dec 09 - 03:02 PM

I'm sure the Kurds were happy to see Hussein go by-by. As to the BS about WMDs--welcome to the world I guess.

Subject: RE: BS: Tony Blair Finally Tells the Truth
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Dec 09 - 04:20 PM

Does anyone think that Saddam Hussein was a greater "threat to the region" than Tony Blair and George Bush turned out to be? Not to deny that Saddam Hussein was indeed a war criminal, with the blood of many thousands on his hands - but how does that differentiate him from that pair?

Subject: RE: BS: Tony Blair Finally Tells the Truth
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 12 Dec 09 - 04:22 PM

Specialist subject: Stating the bleeding obvious!

Subject: RE: BS: Tony Blair Finally Tells the Truth
From: ard mhacha
Date: 12 Dec 09 - 04:44 PM

To answer your question McGrath, I think it is obvious who were responsible for more deaths, Bush and Blair of course, and it is continuing, what a smary smile Blair has a bigger turn-off than Thatcher, and you can`t get worse than that.

Subject: RE: BS: Tony Blair Finally Tells the Truth
From: akenaton
Date: 12 Dec 09 - 04:49 PM

If my memory serves me well, it wasn't obvious to the political class before it all started going horribly wrong.

It wasn't obvious to many on Mudcat either, with few very honourable exceptions.

The thing which makes me angry is that many of the politicians who "fell in" behind Blair are still around and proclaming their liberal principles

Am I the only one who thinks "politics" and those who engage in "politics" are perpetrating a gigantic con on the public?

Subject: RE: BS: Tony Blair Finally Tells the Truth
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Dec 09 - 05:19 PM

Nope. There are at least two of us here who think that. Maybe a few more as well.

Subject: RE: BS: Tony Blair Finally Tells the Truth
From: gnu
Date: 12 Dec 09 - 05:39 PM

Helen.... great stuff.

Subject: RE: BS: Tony Blair Finally Tells the Truth
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Dec 09 - 05:46 PM

It wasn't obvious to many on Mudcat either, with few very honourable exceptions.

My recollection, for what it's worth, is that the people posting in support of the war, even as that time, were in a minority.

Subject: RE: BS: Tony Blair Finally Tells the Truth
From: Bobert
Date: 12 Dec 09 - 05:51 PM

Seems to me that Bush used some 20 year old term paper by some college kid that Tony Baloney came up with as the final proof (ha) that Saddam had WMD and was going to attack us with them...

Subject: RE: BS: Tony Blair Finally Tells the Truth
From: Gervase
Date: 12 Dec 09 - 05:58 PM

Akenaton, you should have been around at the time. Those of us that were remember very few voices in favour of the war.

For me this latest revelation on the studio sofa of a D-List autocutie just shows the utter amorality of Blair and, should it be needed, gives me another reminder of just why I despise him.
And now we have Cameron jiggling up to the rail to try to prove that he's the next Blair. God help us.

Subject: RE: BS: Tony Blair Finally Tells the Truth
From: akenaton
Date: 12 Dec 09 - 06:03 PM

Oh I was here alright Gervase, maybe my memory is playing tricks.
I'll check back.

Subject: RE: BS: Tony Blair Finally Tells the Truth
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Dec 09 - 06:38 PM

Try the Wayback machine for the Mudcat

Subject: RE: BS: Tony Blair Finally Tells the Truth
From: Bobert
Date: 12 Dec 09 - 07:54 PM

Well, I was against it from the very beginning... No, make that even before the very beginning... I remember who was in the anti-war corner very well and who in particular wasn't...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Tony Blair Finally Tells the Truth
From: Teribus
Date: 13 Dec 09 - 06:25 AM

"Does anyone think that Saddam Hussein was a greater "threat to the region" than Tony Blair and George Bush turned out to be?"

Does anyone think?? Judging by what has been written here so far obviously very few here do. Toddle off and examine the evidence and then come back and answer the question.

You can ignore Iraq of the era of Gamal Abdul Nasser's pan-Arabic dreams and openly hostile threats to annihilate the state of Israel and the Jewish people, the pre-1979 threats against the sovereignty of the state of Kuwait. The rumbling and seemingly endless border dispite with Iran. Since 1979 you will find that Saddam Hussein has waged war against his own people, against two of his immediate neighbours and threatened violence against a third while sponsoring terrorist organisations to carry out attacks against a fourth. On the other hand Tony Blair and George W. Bush attacked Iraq once in order to rid the region of this plague. And that MGOH is what the point of differentiation is.

Was it justified?? Was it the correct thing to do?? Of course it was. Left alone in 2002 Saddam Hussein, with UN sanctions lifted, or just merely ignored, would by now be into either the third or fourth year of the second Iran v Iraq War. There is no way on God's Earth that Saddam would let Iran get anywhere near to acquiring a nuclear weapon - fact.

Subject: RE: BS: Tony Blair Finally Tells the Truth
From: gnu
Date: 13 Dec 09 - 06:33 AM

I was in favour of going into Iraq but as events unfolded and the deceit became glaringly obvious, I was not ("not" to avoid being long-winded).

Subject: RE: BS: Tony Blair Finally Tells the Truth
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 Dec 09 - 08:09 AM

Blair has not conceded deceit.
He maintains that he believed Sadam had wmd, but that he was a threat in any case.
Who knows what the death toll would now be under him and his sons.
If only the aftermath had been properly planned for.

Subject: RE: BS: Tony Blair Finally Tells the Truth
From: WalkaboutsVerse
Date: 13 Dec 09 - 12:28 PM

Blair/New (over-the-border-Scottish) Labour have made England less safe by stepping-up post-war mass-immigration rates.

Subject: RE: BS: Tony Blair Finally Tells the Truth
From: Stu
Date: 13 Dec 09 - 12:36 PM

"Left alone in 2002 Saddam Hussein, with UN sanctions lifted, or just merely ignored, would by now be into either the third or fourth year of the second Iran v Iraq War."

Complete, unfounded supposition.

"There is no way on God's Earth that Saddam would let Iran get anywhere near to acquiring a nuclear weapon - fact."

Not a fact at all. More supposition.

Subject: RE: BS: Tony Blair Finally Tells the Truth
From: Ed T
Date: 13 Dec 09 - 01:58 PM

From July 29, 2002....the building storm.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2002/jul/29/foreignpolicy.iraq

Subject: RE: BS: Tony Blair Finally Tells the Truth
From: pdq
Date: 13 Dec 09 - 02:03 PM

"...Saddam Hussein was indeed a war criminal, with the blood of many thousands on his hands - but..."

No, not thousands. Amnesty International gives Saddam a "lifetime death count" of 1.4 million.

1.4 million ties him with Pol Pot as one of the two worst butchers since Stalin or Chairman Mao.

Had the coalition forces not taken Saddam and his supporters out, they would have killed many more people than the subsequent war has produced. Between 250 thousand and half a million dead. Perhaps Saddam would have started another war with Iran. We will never know, thankfully.

Subject: RE: BS: Tony Blair Finally Tells the Truth
From: ard mhacha
Date: 13 Dec 09 - 02:10 PM

"The Iraqi people will be dancing in the streets" aye and we will all be holidaying in Iraq sunbathing on the banks of the Euphrates, and "in a few weeks time we will capture Bin Laden, he is holed up in a cave and we have him completely surrounded".
Remember all of those quotes, what a blundering pack of fools going into a war on a pack of lies with no planning whatsoever.

Subject: RE: BS: Tony Blair Finally Tells the Truth
From: Rasener
Date: 13 Dec 09 - 03:33 PM

>>killed many more people than the subsequent war has produced. Between 250 thousand and half a million dead<<

Wonderful.So that excuses Blair and Bush.

How can anybody be proud of that. How can anyone justify that many deaths.

Subject: RE: BS: Tony Blair Finally Tells the Truth
From: Little Hawk
Date: 13 Dec 09 - 03:42 PM

Stalin killed more people than Hitler too. A lot more. Does this mean it was wrong to ally with Stalin to fight Hitler?

Politics is a matter of pragmatism. The USA and UK did not go into Iraq to save the lives of Iraqis or Iranians. In fact, it's laughable to think so, because the USA and UK (governments) value the lives of Iraqis and Iranians at about the same level that they value the lives of cockroaches, as far as I can see.

I do not speak of the soldiers or the ordinary people when I say that, I speak of the political high command who are the people who make the decision to go to war. They are driven by pragmatic considerations, not by a desire to save the lives of people in Iran or Iraq.

Subject: RE: BS: Tony Blair Finally Tells the Truth
From: pdq
Date: 13 Dec 09 - 03:51 PM

"...USA and UK (governments) value the lives of Iraqis and Iranians at about the same level that they value the lives of cockroaches..."

That statement is just plain crap. Insulting, too.

I know US service men who served in Iraq and they keep in touch with Iraqi citizens they met and call friends.

Few if any US service men and women think their hard work was wasted. They see a reasonably safe country with a stabile elected government.

Daily body count among civilians has dropped from 159 per day (btw 1979-2003) to about 20 per day now, and most of those are from deliberate acts of terrorism by Islamic extremists.

Subject: RE: BS: Tony Blair Finally Tells the Truth
From: Ed T
Date: 13 Dec 09 - 04:11 PM

I can't help but reflect of images I saw on TV and in magazines of the Iraq mission to free Kuwait.

There were images of very many Iraq solders all along the highway from Kuwait to Iraq. It impacted me much....as according to reports, many of these Iraq folks did not volunteer to fight. They likely had families, who wondered where they were....and preferred a decent burial...just like coalition families would want. But, there they were, not even offered the final dignities of death....a burial, or creamation. The cockroach image, while extreme...seems closer to reality.

Flash back to the Vietnamese war. The USA went to great lengths....many years after the conflict to return bodies and bones for burial.

So, why a different standard? Why cannot we extend some decency to a fallen solder and their family....regardless of which side they are on....they are not cockroaches.....they are humans, like us....before God.

Sorry to take you off topic....but, this has aleays bothered me...as a human and a Christian.

Subject: RE: BS: Tony Blair Finally Tells the Truth
From: akenaton
Date: 13 Dec 09 - 04:26 PM

Little Hawk speaks the truth.

I was reading a report in one of the papers, concerning the mindset of the American soldiers who took part in the My Lai massacre.

One young man explained that although they were slaughtering and raping women and children, they were not, to the soldiers, women and children, they were not even Vietnamese or even human.......they were Communism, a disease which had to be irradicated.

Politics and politicians turn decent young men into unthinking psychotic killing machines in time of war.

In peacetime they content themselves with simple mind control as can often be seen on these threads...Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Tony Blair Finally Tells the Truth
From: Little Hawk
Date: 13 Dec 09 - 04:26 PM

I already clearly stated, pdq, that I am NOT accusing the ordinary soldiers or the general populace of thinking that way. I think it is the fact that we have many good ordinary people involved in the process, excercising their own moral judgement, that keeps thing in wars and occcupations from getting a whole lot worse than they might have.

Actually, it goes both ways. Some ordinary people and some soldiers DO have an attitude toward Iraqis and Iranians as being worthless "ragheads", worthy of extermination. Just listen to them talk when they think only their friends are listening! But I think those people are a pretty small minority, and I think most people have a basically good attitude toward other human beings. It's the politicians and people at the top who make the pragmatic decisions who worry me, not the general populace or the soldiers on the ground who are facing the actual conditions these wars create.

Decisions are made that have to do with money, oil, territorial control, and overall strategy, and those decisions end up hurting many people for the benefit of a few.

Subject: RE: BS: Tony Blair Finally Tells the Truth
From: Arkie
Date: 13 Dec 09 - 04:27 PM

Saddam was a evil man and ruthless ruler who happened to have one of the world's richest oilfields at his disposal. A good reason for the UK and USA to go to war to support their oil interests. BP and their American investors had once had access to the fields and one could expect American oil vultures to circle the fields when the smoke cleared. I would suspect Bush, Cheney, and Blair had a different outcome planned than what has occurred. As for Saddam going to war with Iran that would have surely thrown all Americans and Britons into mourning. One cannot describe the intensity of admiration felt in these countries for Iran. There were some who thought with Saddam at the helm Iraq and Iran were held in check. Now there might have been some fear that Saddam was a threat to Saudi Arabia. One would certainly hope that some good could come from this whole mess. And I hope that the people of Iraq will be able to establish a stable government that will provide security and opportunity.

Subject: RE: BS: Tony Blair Finally Tells the Truth
From: gnu
Date: 13 Dec 09 - 04:38 PM

Arkie... that is one hope that I feel is likely to happen. The Iraquis are as as good in soul, spirit and justice as any. Let us hope. It's time for healing and renewal.

Subject: RE: BS: Tony Blair Finally Tells the Truth
From: Peter T.
Date: 13 Dec 09 - 04:39 PM

My point was not that Saddam Hussein wasn't a sadistic thug. It was that George Bush and Tony Blair believed they had the right to get rid of him, based (if the truth be told) on GWB's desire to finish his father's job, delusions about the glories of Americanization, and the strategic necessity to keep access to oil. In so doing, they destroyed the very, very fragile international consensus about the legitimacy of aggression simply because they felt like it.   This turns international politics back into naked imperialist power, and undermines the very moral arguments that were being deployed to make the case.

It is noticeable that (by omission) Obama was making the same points in his Nobel speech. His (increasingly wobbly) argument is based on defending a nation under attack, to which NATO and the UN have subscribed. Whether that is true any more is troubling (as are the border crossings and flagrant use of drone bombs) in Afghanistan. The causal links to Al-Qaeda attacks/Taliban control and so on, are pretty thin these days.....

yours,

Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: Tony Blair Finally Tells the Truth
From: robomatic
Date: 13 Dec 09 - 04:43 PM

I get BBC world news where I live and the Blair story broke I think it was Thursday morning. But I don't get what the BIG revelation was. What I got was that he had sufficient reason independent of US policy to commit British forces to a cooperative action with the US. So he was never a lapdog, which I agree with.

Throughout the bulk of the war, I think Blair's public utterances had more cogency and logic than W Bush's.

This does not mean that for a great part it was a ham-handed affair. The how of it did not stand up near as well as the why of it, and ultimately the why of it suffered as well.

Subject: RE: BS: Tony Blair Finally Tells the Truth
From: OG1
Date: 14 Dec 09 - 03:28 AM

You cannot blame Tony Blair, George Bush or Barack Obama for being the lap dogs that they are. You had to know that in order to become a politician you have to sell your soul first.

Obama gets the Nobel Peace price, just as he escalates an on going war.??? ...give me a break.

These criminals are just proxies for their true corporate masters. Lady Lynn Forester de Rothschild made damn sure that Blair got his "Golden Parachute" before he left office. It pays to be a "good boy" and do what you are told.

Check out the following links:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article1467020.ece

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delano_family

http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v97/n196/a03.html

http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/sassoon.htm

http://cliffordshack.com/oil_chrono.html

Subject: RE: BS: Tony Blair Finally Tells the Truth
From: the lemonade lady
Date: 14 Dec 09 - 05:24 AM

Governments can actually do as they want, because in years to come they will just throw their hands up and say "Sorry we got it wrong" and there's nothing we can do about it.

Unless we then bring them to book as they are the Nazis.

I wonder?

sal

Subject: RE: BS: Tony Blair Finally Tells the Truth
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Dec 09 - 05:31 AM

One claim he made that has not been picked up.
He said that his actions would be better understood when the true nature of the threat to the world from radical Islam became apparant.

Subject: RE: BS: Tony Blair Finally Tells the Truth
From: Stu
Date: 14 Dec 09 - 05:38 AM

Regardless of whether regime change is a bad or good thing, the real issue is that was not the reason the public were given for going to war. Although Bush probably persuaded Blair at the Crawford meeting that regime change was his main motive for war (Blair started dropping references to it into his speeches after the meeting) the fact remains the public (at least in the UK) were being told that war was necessary because of Saddam's WMD's. That was what parliament voted on and that was what the UN rejected in their vote.

The truth is, anyone with half a brain could see at the time there was an underlying motivation for this fiasco. Hans Blix was sidelined by the hawkish bullies of the US and the UK government followed dutifully in their footsteps. The one thing I would say is that a sizeable number of people realised that Blair was obsfuscating and wheedling around the subject and whatever happened afterwards, it is a fact that many thousands have died as a result of people not being presented with the full facts or intentions of our political leaders, and that is very, very wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: Tony Blair Finally Tells the Truth
From: GUEST,999
Date: 14 Dec 09 - 06:28 AM

Documented Iraqi Use of Chemical Weapons

Date
Area Used
Type of Agent
Approximate Casualties
Target Population

Aug 1983
Hajj Umran
Mustard
fewer than 100
Iranians/Kurds

Oct-Nov 1983
Panjwin
Mustard
3,000
Iranian/Kurds

Feb-Mar 1984
Majnoon Island
Mustard
2,500
Iranians

Mar 1984
al-Basrah
Tabun
50 to 100
Iranians

Mar 1985
Hawizah Marsh
Mustard/Tabun
3,000
Iranians

Feb 1986
al-Faw
Mustard/Tabun
8,000 to 10,000
Iranians

Dec 1986
Umm ar Rasas
Mustard
thousands
Iranians

Apr 1987
al-Basrah
Mustard/Tabun
5,000
Iranians

Oct 1987
Sumar/Mehran
Mustard/nerve agents
3,000
Iranians

Mar 1988
Halabjah
Mustard/nerve agents
hundreds
Iranians/Kurds

Subject: RE: BS: Tony Blair Finally Tells the Truth
From: GUEST,999
Date: 14 Dec 09 - 06:31 AM

Iraqi-Acknowledged Open-Air Testing of Biological Weapons

Location-Date
Agent
Munition

Al Muhammadiyat – Mar 1988
Bacillus subtilis[5]
250-gauge bomb (cap. 65 liters)

Al Muhammadiyat – Mar 1988
Botulinum toxin
250-gauge bomb (cap. 65 liters)

Al Muhammadiyat – Nov 1989
Bacillus subtilis
122mm rocket (cap. 8 liters)

Al Muhammadiyat – Nov 1989
Botulinum toxin
122mm rocket (cap. 8 liters)

Al Muhammadiyat – Nov 1989
Aflatoxin
122mm rocket (cap. 8 liters)

Khan Bani Saad – Aug 1988
Bacillus subtilis
aerosol generator – Mi-2 helicopter with modified agricultural spray equipment

Al Muhammadiyat – Dec 1989
Bacillus subtilis
R-400 bomb (cap. 85 liters)

Al Muhammadiyat – Nov 1989
Botulinum toxin
R-400 bomb (cap. 85 liters)

Al Muhammadiyat – Nov 1989
Aflatoxin
R-400 bomb (cap. 85 liters)

Jurf al-Sakr Firing Range – Sep 1989
Ricin
155mm artillery shell (cap. 3 liters)

Abu Obeydi Airfield – Dec 1990
Water
Modified Mirage F1 drop-tank (cap. 2,200 liters)

Abu Obeydi Airfield – Dec 1990
Water/potassium permanganate
Modified Mirage F1 drop-tank (cap. 2,200 liters)

Abu Obeydi Airfield – Jan 1991
Water/glycerine
Modified Mirage F1 drop-tank (cap. 2,200 liters)

Abu Obeydi Airfield – Jan 1991
Bacillus subtilis/Glycerine
Modified Mirage F1 drop-tank (cap. 2,200 liters)

To suggest that Iraq was not in possession of or working on WMDs is sheer stupidity (read bullshit or willful ignorance). Whether that was the reason for the invasion is another story.

Subject: RE: BS: Tony Blair Finally Tells the Truth
From: GUEST,999
Date: 14 Dec 09 - 06:34 AM

The above two posts use info from


https://www.cia.gov/library/reports/general-reports-1/iraq_wmd/Iraq_Oct_2002.htm


Lest you are not aware, they supply 'intelligence' to the decision makers in government (in the USA).

Subject: RE: BS: Tony Blair Finally Tells the Truth
From: Stu
Date: 14 Dec 09 - 07:07 AM

"Lest you are not aware, they supply 'intelligence' to the decision makers in government (in the USA)."

Ah, the CIA. What a reliable source of unbiased information.

Subject: RE: BS: Tony Blair Finally Tells the Truth
From: GUEST,999
Date: 14 Dec 09 - 07:11 AM

I agree. However, woe is he who ignores their advice. Personally, I think both Bush and Cheney should be hanged by the fuckin' neck, but that was the info they were supplied with before the war in Iraq.

As to the poison gas/chemicals, the info on that goes way beyond the CIA. It's just at that time the US seemed to be helping the Iraquis with it all. Sluffing off the CIA's information means nothing. It neither proves nor disproves the truth of the situation. It is world knowledge that the first posted list

Documented Iraqi Use of Chemical Weapons

Date
Area Used
Type of Agent
Approximate Casualties
Target Population

Aug 1983
Hajj Umran
Mustard
fewer than 100
Iranians/Kurds

Oct-Nov 1983
Panjwin
Mustard
3,000
Iranian/Kurds

Feb-Mar 1984
Majnoon Island
Mustard
2,500
Iranians

Mar 1984
al-Basrah
Tabun
50 to 100
Iranians

Mar 1985
Hawizah Marsh
Mustard/Tabun
3,000
Iranians

Feb 1986
al-Faw
Mustard/Tabun
8,000 to 10,000
Iranians

Dec 1986
Umm ar Rasas
Mustard
thousands
Iranians

Apr 1987
al-Basrah
Mustard/Tabun
5,000
Iranians

Oct 1987
Sumar/Mehran
Mustard/nerve agents
3,000
Iranians

Mar 1988
Halabjah
Mustard/nerve agents
hundreds
Iranians/Kurds

is true.

Subject: RE: BS: Tony Blair Finally Tells the Truth
From: GUEST,999
Date: 14 Dec 09 - 07:17 AM

Do a little work with Mr Google and you'll locate many sites--not all American or CIA--that attest to the use of various chemical weapons by the Iraqis.

Subject: RE: BS: Tony Blair Finally Tells the Truth
From: GUEST,999
Date: 14 Dec 09 - 07:21 AM

Halabja.


For that alone I hope the bastard is rotting in Hell.

Subject: RE: BS: Tony Blair Finally Tells the Truth
From: GUEST,999
Date: 14 Dec 09 - 07:29 AM

It's interesting to note that initially the American Defense Intelligence Agency blamed Iran for the attack on Halabja.

Subject: RE: BS: Tony Blair Finally Tells the Truth
From: Amos
Date: 14 Dec 09 - 10:20 AM

ALl those dates were prior to Iraq's destruction of their WMD, as I recall the history. Gotta keep the timeline straight. The lie about the Iraq WMD was that after they got rid of 'em, they were accused of still having them and preparing to use what they no longer had in order to generate fear in the hearts of 'Murkins everywhere.



A

Subject: RE: BS: Tony Blair Finally Tells the Truth
From: OG1
Date: 14 Dec 09 - 12:10 PM

People have to stop thinking and talking so much, about the WMD'd, etc. The gas that Saddam Hussein used on the Iranians and Kurds came from the U.S.

These criminals are just playing a world class shell game on the people. Everyone should be seeing the obvious, which is that the U.S. has been broke for a VERY long time, and by insuring that they and their siamese twin -the British- have complete control of the world's oil spigot they will then be able to keep the rest of the other countries in eternal servitude to them. This control of the earth's resources needs to be accomplished on a timely basis, before their citizens -I mean consumers- find out that their country's fiat money -dollars or pounds- are not backed by anything and really have no true value.

The veil has been lifted on their shaky "house of cards" and ponzi scheme -the Stock Exchange and The Fed. Thank God for the age of the internet!

The only question is, what is going to happen when the shit truly hits the fans, and the U.S. citizens realize they have been on the proverbial "hamster wheel" all their lives, and that they will never attain true wealth, that all they are is world class consumers and NOT citizens? Consumers that have lost their culture and connection to the truly important things in life, family and motherearth.

Subject: RE: BS: Tony Blair Finally Tells the Truth
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 14 Dec 09 - 03:10 PM

Anyone who for one moment believes that Tony B Liar has told, or will ever tell, the truth about the mad dash to war in Iraq, is living in cloud cuckoo land.

Blair still holds to his story that he didn't know the intel was crap sexed up to give Geedub the excuse for his killing spree.

We saw the way Bush treated Blair in that oh so revealing off guard moment, when Tony acted like the well trained lapdog he really was.

He is now saying that even if he had known (another bloody lie...he did know) there were no WMDs, he would have considered it morally right to attack Iraq.

1. How can a politician with zero moral compass claim to have moral convictions about anything?

2. How can he claim moral rectitude in attacking Iraq, while ignoring worse regimes on the African continent (Zimbabwe, Darfur, Rwanda, Sudan, etc. etc.) which, coincidentally of course, happen to have no resources of interest to our leaders?

3. How can he still maintain the lie when it is common knowledge that he was party to the 2002 Downing Street memo, which told him Georgie was cooking the books almost a year ahead of the invasion?

The TRUTH is that the bastard was a willing partner in the whole sorry mess, but I'll lay odds that the so called "Public Inquiry" will never report that as its conclusion.

He will be heard in secret, and the public will never hear what he actually says. This, they will claim, is necessary "in the public interest", which translates to "They'll have blown New Labour's last vestige of hope of winning an election, if they tell the truth".

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Tony Blair Finally Tells the Truth
From: GUEST,999
Date: 14 Dec 09 - 04:17 PM

That was part of the problem. It was not possible to ensure the destruction of the biochemical weapons had actually occurred.

Subject: RE: BS: Tony Blair Finally Tells the Truth
From: Teribus
Date: 14 Dec 09 - 05:41 PM

Supposition may be Sugarfoot, but I reckon the prediction would not have been too wide of the mark. Remembering of course that the last time Saddam invaded them it was because they wanted to negotiate, that resulted in a bloody stalemate that cost the lives of around 1.5 to 2 million.

It was that George Bush and Tony Blair believed they had the right to get rid of him, based (if the truth be told) on GWB's desire to finish his father's job, delusions about the glories of Americanization, and the strategic necessity to keep access to oil. – Peter

Well no actually, I believe it had something to do with:

-        The US having just been shown how vulnerable they were to attack
-        As a result of which a threat evaluation was ordered to identify what represented the greatest threat to the country and what could be done to defend against it. That evaluation was carried out by two independent groups the US Intelligence and Security Agencies on one hand and by the Joint House Security Committee on the other.
-        Both came out with an asymmetric attack, or series of attacks, similar in nature to the one recently perpetrated by Al-Qaeda employing the use of WMD (Chemical; Biological or Nuclear) Carried out by an unspecified terrorist group covertly aided and abetted by a rogue state hostile to the USA
-        Both the US Intelligence community (all nineteen agencies) and the Joint House Security Committee came up with a list of likely candidates for rogue states hostile to the USA who had the WMD expertise, technology and weaponry to provide any terrorist group of their choice with a weapon or weapons to attack the USA.
-        Saddam Hussein's Iraq came top of both lists, not surprising in the case of the US Intelligence Agencies they had told Bill Clinton exactly the same thing four years earlier.

Now in terms of reason, logic and by studying the work done I would back the above against the "reasons" supplied by Peter. How did the oil thing pan out for them Peter?   

The gas that Saddam Hussein used on the Iranians and Kurds came from the U.S. – OG1

Complete and utter myth.

Subject: RE: BS: Tony Blair Finally Tells the Truth
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 14 Dec 09 - 05:43 PM

Tony Blair specifically asserted, speaking in the House of Commons in February 2003, that if Saddam Hussein got rid of the WMDs he could stay in power. (See, for example, this contemporary news report.

"I detest his regime. But even now he can save it by complying with the UN's demand. Even now, we are prepared to go the extra step to achieve disarmament peacefully."

This week he has demonstrated, beyond any question, that he was lying to Parliament when he said that.

Subject: RE: BS: Tony Blair Finally Tells the Truth
From: Teribus
Date: 15 Dec 09 - 02:16 AM

No he did not, take a lok at it:

The perception of Peter T in opening this thread -

"As reported (see BBC News), Tony Blair finally stated that he just felt like getting rid of Saddam Hussein, along with his American pals ("He was a threat to the region"), lies about weapons of mass destruction or not."

The perception as far as the Guardian saw it -

"'Tony Blair admits: I would have invaded Iraq anyway'

Only thing was that is not what actually said was it??

Here is what he was asked on the Fern Britton Meets programme -

"Mr Blair was asked whether he would still have gone on with invasion plans had he known at the time that there were no WMDs."

Blair's reply: "I would still have thought it right to remove him. I mean obviously you would have had to use and deploy different arguments, about the nature of the threat. I can't really think we'd be better with him and his two sons still in charge, but it's incredibly difficult and I totally understand… That's why I sympathise with the people who were against [the war] for perfectly good reasons and are against it now, but for me, you know, in the end I had to take the decision."

Then he was asked whether it was the idea of Saddam having WMDs which had tilted him in favour of war?

Blair said it was "the notion of him as a threat to the region of which the development of WMDs was obviously one aspect".

MGOH's quote above is backed up by Dr. Hans Blix in his book "Disarming Iraq" who stated that Blair gave the inspection effort every support and did not join in US attempts to discredit the process.

If you want to find someone to blame for the invasion of Iraq in 2003 then that person without any shadow of a doubt is Saddam Hussein.

Subject: RE: BS: Tony Blair Finally Tells the Truth
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 15 Dec 09 - 06:44 AM

February 2003 Tony Blair in House of Commons "I detest his regime. But even now he can save it by complying with the UN's demand. Meaning that Saddam could stay in power, if he cooperated with inspections and didn't have WMDs.

December 2009 Tony Blair in interview:""I would still have thought it right to remove him. I mean obviously you would have had to use and deploy different arguments" Meaning that even in the absence of WMDs and with Saddam cooperating with inspections, Blair would have been making sure Iraq was invaded to get rid of him.

December 2009 Hans Blix writes: "Inspections did not turn up any "smoking guns" and gradually undermined some of the evidence that had been invoked. Iraq became more co-operative and showed no defiance that could prompt the authorising of armed force."

Subject: RE: BS: Tony Blair Finally Tells the Truth
From: Brian Peters
Date: 15 Dec 09 - 06:50 AM

999 wrote:
"To suggest that Iraq was not in possession of or working on WMDs is sheer stupidity (read bullshit or willful ignorance)."

Hans Blix (UN weaponds inspector) writes in today's Guardian newspaper:
"Responsibility for the war must rest, though, on what those launching it knew by March 2003. By then, Unmovic inspectors had carried out some 700 inspections at 500 sites without finding prohibited weapons."

Subject: RE: BS: Tony Blair Finally Tells the Truth
From: OG1
Date: 15 Dec 09 - 02:04 PM

WMD's, WMD's, WMD's; it has never been about WMD's.

Attacking the Iraq and Afghanistan, and any other war for that matter, are not about: "The US having just been shown how vulnerable they were to attack". The "911" incident was just the perfect pretext for war that these criminals needed and wanted. "Remember the Maine!" -Teribus

What it has always been about is domination of territories for the exploitation of human and natural resources. Check out the links below; you will then see how far back this crap goes, and who the players were then and are now. Basically, the same people that dominated everything one to two hundred years ago are still doing it today. All these wars, news propadanda, so called "terrorism" is just part of the "shell game" of information and disinformation that the true owners of this planet have been practicing for many a decade.

Wars do not happen by accident. They are meticulously planned over months if not years, notwithstanding the ineptitude and sheer stupidity that "G.W." and his cronies demonstrated during the previous administration. It is not by accident the Obama is continuing the wars the "W" started. These puppets are just following the script that was placed before them.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article1467020.ece

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delano_family

http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v97/n196/a03.html

http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/sassoon.htm

http://cliffordshack.com/oil_chrono.html

OG1

Subject: RE: BS: Tony Blair Finally Tells the Truth
From: Teribus
Date: 15 Dec 09 - 07:07 PM

Hans Blix (UN weapons inspector) writes in today's Guardian newspaper:
"Responsibility for the war must rest, though, on what those launching it knew by March 2003. By then, Unmovic inspectors had carried out some 700 inspections at 500 sites without finding prohibited weapons."

The obvious question that the good Doctor should then have been able to answer would be this:

"That being the case Dr. Blix at what time and on which occasion in March 2003 did you as head of UNMOVIC inform the Security Council of the United Nations that Iraq possessed no WMD, no stored precursor chemicals from which WMD could be made, that there were no ongoing or dormant WMD research and development programmes, that the 500+ empty warheads that UNMOVIC had found had been destroyed and that all discrepancies detailed in the UNSCOM Report of January 1999 had been resolved to your complete satisfaction?"

Unfortunately the good Doctor would have had to have answered that in March 2003 he could not have been able to answer that question.

The man was a weak fool who allowed Saddam Hussein to run circles round him when he worked with UNSCOM, and he was politically influenced and intimidated when he was put in charge of UNMOVIC. Not one single material breach in the terms and conditions of 1441 was ever supposed to have been allowed, Blix permitted seven. Another question for the good Doctor that he should have been able to answer in March 2003:

"Doctor Blix, how many U2 reconn flights over the western part of Iraq were flown as part of your inspection effort?"

His answer of course would have been none. Which is odd because under the terms of 1441 they should have commenced immediately the resolution had been signed.

Subject: RE: BS: Tony Blair Finally Tells the Truth
From: robomatic
Date: 15 Dec 09 - 07:53 PM

OG1 I suspect by your coy references to offstage controllers and your biblebelievers link that your philosophy is 'blame the nearest jew'. i take it you won't be lighting candles tonight.

Subject: RE: BS: Tony Blair Finally Tells the Truth
From: OG1
Date: 16 Dec 09 - 01:01 AM

robomatic - Insinutation will get you nowhere.

Religion has nothing to do with it! Thankfully, I am not a mindless zombie-drone that needs religion to find my way through life. Religions, as with most cult beliefs, serve a purpose, which is to control the 80% of lemmings that exist on earth.

But, since religion has been brought up, you have to know that conflating religion with politics has been utilized by the owners of wealth since the beginnig of time so that they could control those that do not have wealth. Ask "W" if it helped him get selected...I mean elected. You can also ask "W" and his cronies if it helped them manipulate and control their constituency.

Catholic, Jewish, Muslim, Buddist...who cares? At the end of the day..."if walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it must be a duck". Bullshit is bullshit and facts are facts. Money changing and Usery was evil and wicked two-thousand years ago and it is evil and wicked today. Basically, you need to blame the pencil pushers with the rosie palms for the misery that this world suffers from; these criminals are hell bent on keeping the "Status Quo", for as longs as they can manage it, even if it means enslaving the next generations of Americans and third world countries...I mean developing countries with perpetual debt and taxes.

Hmm...let's see...if a country or set of countries control Afghanistan/Eurasia what would happen? Bonus! They get to keep most of the heroin production for themselves, control the routes of the pipelines that will potentially feed Europe, India and China and indoctrinate masses of people to accept western culture, consumerism and the beloved -but failed- corrupt free enterprise system. I think history and the facts speak for themselves. Oh yeah, there is also that small fact that the U.K., the U.S. and Israel have no oil!

No matter what happens and how many empires fall due to wars in or agaisnt Afghanistan, you have to know that the "West" will make sure that China is not allowed to EVER cross its eastern border into Afghanistan. Oh yeah, the same border that was establised by the British and the Russians in 1895. Does anyone remember "The Great Game"?

I wonder if the Chinese have ever forgotten, or forgiven, those who were supplying and stupefying their people with all that opium in the 1800's.

Subject: RE: BS: Tony Blair Finally Tells the Truth
From: Bryn Pugh
Date: 16 Dec 09 - 05:22 AM

"Tony Blair tells the truth" ?

Jesus bless your innocence.

The day Tony Blair tells the truth is the day you will find hair growing on a diamond.

Subject: RE: BS: Tony Blair Finally Tells the Truth
From: robomatic
Date: 16 Dec 09 - 11:47 AM

OG1: You're the one with the insinuations. I stated your motivations straight out and hit a bullseye.

Subject: RE: BS: Tony Blair Finally Tells the Truth
From: OG1
Date: 16 Dec 09 - 03:57 PM

robomatic -

I suppose the next thing that you will be doing is protecting and apologizing for the pedophile Catholic priests, Slobodan Miloševiæ, The Crusades, The Inquisition, the defacing of The Buddhas of Bamyan by the Taliban, the suppression of womens rights in the middle east, the forced circumcision -mutilation- of women in Africa and other parts of the world, etc.

Please do not hide behind religion, we are in the twenty first century. Stick to the facts. GROW UP!

Subject: RE: BS: Tony Blair Finally Tells the Truth
From: robomatic
Date: 16 Dec 09 - 05:43 PM

OG1 you are the one with the nasty assertions and you used biblebelievers as a source. They are an antisemitic website. They may be other things, too. If you want to make assertions without a challenge, make them with some reliable sources, and link them together logically. I don't need Hitler to tell me how bad Stalin is(nor vice versa).

Subject: RE: BS: Tony Blair Finally Tells the Truth
From: GUEST,OG1
Date: 17 Dec 09 - 11:52 AM

robomatic - Quit trying turn this into a religious discussion!

I have not seen anything from you which disputes anything that I have written.

Go ahead, dispute that Lady Lynn Forester de Rothschild organized a large party of billionaires, for the benefit of Tony Blair.

Go ahead and dispute that Warren Delano was an Opium trader, which worked with David Sassoon.

Go ahead and dispute that Ulysses S. Grant was the general that oversaw the war against Mexico. Can anyone say "Manifest Destiny". Can you say religious pretext for war? Hmm, it sounds like the same bullshit that was coming out of "W's" mouth when he attacked Iraq.

Go ahead and dispute that Franklin Delano Roosevelt was not in office when the "911" of 1941 occured (Pearl Harbor). Perfect excuse to put into effect the next step of the quest for global domination.

Go ahead and dispute that the "West", including the U.K., U.S. and Israel have no oil.

Go ahead and dispute that British and the Russians made the border between Afghanistan and China.

Go ahead and dispute that all the countries named above have a direct interest in the establishment of oil pipeline routes through Afghanistan and Eurasia.

This thread is dead! Over and out.

Subject: RE: BS: Tony Blair Finally Tells the Truth
From: Rasener
Date: 17 Dec 09 - 12:34 PM

>>"Tony Blair tells the truth" ?

Jesus bless your innocence.

The day Tony Blair tells the truth is the day you will find hair growing on a diamond. <<

LOL

Anybody who is the Prime Minister has to tell lies. Don't they?

Subject: RE: BS: Tony Blair Finally Tells the Truth
From: Teribus
Date: 17 Dec 09 - 03:15 PM

What oil pipeline routes through Afghanistan?

Subject: RE: BS: Tony Blair Finally Tells the Truth
From: robomatic
Date: 17 Dec 09 - 04:27 PM

OG1 you have yet to put facts together in a manner to sustain an argument. You simply associate proper names together and throw an event in with them and seem to think there are conclusions to draw. But your blunderbuss of assertions lands you in the same territory as Adolf and Uncle Joe. You used as a source a website that is a known source of bigotry and you try to make it my fault, and when I called attention to your wild rants you respond with more disjointed rants than ever.

It is also hard to understand what you want to dispute. when you say "Go ahead and dispute that the "West", including the U.K., U.S. and Israel have no oil." you creat a lot of inherent confustion. Am I supposed to dispute that these countries have oil or do not have oil. I know a lot of places 'in the west' that have a lot of oil. I don't know that the U.K. and Israel are 'in the west', but I know that Israel once discovered oil.

I don't find too much clear thinking in your posts, just attitude.

Subject: RE: BS: Tony Blair Finally Tells the Truth
From: Teribus
Date: 17 Dec 09 - 09:20 PM

What oil pipeline routes through Afghanistan?

Subject: RE: BS: Tony Blair Finally Tells the Truth
From: robomatic
Date: 18 Dec 09 - 05:04 PM

OG1, I think you will not be able to avoid coming back to this thread, but a coupla things I want you should be aware of:

1) NO ONE who's handled real radio communications says "over and out".
2) For a fair and balanced view of anti-semites like yourself I refer you to the song lyrics I just posted on the "Jesus shoots down Santa thread".

Happy Hannukah!

Subject: RE: BS: Tony Blair Finally Tells the Truth
From: GUEST,OG1
Date: 08 Jan 10 - 12:25 AM

Robomatic,

It definately sounds like you are trolling the web for "anti-semites", and it definitely sounds like someone is paying you to do it.

Here is something that you and your bosses can chew on:

http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts12302009.html

Get a real job you douchebag!!

Subject: RE: BS: Tony Blair Finally Tells the Truth
From: GUEST,OG1
Date: 08 Jan 10 - 12:31 AM

Teribus,

FYI.

Trans-Afghanistan Pipeline

Subject: RE: BS: Tony Blair Finally Tells the Truth
From: GUEST,999
Date: 08 Jan 10 - 12:47 AM

"It definately sounds like you are trolling the web for "anti-semites", and it definitely sounds like someone is paying you to do it."

Don't ever take a toke or you'll be hiding in closets and peeking through blinds while you wait for the bad people to come take you away.

No offence, but the word 'definitely' has no 'a' in it.

Subject: RE: BS: Tony Blair Finally Tells the Truth
From: GUEST,OG1
Date: 08 Jan 10 - 01:16 AM

999,

No offence taken.

It was a typo. One out two isn't bad.

Subject: RE: BS: Tony Blair Finally Tells the Truth
From: GUEST,999
Date: 08 Jan 10 - 01:21 AM

LOL. Never having made a misteak before myself, I fail to understand.

OGI: Robomatic really is a good man, good guy. We--all of us--see this world so differently. We all have to run the movie through our own lens, and yelling at each other doesn't make the picture any clearer.

Subject: RE: BS: Tony Blair Finally Tells the Truth
From: GUEST,OG1
Date: 08 Jan 10 - 01:58 AM

Check this interview out:

http://www.democracynow.org/2009/12/30/roger_waters

Subject: RE: BS: Tony Blair Finally Tells the Truth
From: GUEST,OG1
Date: 08 Jan 10 - 02:05 AM

Here is another one, related to our day and age:

http://www.counterpunch.org/porter12292009.html

Subject: RE: BS: Tony Blair Finally Tells the Truth
From: Teribus
Date: 08 Jan 10 - 06:13 PM

Guest,OG1

I asked: "What oil pipeline routes through Afghanistan?"

To which you answered: "Teribus, FYI. Trans-Afghanistan Pipeline"

Now Guest,OG1. Would that be the Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India Pipeline proposed and commonly referred to as the TAPI Pipeline Project?

If that is the one you are referring to then I hate to point the following out to you:

1. The TAPI Pipeline is a pipeline for supplying India with natural gas NOT oil, there never have been ANY plans for oil pipelines through Afghanistan

2. Being a natural gas pipeline the sale of the gas must be contracted before the line is built and commissioned and India has signed no contracts with Turkmenistan to purchase the gas. Unlike oil you cannot store natural gas.

3. The TAPI Pipeline Project is controlled by the Asia Development Bank and there is no US involvement whatsoever.

4. By and large the Project itself now is fairly academic as the gas that was to have been sold to India has now been bought by China. The pipeline to carry it from Turkmenistan came into operation just before Christmas. Now instead of building a pipeline across Afghanistan and through Pakistan they only have to build relatively short sections of pipeline to link the gas fields in Turkmenistan to the main gas export trunk line which runs nowhere near Afghanistan.

Subject: RE: BS: Tony Blair Finally Tells the Truth
From: CarolC
Date: 09 Jan 10 - 03:13 PM

The Deadly Pipeline War: U.S. Afghan Policy Driven By Oil Interests

Subject: RE: BS: Tony Blair Finally Tells the Truth
From: GUEST,OG1
Date: 09 Jan 10 - 05:55 PM

Good one CarolC!

Subject: RE: BS: Tony Blair Finally Tells the Truth
From: Teribus
Date: 09 Jan 10 - 06:14 PM

Well according to my reckoning today is 10th January, 2010.

The link provided by CarolC which elicited the response:

"Good one CarolC!" from Guest, OG1 dates back to 7th December, 2001.

Pssst, a hint for the pair of you, in the past eight years things have changed. But as CarolC introduced the article I would point out that Unocal pulled out of the TAP Pipeline Project in December 1998, the same time as the Russian partners in the scheme did. No US Oil Company or Service Company has shown any interest since that date. For the sake of good order it should also be pointed out that Afghanistan is of sod all use in transporting Caspian Oil to the West. There are already two pipelines that carry Caspian Oil westwards that go nowhere near Russia or Iran. The deal has already been signed for a third pipeline that will carry natural gas to Europe from the region, that too goes nowhere near Russia, Iran and most certainly does not have to pass through Afghanistan. As previously stated the natural gas from Turkmenistan that was to have been sold to India to make the TAPI a viable project has now been sold to China. Do try and keep up.

Subject: RE: BS: Tony Blair Finally Tells the Truth
From: CarolC
Date: 09 Jan 10 - 06:39 PM

Teribus, explain to me why the Soviet Union saw Afghanistan as a geo-strategic asset back when they invaded that country.

Subject: RE: BS: Tony Blair Finally Tells the Truth
From: GUEST,OG1
Date: 10 Jan 10 - 12:49 AM

Teribus,

I think that the links noted below will help clarify the true intent of Unocal and other international players, with regards to Afghanistan.

http://911review.org/brad.com/archives/oil/pipeline_routes_Caspian.html

http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/intlrel/hfa48119.000/hfa48119_0.htm

It does not really matter if the oil pipeline has been built yet. If it is not built today it will be built tomorrow. The "West" cannot have Russia controlling deliveries or the terms thereof, of oil or gas to Europe -ask Georgia, Ukraine and Germany, notwithstanding Nord Stream. And by all means necessary, China must NEVER be allowed to "suck-up" all the world's oil before we -The West- have a chance to do it. At the end of the day, the oil "spigot" needs to be controlled by the "West's" international conglomerate oil companies.

There is one thing that has always confused me; at first, the U.S. was not into "Nation Building" -according to "G.W.", but, then, for some reason(s), that line of thinking went out the door and now we own the "Money...and life Pits" of the middle east, Iraq and Afghanistan, from which -by the way- the U.S. will NEVER leave.

But of course, we need to help develop all the nations in which we have a "security interest". What matters is that Afghanistan gets "help" in liberating their people from the Taliban. Just like we need to "help" liberate the "oppressed" people of Iran, as we did the oppressed people of Iraq; that is, help liberate them from "our" oil.

By the way, in 1998, Central Asia Gas Pipeline, Ltd. (CentGas) made a deal with the Taliban; Unocal was part of CentGas.

Subject: RE: BS: Tony Blair Finally Tells the Truth
From: CarolC
Date: 10 Jan 10 - 02:29 AM

On the subject of the gas pipline, it may be going to Pakistan, but it was US oil companies who wanted it to go there, through Afghanistan. But they had to get those pesky Taliban out of the way first...

"American oil companies, together with Pakistan, have shown strong interest in an alternative route that would carry Turkmen gas, via Afghanistan, to the Pakistani port of Karachi. Despite the continuing civil war in Afghanistan, there's been fierce competition between two rival firms -- Bridas of Argentina, and the US-Saudi consortium UNOCAL -- to construct the pipeline. Both companies have been negotiating hard with the Taleban movement, which controls two thirds of Afghanistan, to secure the contract.

In May, the Turkmen President, Saparmurad Niyazov and the Pakistani prime minister, Nawaz Sharif, signed a protocol for the pipeline. But no agreement has yet been finalised, and construction of any pipeline will clearly have to wait until there is an end to the fighting in Afghanistan.

The fact that the Afghan route is being considered so seriously is a measure of the strength of American opposition to the Iranian route. As part of its effort to isolate Iran, the United States imposes sanctions against companies that invest who invest more than twenty million dollars in Iran's energy sector. Earlier this year, American officials said they weren't sure if a gas pipeline via Iran to Turkey would violate its laws against investment in Iran's energy sector. That was interpreted in many quarters as a green light for the project because it was meant to carry Turkmen, not Iranian gas. But American officials have since made clear they're still opposed to Iran's involvment in the race to develop and export Caspian energy. "

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/analysis/43219.stm

Subject: RE: BS: Tony Blair Finally Tells the Truth
From: Teribus
Date: 10 Jan 10 - 11:11 AM

1. By the way, in 1998, Central Asia Gas Pipeline, Ltd. (CentGas) made a deal with the Taliban; Unocal was part of CentGas.

So were the Russians and both the Russians and Unocal withdrew from CebtGas in December 1998. The departure of Unocal from this venture ended all US interest in the venture.

2. It does not really matter if the oil pipeline has been built yet. If it is not built today it will be built tomorrow.

Not yet sunk in, has it Guest,OG1 - There never, repeat never, has been any talk of any oil pipeline. The pipeline that was mentioned was to transport natural gas to India. As that gas has been purchased by China, that means that there is nothing now to sell or transport to India, so the TAPI will now not be built.

Subject: RE: BS: Tony Blair Finally Tells the Truth
From: CarolC
Date: 10 Jan 10 - 01:13 PM

As that gas has been purchased by China, that means that there is nothing now to sell or transport to India, so the TAPI will now not be built.

I see. So that means we have to stay there to prevent China from building a pipeline.

Subject: RE: BS: Tony Blair Finally Tells the Truth
From: Teribus
Date: 10 Jan 10 - 03:31 PM

"I see. So that means we have to stay there to prevent China from building a pipeline."

The above gem from CarolC.

Now CarolC - go and consul a map of the area or an Atlas, something that shows the countries of Afghanistan; Turkmenistan; Khazakstan; Uzbekistan and Western China. Then consider pipeline routes taking product from Turkmenistan to western China. The first thing that will immediately spring to the mind of anyone with half a brain is that that pipeline would not go anywhere near Afghanistan.

Oh dear, how sad, never mind.

Subject: RE: BS: Tony Blair Finally Tells the Truth
From: CarolC
Date: 10 Jan 10 - 05:21 PM

Please learn now to recognize sarcasm, Teribus.

You still haven't answered my question.

Subject: RE: BS: Tony Blair Finally Tells the Truth
From: CarolC
Date: 10 Jan 10 - 05:32 PM

By the way, please provide some documentation for the assertion that China as bought all of the gas that was to go through the TAPI.

Subject: RE: BS: Tony Blair Finally Tells the Truth
From: GUEST,OG1
Date: 10 Jan 10 - 10:31 PM

The following excerpt was taken from the link noted below.

Asian oil and natural gas production is not growing fast enough to meet Chinese demand, and a large portion of Middle Eastern oil and gas production is normally allotted to U.S. and European markets.

Do you not think that considering that China is in Asia, and so is the middle east, that China is not a threat to Europe and the U.S.? Especially considering that the West, by definition, is not.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/AsiaandthePacific/bg1916.cfm

Columbite-tantalite or "coltan". Darfur, Darfur, Darfur. Where is John Wayne and Ronald Reagan when you need to peddle some good ol' fashioned government and corporate propaganda? Who needs them anyway? This is the 21st century, we now have Don Cheadle. Please see the following link:

http://www.vtcommons.org/blog/2009/07/27/parsing-empire-book-review-william-engdahls-full-spectrum-dominance-totalitarian-dem

The truth is that the West is hearing footsteps and they sound is getting louder. "The Yellow Peril" or, as it has been called in my circles, "Big Yellow" is the big threat to the West. How can you compete against forced "slave" labor? Oh, how I long for the good ol' days, when land was free and so was labor. But, then again, Wal-Mart is not suffering.

Please explain why Congress rejected CNOOC's bid for Unocal? We are still dealing in a "Free Market" economy?

Subject: RE: BS: Tony Blair Finally Tells the Truth
From: Teribus
Date: 11 Jan 10 - 10:57 AM

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China_Business/KL16Cb01.html

You do the maths CarolC:

Turkmenistan's gas has been bought and may be bought by the following before 1 metre of pipeline has to built in Afghanistan.

China - Contract in place; Pipeline built
Russia - Contract under renegotiation; Pipeline built
Iran - Contract in place and maybe increased; Pipeline built
Europe - Pipeline under construction

Subject: RE: BS: Tony Blair Finally Tells the Truth
From: CarolC
Date: 11 Jan 10 - 12:48 PM

So that was wild speculation on your part then. The article doesn't say anything about the TAPI pipeline being discontinued because Turkmenistan won't sell any gas to the countries that would be using it. That seems to be coming purely from you, Teribus. Making stuff up as you go along again.

And you still haven't answered my question.

Subject: RE: BS: Tony Blair Finally Tells the Truth
From: Teribus
Date: 11 Jan 10 - 01:16 PM

Perhaps you could then tell me exactly how Turkmenistan meets its commitments to supply gas already sold to both Russia, Iran and China while potentially entering into contracts to sell gas to India through a pipeline that hasn't even been built yet?

As I stated before you cannot store natural gas. If you develop the field you either have to transport it immediately or you "flare" it off.

Your question:

"Teribus, explain to me why the Soviet Union saw Afghanistan as a geo-strategic asset back when they invaded that country?"

Simple answer was that they didn't.

Subject: RE: BS: Tony Blair Finally Tells the Truth
From: CarolC
Date: 11 Jan 10 - 02:04 PM

Perhaps you could then tell me exactly how Turkmenistan meets its commitments to supply gas already sold to both Russia, Iran and China while potentially entering into contracts to sell gas to India through a pipeline that hasn't even been built yet?

Turkmenistan decided to sell some of its gas to China in part because they were unhappy with Russia reducing the amount of money it would pay for the Turkmenistan gas. China will probably only pay about half of the reduced amount that Russia was paying, so Turkmenistan has no reason to be completely committed to selling gas to China. Turkmenistan is interested in getting the best prices it can for its gas. Nothing has been finalized as of yet. You used Europe as an example of a country that has a pipeline under construction but you did not specify that they had a contract. All of the countries in question are competing with each other for the gas of the Caspian basin. The only thing we can say for certain is that whoever doesn't have a pipeline will definitely not get any gas.


As I stated before you cannot store natural gas. If you develop the field you either have to transport it immediately or you "flare" it off.

You most certainly can store natural gas. I used to live right next to a large natural gas storage location. They pump the gas to the storage location, and they store it there.

Your question:

"Teribus, explain to me why the Soviet Union saw Afghanistan as a geo-strategic asset back when they invaded that country?"

Simple answer was that they didn't.

LOLOL

Subject: RE: BS: Tony Blair Finally Tells the Truth
From: CarolC
Date: 11 Jan 10 - 02:06 PM

Correction: You used Europe as an entity, etc. (obviously, Europe is not a country).

Subject: RE: BS: Tony Blair Finally Tells the Truth
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Jan 10 - 02:21 PM

Russia has always seen Afghanistan as a potential geo-strategic asset for Russia. This game has been going on for a very long time, since well before the existence of the Soviet Union. The British and Russians were sparring for control of Afghanistan back in the 1800s. It was called the "Great Game" at the time. India and Pakistan likewise have great geo-strategic interests in who gets to control Afghanistan. It is a vital strategic gateway to the regions that lie all around it.

For the Russians, it is a vital step towards eventually attaining a deep water port on the Indian Ocean.

Pakistan's ISI greatly aided the Taliban in gaining power so as to help keep the Russians out of Afghanistan.

Subject: RE: BS: Tony Blair Finally Tells the Truth
From: Teribus
Date: 11 Jan 10 - 05:13 PM

CarolC you obviously know nothing whatsoever about the oil & gas industry.

The storage tanks you are looking out on contain minute volumes of gas at a fairly low pressure. Any idea about the amounts and the pressures we are talking about for a major transportation trunk line carrying natural gas?? 36" to 48" diameter with a working pressure of some 2500psi. Give you an idea about how much gas flows through something like that. When the Gas Production Platform Piper Alpha caught fire in the North Sea, the platform structure was melted because they failed to shut off the pipelines transferring gas to the Piper Alpha for transport to shore. It took them 45 minutes to eventually shut them down, by that time one days consumption for the whole of Europe had been feeding the flames. No CarolC you cannot store natural gas like you can store oil.

Subject: RE: BS: Tony Blair Finally Tells the Truth
From: CarolC
Date: 11 Jan 10 - 05:40 PM

In the post to which I was responding, you didn't say that natural gas can't be stored like oil. I think it's obvious that natural gas can't be stored like oil. But that is irrelevant. What you said in the post I was responding to, you said it can't be stored.

Clearly you're the one who doesn't know anything about the gas industry. But go ahead... tell me how much can be stored and under how much pressure.

Subject: RE: BS: Tony Blair Finally Tells the Truth
From: Teribus
Date: 12 Jan 10 - 12:37 AM

"You most certainly can store natural gas. I used to live right next to a large natural gas storage location. They pump the gas to the storage location, and they store it there." - CarolC

OK then CarolC where was the source of the natural gas that was stored in those tanks (think they were called "gasometers" in the old days). But from experience there will be one gas export line from the field (location where the natural gas is extracted from the earth) to a terminal where the gas is further cleaned and treated so that it can be distributed to a network of pipelines and compressor stations for delivery to industry and centres of population. All the way down this chain the pressure of the gas is falling. Where you have only one or possibly two export lines from the field (The "upstream" end) there will be hundreds if not thousands of those tanks you were talking about at the domestic ("Downstream") end, which relies on that gas being used. If the gas is not used CarolC then production at the "Upstream" end has to shut down, believe it or not that is not as simple as turning off a tap, it can have far reaching and extremely expensive consequences.

What I have said in context is that you cannot store natural gas like you can store oil. Of course it is possible to store natural gas for transport, that is done by freezing it to -190 degrees C, but this tremendously expensive and wasteful, which is why it is not done on any great scale compared to conventional pipeline transportation of natural gas.

As for: "Clearly you're the one who doesn't know anything about the gas industry."   LOL CarolC if only you knew. "the Gas Industry"?? Depends which part of it you mean. If it is the offshore getting of it and the work associated with transporting it to shore, then would 30 odd years in the industry have taught me anything about it??

Your Trans Afghan Pipeline (TAPI) has to wait for the arrival of peace in Afghanistan and Pakistan before anyone will even consider building it - give me a date for that.

The Iran-Pakistan-India Pipeline is under construction. This was the alternative, as far as India was concerned to TAPI. It only has to be decided if the tranist through Pakistan is a land or a submarine pipeline, as India has doubts about the political security of Pakistan's Baluchistan Province. But this pipeline is more likely to be completed than TAPI is.

Central Asian Pipeline is built and in commission this is the trunk line that will carry Turkmenistan natural gas to western China, no what-ifs or buts. It is a done deal.

The pipeline to Europe will be capable of taking gas from the Caspian region, Iraq, Iran, Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan. This pipeline is currently being constructed.

The existing pipelines from Turkmenistan to Russia.

All in all CarolC we are talking about ten pipelines that are not affected by war or political instability through which Turkmenistan can actually and potentially export its natural gas. Can you give me any good reason why they should hold off field development and deny themselves hard currency revenue in order to wait for peace in Afghanistan? Which will come about when CarolC? Just not logical is it?

Particularly liked this piece of nonsense from Little Hawk:

"Pakistan's ISI greatly aided the Taliban in gaining power so as to help keep the Russians out of Afghanistan."

Now then LH correct me here wherever I go wrong:

- The Taleban were formed by Mullah Mohammed Omar from the students of his madrassa in a district of Kandahar Province in March 1994 to punish an ex-Mujahideen local warlord.

- The movement grew and with the help of Pakistan's ISI and Army they took on the various warring factions within Afghanistan so that by 1996 they declared themselves de facto rulers of Afghanistan, although they were not recognised as such by the United Nations.

Some things to consider logically about this period:

- 1989 to 2001 was a period of global expansion for Russian interests was it Little Hawk? I seem to recall it was exactly the reverse, Russia did not have two pennies to rub together over that period which saw the collapse departure of its former satellite nations in droves.

- 1989 to 1994 saw nothing but uncertainty and turmoil inside Afghanistan, Pakistan's immediate neighbour to the North-West.

- The leaders of the Northern Alliance, who had formerly fought the Russians, leaned more towards India rather than Pakistan, Iran or Russia. This again rationally makes sense as India is in the process of emerging as a world economic super-power. It was to counter and destroy this potential Indian influence on its North-West border that prompted Pakistan to back the Taleban in their fight with the Northern Alliance, nothing else.

Subject: RE: BS: Tony Blair Finally Tells the Truth
From: CarolC
Date: 12 Jan 10 - 01:02 AM

Which tanks was I talking about, Teribus?

Subject: RE: BS: Tony Blair Finally Tells the Truth
From: Teribus
Date: 12 Jan 10 - 01:41 AM

Apologies CarolC assumption on my part from this:

"I used to live right next to a large natural gas storage location. They pump the gas to the storage location, and they store it there."

Now to avoid further assumptions on my part you tell us all about it.

If it is underground storage of transported gas, and I know that this has been tried it is again expensive and extremely wasteful. One by product of the experimentation into this on the eastern side of the pond is that some "gas bearing" reservoirs can be used for storing carbon dioxide gas.

Where natural gas cannot be transported ashore it can be transferred to nearby oil fields and injected into the reservoir to increase field pressure and boost output. Same thing can be done cheaper with water.

None of which of course alters the fact that, as no-one can predict with any certainty when peace will descend on Afghanistan or Pakistan, the TAPI pipeline will not be built.

Why did you say that Turkmenistan should hold off field development and forego the revenue from its natural resources in order to suit your hypothesis about the Afghan war being all about a pipeline that even if built would not benefit the USA one iota?

Subject: RE: BS: Tony Blair Finally Tells the Truth
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Jan 10 - 01:46 AM

You'll no doubt enjoy this even more...

OSAMA 10. THE US: 0.

January 11, 2010

To better understand why Osama bin Laden is so far winning his struggle to oust the western powers from the Muslim world, let us go back to 1986, when I was covering the anti-Soviet war in then almost unknown Afghanistan.

I called on the grandly titled "Afghan Information Center" in Peshawar, Pakistan. Peshawar was a wild and dangerous place. I called it, "Dodge City meets the Arabian Nights" in my book on Afghanistan, `War at the Top of the World."

The information center turned out to be a drab little office filled with mimeographed pamphlets and piles of dusty books.

The director was a short, thin man in a torn sweater named Abdullah Azzam. We spoke at length of the anti-Soviet jihad (struggle) in Afghanistan being waged by Afghan and Arab mujahidin.

Then, Azzam told me, `when we have driven the Communist imperialists from Afghanistan, we will go on and drive the American imperialists from Arabia and the rest of the Muslim world.'

I was absolutely floored. Except for Communists, a notorious bunch of liars, I had never heard anyone call my beloved America an imperialist power. In those days, the US appeared the acme of good – in large part because its rival, the Soviet Union, looked so wicked.

But after the USSR collapsed, absolute power absolutely corrupted Washington's ruling circles and drove them to seek "full spectrum domination" of the globe and its energy resources rather than a cooperative new world order.   

Sheik Abdullah Azzam was the teacher and spiritual mentor of a young Saudi named Osama bin Laden. Azzam gave bin Laden the blueprint for his later war against the west.

Azzam was murdered in 1989, likely by a western intelligence service. His pupil, Osama, launched a seemingly Quixotic mission to overthrow the western-backed dictatorships and monarchies that misruled the Muslim world, and drive western power from the region.

Bin Laden proclaimed his grand strategy in the 1990's. He would oust the modern `Crusaders' by luring the US and its allies into a series of small, debilitating, hugely expensive wars to bleed and slowly bankrupt the US economy, which he called America's Achilles' heel.

Bloody attacks would enrage the US and lure it into one quagmire after another.

Bin Laden was dismissed by western intelligence as a crackpot and "enragé."

But both the dim-witted President Gorge W. Bush and the intelligent President Barack Obama fell right into Osama's carefully-laid trap.

Today, Osama's words haunt us as we witness hysteria and chaos engulf America's air travel system, the war party in Washington demands the US invade Yemen, and the drums beat for war against Iran.

US airport security officials will be even more panicked when they learn a jihadist recently tried to assassinate Saudi Arabia's interior minister, Prince Nayef, by detonating a bomb secreted in his rectum. Will we soon bend and spread for security– just like in prisons?      

The American colossus continues to stumble ever deeper into the Muslim world's violent, tangled affairs at a time when Washington is bankrupt and only runs on Chinese loans. In 2009, the US deficit was US $1.4 trillion. But Washington managed to spend $200 billion on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan by loading the costs onto the national credit card.

American soldiers are fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq. US   Special Forces, air units and CIA mercenaries are involved in combat operations in Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen, West Africa, North Africa and the Philippines. A new US base at Djibouti is launching raids into Yemen, Somalia and northern Kenya.   US forces aided the failed Ethiopian invasion of Somalia in 2006.   New US bases are planned in oil-producing West Africa and also in Colombia.

The Red Sea littoral is America's next major headache. Somalia's anti-western Shebab movement controls much of that nation's south and center. Yemen is a hotbed of jihadist activity that increasingly threatens neighboring Saudi Arabia, a vital American ally. Somali pirates could turn from plunder to striking at other western interests.

As soon as the US or its satraps crush one anti-western jihadist group, another springs up somewhere else.

Washington is quietly engineering the breakup of troubled Sudan, Africa's largest nation, in order to dominate South Sudan's important oil resources and undermine the regime in Khartoum which Washington has marked for termination.

Even Egypt is growing shaky. The US-backed Mubarak military dictatorship that has ruled the Arab world's most populous nation with an iron hand since 1981 faces a succession struggle once the 82-year old pharaoh is gone.

Al-Qaida is no longer the tiny organization founded by Osama bin Laden that never numbered more than 300 hard core members. It has morphed into a worldwide movement of like-minded but independent, revolutionary, anti-American groups that share Osama's militant philosophy. This is precisely the kind of `asymmetrical warfare' the Pentagon has so long feared.   

Ominously, a 2006 World Public Opinion poll showed large majorities in four leading Muslim nations that are key US allies, Egypt, Morocco, Pakistan and Indonesia (a third of the Muslim world's population), believe the US is determined to destroy or undermine Islam. They support attacks on American targets. This was an ominous warning for the United States.

Remember all the claims by the Bush administration that Osama bin Laden was on the run, or out of business? He is still very much in business, and so far making his western enemies look foolish and bumbling.   

Copyright Eric S. Margolis 2010

Subject: RE: BS: Tony Blair Finally Tells the Truth
From: CarolC
Date: 12 Jan 10 - 02:02 AM

If you were working in the gas industry, Teribus, it must have been as a server in the cafeteria, since you clearly know nothing about the transport and storage of natural gas over land.

It is an established practice to store natural gas along the pipeline route in a number of different ways. The way it was being done where I used to live was to inject the gas into depleted reservoirs. The gas being stored near me, in Accident, Maryland, came from Texas and was on its way to points north. The company who was responsible for this also stores gas in salt caverns, and in the form of liquified natural gas. This one company alone has 285 billion cubic feet of certificated working gas storage capacity. That's just one company.

I lived in the Accident, Maryland area from about 1980 to 1992, and it was not a new storage facility when I moved there, so it is hardly an experimental technology.

Face it, Teribus, you're clearly making this shit up as you go along, and the only person you're humiliating with this kind of behavior is yourself, even if you don't have the ability to see it yourself.


On the subject of the Iran/Pakistan/India pipeline and the instability in Afghanistan - the US government is vehemently opposed to a the pipeline going through Iran. So that explains very nicely why Obama is ratcheting up US military efforts in Afghanistan. I suggest you give up on your current line of argument. It's not winning you any points.

Subject: RE: BS: Tony Blair Finally Tells the Truth
From: CarolC
Date: 12 Jan 10 - 02:16 AM

And my last post was 100.

Subject: RE: BS: Tony Blair Finally Tells the Truth
From: GUEST,OG1
Date: 12 Jan 10 - 03:26 AM

I guess when Ross Perot famously predicted a "giant sucking sound" of U.S. jobs would be going to Mexico, he miscalculated a bit.

It seems that he should of been more worried about the giant sound China is making by sucking-up most U.S. manufacturing jobs and more and more of the earth's natural resources.

The last article posted by "Little Hawk" clearly shows how complicated things have become, and how China stands to benefit when the dust finally settles.

As they say, staying on top is sometimes harder than getting there. The history of the decline of both the Spanish and British Empires are excellent examples of things to come.

Subject: RE: BS: Tony Blair Finally Tells the Truth
From: Teribus
Date: 12 Jan 10 - 11:14 AM

As stated previously:

"If it is underground storage of transported gas, and I know that this has been tried it is again expensive and extremely wasteful."

Simple elementary general gas laws will tell you that. Of course over here in Europe we have more customers for the gas that you do in the USA with a steadier demand so do not have to go in for such wasteful schemes.

The US Government IS trying to disuade India from getting gas via the IPI Pipeline but is doing so, or was doing so by trying to convince the Indias to use nuclear power stations to provide electricity rather than carbon fuels.

Oh the deal for the Turkmenistan Gas for China was all signed off on and the pipeline opened on 14th December, 2009 and was well covered in the media - so much for making it up as I go along.

TAPI ain't going to get built CarolC so it can hardly be introduced as the reason the US is fighting in Afghanistan - It is as valid as the old chestnut about the US going into Iraq to "steal the oil" - absolutley ridiculous.

Subject: RE: BS: Tony Blair Finally Tells the Truth
From: CarolC
Date: 12 Jan 10 - 01:16 PM

"If it is underground storage of transported gas, and I know that this has been tried it is again expensive and extremely wasteful."

And yet it's standard practice, Teribus. So I'm betting that you're also pulling your claim that it is expensive and wasteful right out of your arse, like pretty much everything else you say. And since it's standard practice, there's no reason your claim that it is expensive and wasteful will cause anyone in the industry (which you clearly know nothing about) to decide to stop doing it. And whether or not Europe needs to use this method is irrelevant. You maintain that the "fact" that gas can't be stored is proof that this method won't be used for Caspian Basin gas. You are making that up out of thin air. If it is needed for Caspian Basin gas, it will be used for that purpose.

Oh the deal for the Turkmenistan Gas for China was all signed off on and the pipeline opened on 14th December, 2009 and was well covered in the media - so much for making it up as I go along.

Show me some documentation that proves that China is going to get all of the gas. Or that no Turkmenistan gas will be going to or through India. So far you have not provided any.

Subject: RE: BS: Tony Blair Finally Tells the Truth
From: CarolC
Date: 12 Jan 10 - 01:36 PM

LOL!

OOPS! I was right. You did pull that one right out of your arse. Europe does rely on underground storage of natural gas...


STUDY ON UNDERGROUND GAS STORAGE IN EUROPE AND CENTRAL ASIA

With the deregulation and liberalization of the natural gas industry in the UNECE region, the natural gas industry has come to rely more on the expanded role of underground natural gas storage facilities. In addition, new services have been developed and new roles designed, such as transforming the storage facilities into the heart of hub operations. In turn, they have contributed considerably to the integration of the gas markets in the UNECE region with the development of facilities which serve regional needs and convert a set of national markets into a truly regional or even, as in the case of the European Union, into a European industry

http://www.unece.org/energy/se/pdfs/wpgas/wpg_ugs/2_mt_03sep08/Terms_of_Reference_Draft_UGS_Asia_Aug08.pdf

Subject: RE: BS: Tony Blair Finally Tells the Truth
From: Teribus
Date: 12 Jan 10 - 05:47 PM

LOL Indeed - Read your link - it refers to a study - that study if finished on time should be completed mid 2010.

Describes what they are thinking of doing NOT what is currently being done.

As for:

"...no Turkmenistan gas will be going to or through India. So far you have not provided any."

OK CarolC

1. Show me the pipeline that will transport it.

2. State who built it and when was it built, or when will it be built?

3. Tell me why Turkmenistan will hold off development of their natural gas fields in order to wait for the curently non-existent TAPI pipeline to be built.

4. Tell me why Turkmenistan will refuse to sell their natural gas to their existing customers in the hope that India MIGHT buy their gas at sometime in the future.

But one thing I am certain of CarolC and that is every standard cubic metre of gas currently produced by Turkmenistan is sold and none of it is currently being sold to India.

Now go off and Google some more until you think that you have found your next "ace" - pity I keep trumping them.

Subject: RE: BS: Tony Blair Finally Tells the Truth
From: CarolC
Date: 13 Jan 10 - 02:05 AM

With the deregulation and liberalization of the natural gas industry in the UNECE region, the natural gas industry has come to rely more on the expanded role of underground natural gas storage facilities.

Obviously you are wrong, Teribus. Note the tense of this sentence fragment in particular, "the natural gas industry has come to rely more on the expanded role of underground natural gas storage facilities".

If they were talking about the future, they would have said, "the natural gas industry may some day come to rely more on the expanded role of underground natural gas storage facilities".

But that's not what they said. They said, "has come to rely more". That is past tense. They are talking about what has already taken place. I'm not even going to say "nice try" this time, because that attempt at weaseling was very lame.


But one thing I am certain of CarolC and that is every standard cubic metre of gas currently produced by Turkmenistan is sold and none of it is currently being sold to India.

This is meaningless. It does not address any increases in the amount of gas that is expected to come on line in the future and who will get them.

I am not aware of a pipeline having already been built in Afghanistan. I am, however, aware of agreements between the governments of Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and India, and the Asia Development Bank, to build such a pipeline.

Subject: RE: BS: Tony Blair Finally Tells the Truth
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 13 Jan 10 - 04:38 AM

Tony Blair is unable to tell the truth, that's the whole problem.

Subject: RE: BS: Tony Blair Finally Tells the Truth
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 13 Jan 10 - 09:26 AM

Teribus reliably informs us that natural gas cannot be stored underground.
Pray tell us where this gas has been for the last several millennia?

Subject: RE: BS: Tony Blair Finally Tells the Truth
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 13 Jan 10 - 10:13 AM

""Teribus reliably informs us that natural gas cannot be stored underground.
Pray tell us where this gas has been for the last several millennia?""

And not one storage tank in sight.

Game, set, and match!

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Tony Blair Finally Tells the Truth
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 13 Jan 10 - 11:56 AM

I haven't read the thread but the title can only elicit the Victor Meldrew response....


I don't beleive it!


DeG

Subject: RE: BS: Tony Blair Finally Tells the Truth
From: Teribus
Date: 13 Jan 10 - 01:15 PM

Nigel Parsons asks re natural gas:

"Pray tell us where this gas has been for the last several millennia?"

Simple enough question to answer - "In the rock formations that trapped it all those millions of years ago"

Or are you one of the simpletons, Nigel, who think that oil and gas exists in vast underground caverns?

CarolC's latest "Ace" attempt:

"With the deregulation and liberalization of the natural gas industry in the UNECE region, the natural gas industry has come to rely more on the expanded role of underground natural gas storage facilities."

Now in turn CarolC IF what you contend is correct within the UNECE region that underground natural gas is standard, common or in use at all. Could you tell me why they would be doing a study on it covering the entire region, I mean they would be fully aware of the complexities and requirements of selecting and creating such sites wouldn't they??

What they are referring to when they mention "the natural gas industry" is that industry world-wide.

There can be as many agreements in principle as you like but the more pipelines that are built now and in the near future will be used to capacity long before any Trans Afghan Pipeline ever comes into existence.

http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/128764

Basically the Tukmenistan Government is in a "No-lose" situation, whether Gazprom repairs the pipeline or not.

Other pipelines that will be available for use long before any lays a single joint of the TAPI:

The Nabucco gas pipeline, construction of which will start this year will come into operation in 2014 and will carry gas from Azerbaijan to Europe by-passing Russian pipeline networks. gas from Turkmenistan and Kazakhstan will be fed into this pipeline by either the two proposed Trans-Caspian Pipelines or from Turkmenistan through a short extension of existing pipeline networks in Iran

So let's see CarolC

If Turkmenistan gets between $175 and $200 per thousand cubic metres of gas it can quite comfortably survive and pay for future expansion just by selling to Iran and China. If those prices are agreed it puts the squeeze on Russia's Gazprom because as the link says Gazprom needs Turkmenistan more than Turkmenistan needs Gazprom. Pipelines such as Nabucco tighten the nut even harder on the Russians.

Therefore without any rsolution in any conflict in Afghanistan or in Baluchistan in Pakistan the Turkmenistan Government is laughing all the way to the bank its options over the next decade are:

1. Sell as much to China as they want through existing pipeline
2. Sell as much to Iran as they want through existing pipelines
3. From 2014 sell as much to Europe through the Trans Caspian/Nabucco pipeline system.
4. Sell as much to Gazprom through repaired existing pipelines

Can you tell me why with all that immediately available Turkmenistan would wait for TAPI to be built - Once of course there is peace in Afghanistan.

Subject: RE: BS: Tony Blair Finally Tells the Truth
From: Bobert
Date: 13 Jan 10 - 05:06 PM

Somewhat related, seems that some private letters have surfaced where Baloney Blair told is buddy, Bomber Bush, one year before the Iraq invasion that Bomber could count on the UK if it came down to an invasion...

I'm beginning to wonder if this entire screw up wasn't all Baloney Blair's idea in the 1st place...

I mean, who was it when Bomber Bush was lookin' for the last piece of evidence that Saddam had WMD's who came forward with a 20 some year old college kids C+ term paper as the final exhibit on why Baloney and Bomber had to order up the slaughter of upwards of a million innocent Iraqi women, old people and children???

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Tony Blair Finally Tells the Truth
From: Teribus
Date: 13 Jan 10 - 05:21 PM

"Somewhat related, seems that some private letters have surfaced where Baloney Blair told is buddy, Bomber Bush, one year before the Iraq invasion that Bomber could count on the UK if it came down to an invasion..." - Bobert

Not what has surfaced at all Bobert, at least not as specifically as you state above.

Subject: RE: BS: Tony Blair Finally Tells the Truth
From: Bobert
Date: 13 Jan 10 - 06:25 PM

Well, that was the story on NPR today, T-zer... More at 11...

Oh, I get it... You aren't questioning the letter but my little nick names... Right???

Or are you questioning the letter itself??? if so, like I said, this is what NPR is reporting so stayed tuned...

B~!

Subject: RE: BS: Tony Blair Finally Tells the Truth
From: CarolC
Date: 14 Jan 10 - 01:20 AM

Perhaps Teribus can find a way to prove that these people don't store gas underground...


"Currently these three storage methods – depleted reservoir, salt caverns and liquefied natural gas - combine to provide more than 285 billion cubic feet of certificated working gas storage capacity.

Depleted Reservoir

Depleted reservoirs (or pools) in our eastern North America market area are used as storage facilities by injecting natural gas back into the porous underground rock that once held the fuel before it was produced.

Spectra Energy owns the storage field near the town of Accident, Maryland, and partially owns the Pennsylvania fields near Oakford (50 percent) and Leidy (25 percent). The proximity of these storage fields to our shippers provides a great deal of flexibility. The depleted reservoirs in use at Accident, Oakford and Leidy allow for "one turn" per year (an injection and withdrawal cycle that takes 12 months).

Our Union Gas storage facility at Dawn, Ontario, is North America's largest. It, too, is a depleted reservoir but the porosity of its geologic formation allows for more than one turn per year. In total, Spectra Energy's depleted reservoir working gas storage capacity is about 235 Bcf.


Salt Caverns

Salt is impermeable and self-sealing, so it creates exceptionally strong and environmentally sound storage. Our salt caverns can extend more than 1,000 feet underground. In fact, their vertical height can be greater than a major skyscraper is tall.

Spectra Energy owns two salt storage facilities, one in Liberty, Texas (Moss Bluff), and the other in Evangeline, Louisiana (Egan), with others in development. Moss Bluff and Egan are equipped with two-way directional interconnects to major pipelines serving mid-western and eastern U.S. markets.

We also use a bedded salt formation in southwest Virginia for natural gas storage. The bedded salt beneath the Saltville facility allows for caverns not as deep as those at Egan or Moss Bluff, but wider.

In total, Spectra Energy has more than 40 Bcf of salt cavern working gas storage capacity."

Spectra Energy

Subject: RE: BS: Tony Blair Finally Tells the Truth
From: CarolC
Date: 14 Jan 10 - 02:01 AM

Now in turn CarolC IF what you contend is correct within the UNECE region that underground natural gas is standard, common or in use at all. Could you tell me why they would be doing a study on it covering the entire region, I mean they would be fully aware of the complexities and requirements of selecting and creating such sites wouldn't they??

What they are referring to when they mention "the natural gas industry" is that industry world-wide.


Wrong again, Teribus. Take the following sentence, for instance...

Considerable recent and ongoing changes in the functioning of the natural gas market in the UNECE region have also affected the underground natural gas storage sector.

They are talking here specifically about the UNECE region and its underground natural gas storage sector.

And this...

New legislationhas been introduced, including at the European Union level, which opened the sector to competition together with third-party access provisions.

This sentence follows directly the one I quoted previously, so 'sector' in this sentence refers to the same sector, which, again is the underground natural gas storage sector of the UNECE region.

With the deregulation and liberalization of the natural gas industry in the UNECE region, the natural gas industry has come to rely more on the expanded role of underground natural gas storage facilities. In addition, new services have been developed and new roles designed, such as transforming the storage facilities into the heart of hub operations. In turn, they have contributed considerably to the integration of the gas markets in the UNECE region with the development of facilities which serve regional needs and convert a set of national markets into a truly regional or even, as in the case of the European Union, into a European industry.

Here, again, they are talking specifically about the natural gas industry in Europe and how the deregulation and liberalization of the natural gas industry in the UNECE region has effected how much the gas industry in that region relies on regional underground natural gas storage facilities.

This next part talks about the purpose of the study...

The purpose of the UNECE study on underground gas storage is to review the main trends in the sector with a view to increasing the visibility of future capacity and investment needs as well as the regulatory, cost and operational challenges. It should also identify potential problem areas which might inhibit the sector's ability to continue providing the desired services in a timely and affordable manner.

This doesn't say anything at all about studying whether or not underground storage will at some point in the future, be considered as a possible means of storing gas. It only discusses reviewing the main trends in an already existing sector with a view to increasing the visibility of future capacity and investment needs, and potential regulatory, cost, and operational challenges. And to identify any potential problem areas that might inhibit the (already existing) sector's ability to continue providing the desired (underground storage) services in a timely and affordable manner.

That's it. It's not a feasibility study to decide whether or not to use this technology. It only discusses an existing underground natural gas storage sector and how the new regulatory environment might effect the ability of the sector to do what it is already now doing, effectively in the future.


Like I said, the only person you're humiliating is yourself.

Subject: RE: BS: Tony Blair Finally Tells the Truth
From: CarolC
Date: 14 Jan 10 - 02:14 AM

Therefore without any rsolution in any conflict in Afghanistan or in Baluchistan in Pakistan the Turkmenistan Government is laughing all the way to the bank its options over the next decade are:

1. Sell as much to China as they want through existing pipeline
2. Sell as much to Iran as they want through existing pipelines
3. From 2014 sell as much to Europe through the Trans Caspian/Nabucco pipeline system.
4. Sell as much to Gazprom through repaired existing pipelines

Can you tell me why with all that immediately available Turkmenistan would wait for TAPI to be built - Once of course there is peace in Afghanistan.

Red herring. There is no need for it to wait for TAPI to be built. But, having not waited, there is also no reason to expect that if it is built, and if they can get better prices from that market than they can get from China, for instance, that they won't decide at some point in the future to sell to the market that is served by the TAPI.

In the absence of documented proof that the governments included in the TAPI agreement have decided to abandon it, all you are doing is blowing smoke.

Subject: RE: BS: Tony Blair Finally Tells the Truth
From: Teribus
Date: 14 Jan 10 - 03:36 AM

So CarolC everything you have mentioned so far is applicable to the US where in some cases depleted gas field reservoirs have been used.

None of this is done in Europe or as far as I know in Russia or in Central Asia. Take the UK for example with quite an extensive gas network, all our gas fields are offshore where operators are committed to decommissioning when the field is depleted. The costs of keeping those fields in operation as storage and the cost of pumping that gas back underground makes no sense.

Of course the UK is renown world-wide for its extensive salt mines (Off the top of my head, IIRC the only one in the UK is in Cheshire, and as it is still producing it can harldy serve as a candidate for storing gas)

Now to get back to TAPI, remember that, the sole reason US and UK troops are fighting in Afghanistan (Sorry correction the only reason US and UK troops in minute numbers "invaded" and "occupied" Afghanistan) to build a pipeline to do what exactly? Oh yes to transport gas from Turkmenistan to India. Unfortunately none of those putting this theory forward can explain how this can be of any benefit to the USA or any US Company as none have been interested in the project since December 1998.

Now for TAPI to ever be constructed Afghanistan must be returned to stable governance, at that is the aim of UNAMA. One thing is for certain, without the aid previously given by Pakistan's ISI and Army, the Taleban will never be capable of returning the country to stable government. You then have to consider the Pakistani Province of Baluchistan and get its problems solved, before one field joint of pipe is laid.

For Turkmenistan to continue to develop and prosper it relies on selling its natural gas and oil now, today, not at what might be an improved price at some undetermined point in the future.

Another thing on pricing with gas, that is fixed before delivery, and the contract is signed on that premise, again it is not like the oil market where prices change continually. Within the terms and conditions of a gas supply contract there will be agreed price review points for the benefit of both those supplying the gas and those purchasing it - prices can go down as well as up.

"There is no need for it to wait for TAPI to be built. But, having not waited, there is also no reason to expect that if it is built, and if they can get better prices from that market than they can get from China, for instance, that they won't decide at some point in the future to sell to the market that is served by the TAPI." - CarolC

I can remember Don Firth going on about this pipeline (TAPI) as the reason behind "western" involvement in Afghanistan years ago on this forum. I told him then that TAPI would not be built and I still say it will not be built, at any rate it will not be built in any way that you could be beneficial to the USA, so can hardly be a stated reason behind the current conflict. You talk of TAPI as if it is a certainty when in reality it is not, so far I think in real terms the only work that has been done on it has been a feasibility study. nothing else. TAPI is and remains a proposal, nothing more, the Asia Development Bank is not going to pay for the pipeline it is going to finance those who will take the risk and build it. If it were an oil pipeline no problem, but as I have said all along gas is different, it has to be sold before it is transported because it cannot be stored in the same manner that oil can.

On the subject of storage CarolC, the Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India pipeline, where along it's route are all these depleted gas reservoirs and abandoned salt mines that will serve as the storage you speak of.

Previously Turkmenistan only sold gas to Russia. Now it sells to Iran (in increasing quantities), to China (in quantities that no doubt will increase as Chinese demand expands), potentially to Europe (Once the infrastructure is in place in 2014) and finally potentially to Russia at a very improved price. Now that means that by the time TAPI is constructed (if and whenever that may be) those attempting to fill it will be facing what I can only describe as exceptional competition, some might even say prohibitive competition.

Have a look at the end user, India. If India buys from Iran through the IPI, it could still potentially buy Turkemistan gas through that pipeline (Turkmenistan already exports gas to Iran through two pipelines). India continues to develop its own gas fields offshore in the Bay of Bengal. Then there is the nuclear energy programme in partnership with the USA. The combination of the above could all conspire to make TAPI completely unnecessary and excess to requirement.

Subject: RE: BS: Tony Blair Finally Tells the Truth
From: Teribus
Date: 14 Jan 10 - 03:44 AM

Apologies CarolC, I forgot this point when it comes to who Turkmenistan will sell it's gas to. You said this:

"....if they (Turkmenistan) can get better prices from that market than they can get from China, for instance,"

China is paying for field development and all infrastructure required all of which must come with a price no doubt tied to where the product from those fields go.

Subject: RE: BS: Tony Blair Finally Tells the Truth
From: Bobert
Date: 14 Jan 10 - 08:12 AM

(Very interesting discussion, Boberdz....)

What??? A thread about the Iraq invasion where folks end up talkin' exclusively about energy reserves???

(Yeah, you got it...)

What about UN resolutions and mushroom clouds and Saddam and al qeada being buddies???

(Guess you were tright from the very beginning, Boberdz... Don'tcha just hate that??? You know, being right an' T-Bird being wrong...)

No... What I hate is that Bush and Blair went to war over oil...

Subject: RE: BS: Tony Blair Finally Tells the Truth
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Jan 10 - 08:20 AM

I think some found it easier to discuss gas storage than to explain how a non existant pipeline was the real cause of the war.

Subject: RE: BS: Tony Blair Finally Tells the Truth
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 14 Jan 10 - 12:14 PM

Nigel Parsons asks re natural gas:

"Pray tell us where this gas has been for the last several millennia?"
Simple enough question to answer - "In the rock formations that trapped it all those millions of years ago"
Or are you one of the simpletons, Nigel, who think that oil and gas exists in vast underground caverns?

Calling those who disagree with you, or question your answers 'simpletons' suggests you arguments are failing & you need to rely on insult.
I never stated that this gas was lying around in massive underground chambers, merely that you stated underground storage was impossible.
Are those "Rock formations that trapped it all those millions of years ago" above ground? If not you are arguing from a false premise.
I, however will not stoop to the level of insult, as you may be highly intelligent.

Subject: RE: BS: Tony Blair Finally Tells the Truth
From: Teribus
Date: 14 Jan 10 - 01:27 PM

Nigel - It was a bloody stupid question and you were well aware of it at the time of asking.

On the subject of underground storage, what I actually did say was this:

"If it is underground storage of transported gas, and I know that this has been tried it is again expensive and extremely wasteful"

Underground storage of transported gas is what is being talked about. Go through the steps and the investment that were required to get the gas to the surface and cleaned up, now during its transportation go through the steps that will be required to store it back underground in such a way as to be able to control the pressure in the reservoir you intend to store it in. The costs are enormous.

None of which detracts from the fact that no gas export pipeline is built until there is a guaranteed customer for the gas that the field will produce. Gas projects are not undertaken on spec.

At the moment no purchase agreements have been signed by either Pakistan or India for any gas from Turkmenistan via TAPI, a pipeline that has not yet been built. Therefore as far as Afghanistan goes the proposed pipeline has got absolutely nothing to do with the conflict and it never had.

Subject: RE: BS: Tony Blair Finally Tells the Truth
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 14 Jan 10 - 07:50 PM

""Somewhat related, seems that some private letters have surfaced where Baloney Blair told is buddy, Bomber Bush, one year before the Iraq invasion that Bomber could count on the UK if it came down to an invasion..." - Bobert

Not what has surfaced at all Bobert, at least not as specifically as you state above.""

Not so mate. Bobert has stated exactly what surfaced, and not just in letters, but at the inquiry where a witness reported that Tony B Liar had repeatedly assured the Shrub that, if diplomatic means failed, and military action were necessary, the UK would join the invasion.

I listened to it on the BBC News several times during the day.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Tony Blair Finally Tells the Truth
From: GUEST,OG1
Date: 14 Jan 10 - 10:47 PM

At the end of the day, the main reason the U.S. and U.K. are in Afghanistan, to "secure the peace", is so that they have strategic control of the "Silk Road" region, including all of its resources.

Subject: RE: BS: Tony Blair Finally Tells the Truth
From: Teribus
Date: 15 Jan 10 - 12:33 AM

"...a witness reported that Tony B Liar had repeatedly assured the Shrub that, if diplomatic means failed, and military action were necessary, the UK would join the invasion."

I take it that that witness was Alister Campbell - Yes?

If so this is what he actually told the Inquiry:

"We share the analysis, we share the concern, we are going to be with you in making sure that Saddam Hussein is faced up to his obligations and that Iraq is disarmed." Campbell added: "If that cannot be done diplomatically and it has to be done militarily, Britain will be there. That would be the tenor of the communication to the president."

The letters Blair wrote to Bush have been passed to the Chilcot inquiry. It has not given any indication about whether it will publish them.

This is how Bobert put it:

"Somewhat related, seems that some private letters have surfaced where Baloney Blair told is buddy, Bomber Bush, one year before the Iraq invasion that Bomber could count on the UK if it came down to an invasion..." - Bobert

Inaccuracies in the latter are:

1. The Inquiry has been told that Tony Blair had written a number (unspecified) of letters in private to George W. Bush. Nobody outwith the Inquiry Panel knows the content of those letters because they are not in the public domain, so what Bobert is repeating is hearsay.

2. Bobert in writing the above misses out the very important bit about - "we are going to be with you in making sure that Saddam Hussein is faced up to his obligations and that Iraq is disarmed." Campbell added: "If that cannot be done diplomatically". The "If it cannot be done diplomatically" is I am sure you would agree an important part of the whole.

"At the end of the day, the main reason the U.S. and U.K. are in Afghanistan, to "secure the peace", is so that they have strategic control of the "Silk Road" region, including all of its resources." - Guest, OG1

Oh my giddy aunt the US is only there to steal ........(fill in whatever country you like)'s resources. How bloody pathetic, that is what was yelled and yelled about Iraq and it never happened.

It was Guest,OG1 who was prattling on about a pipeline that:

1. Hasn't even been built yet;
2. Is highly unlikely to ever be built;
3. In which no US company has any interest;
4. From which the USA can accrue no benefit whatsoever.

Somehow is the reason for the current fighting in Afghanistan. Utter rubbish.

Pray tell us OG1 how the hell are is the US going to control "The Silk Road" Judging by the number of deaths on their own roads (round about 43,000 per year IIRC) they cannot even control Sunset Boulavard.

At the end of the day, the main reason the U.S. and U.K. are in Afghanistan, to "secure the peace", is because the United Nations asked them to - FACT, live with it.

Subject: RE: BS: Tony Blair Finally Tells the Truth
From: CarolC
Date: 15 Jan 10 - 01:29 AM

None of this is done in Europe or as far as I know in Russia or in Central Asia.


Obviously you are wrong about that, as my 14 Jan 10 - 02:01 AM post shows. Ignoring the evidence in the hope that it will go away doesn't work, and just looks ridiculous. And then there's this...

Chemieanlagenbau Chemnitz GmbH (CAC; Germany; www.cac-chem.de) draws on its longstanding collaboration with Rohol-Aufsuchungs AG (RAG; Vienna, Austria) and lands two new contracts for erecting underground storage facilities for natural gas.


And this...

The technology of underground storage which permits matching a constant supply with a variable demand for economic advantage has been developed since 1917 in US and Canada.

It is of particular interest to NATO partners such as US, UK, France, Italy, Germany and Canada where it is practiced.



Gazprom, the Russian gas monopolist, is going to build the Europe's largest underground natural gas storage.

It says Europe's largest underground natural gas storage. It doesn't say Europe's first underground natural gas storage.


You're not fooling anyone, Teribus. You never even worked in the UK natural gas industry.

Subject: RE: BS: Tony Blair Finally Tells the Truth
From: GUEST,OG1
Date: 15 Jan 10 - 02:09 AM

Sure Teribus. We all know that the U.S.'s intentions are pure. We know that when the United Nation calls on the U.S. to do its bidding, the U.S. always obliges. I almost forgot, the U.S. did not give a damn about the United Nations when it came to WMD inspections in Iraq.

I never realized that the United Nations was around in 1800's, nor that they asked the U.S. to introduce The Monroe Doctrine on December 2, 1823.

I am sure that the United Nations "asked" the U.S. to reactivate the Fourth Fleet -which was deactivated at the end of the WW2- to patrol Latin American waters effective July 1, 2009.

Of course the United Nations "asked" the U.S. to establish (7) seven military bases in Colombia.

Of course the U.S,'s presence in Latin America would not have anything to do with the fact that Venezuela, one of the top ten oil producing countries in the world, and 3rd or 4th top importer to the U.S., resides in said region.

Nor would it have anything to do with the fact that Brazil --up and coming rival to the U.S.-- just discovered five to eight billion barrels of recoverable light oil off its coast.

And I am sure that it has nothing to do with the fact that there is a new crop of left leaning goverments in South America, which are in the process of coming up with their own common currency.

I am sure that when the U.S. stole Panama from Colombia, in the begining of the 20th century, it was thinking of Colombia's best interest.

I am sure that "Operation Just Cause" in Panama was only put in place for the benefit of the Panamanians, and did not benefit the U.S.

I am sure that when "The United Fruit Company" took possesion of almost all the land in Guatemala, and then asked the CIA to perform a covert operation, which lead to the 1954 Guatemalan coup d'état to overthrow Jacobo Arbenz Guzmán, the U.S. was acting in the best interest of the Guatemalan people. Just like I am sure that the land reform acts that Arbenz was instigating made the U.S. ecstatic with joy, especially considering that Mexico's Lázaro Cárdenas del Río had already expropriated and redistributed millions of acres of hacienda land to peasants and had also nationalized Mexico's petroleum reserves and expropriated the equipment of companies such as Royal Dutch/Shell and Standard Oil.

Too bad fifty years of embargos on Cuba could not hold back the inevitable.

Subject: RE: BS: Tony Blair Finally Tells the Truth
From: GUEST,OG1
Date: 15 Jan 10 - 03:33 AM

Oh my giddy aunt the US is only there to steal ........(fill in whatever country you like)'s resources. How bloody pathetic, that is what was yelled and yelled about Iraq and it never happened. -Teribus

Of course, Teribus, the U.S. and the U.K. were filled with joy when it was discovered that Iraq had awarded contracts to France, Russia and China; the U.S. and U.K. could not wait to be left out in the cold.

All of the "Freedom Fries" and pathetic France bashing by the U.S. corporate propaganda machine was only meant to bring us closer to the French people, and was not meant to embarass and put pressure on Jacques René Chirac. Thank GOD that new "tough guy", Nicolas Sarkozy, showed up to save the day; we can't have people going around saying that the French are weak, spineless and have never won a war.

Oh yeah, that's right, let's not forget about Germany. They were shunned and made fun of as punishment for disobeying the orders of their overseer -the U.S.-, for going against them when the "drum beats" of war were pounding. Thank goodness that Angela Merkel -wanna be Margaret Thatcher- came into the picture, to make sure that her country was guided towards the right just in time to make "nice-nice" with the U.S., before Bush left office.

But, of course, you are right Teribus, the U.S. had not interest in Iraq.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Iraq/wm217.cfm

Subject: RE: BS: Tony Blair Finally Tells the Truth
From: CarolC
Date: 15 Jan 10 - 09:33 AM

Unfortunately none of those putting this theory forward can explain how this can be of any benefit to the USA or any US Company as none have been interested in the project since December 1998.

A deal on the pipeline was signed on December 27 2002 by the leaders of Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. In 2005, the Asian Development Bank submitted the final version of a feasibility study. Forbes reported in 2005, "Since the US-led offensive that ousted the Taliban from power, the project has been revived and drawn strong US support."    At that time, Ann Jacobsen, who was at that time the US Ambassador to Turkmenistan, said, "We are seriously looking at the project, and it is quite possible that American companies will join it." The project has not been started as of yet, because the Taliban are currently in control of part of the area then pipeline is supposed to go through. And we have stepped up our fighting there to bring them under control. How convenient.

On April 24, 2008, Pakistan, India, and Afghanistan signed a framework agreement to buy natural gas from Turkmenistan.

On the subject of storage CarolC, the Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India pipeline, where along it's route are all these depleted gas reservoirs and abandoned salt mines that will serve as the storage you speak of.

Underground gas storage tanks to be built in Pakistan.

"Daily Times reported that Pakistan will make underground storages to store gas imported from Iran and Turkmenistan. A study in collaboration with Asian Development Bank is being conducted to identify the places to store the gas."

This article reports that the gas in question is going to come from Turkmenistan through Iran. The US government is pretty adamant about not wanting the gas to come through Iran. That is why they are working so hard to make Afghanistan safe for the pipeline.


India to build natural gas storage facilities to counter sabotage of Iran-Pak pipeline by Al-Queda and other Jihadists

"India went ahead with Iran-Pak natural gas pipeline. But the big danger of sabotage by Al-Queda, Pakistani and other Islamic Jahadists threatens the pipeline continuously. India plans to build huge underground reservoir to hold a buffer supply to ensure reliability of gas supply from Iran.

India will develop underground natural gas storage facilities, which will act as reserves in the event of sabotage of the proposed US$4.16 billion Iran-Pakistan-India gas pipeline."

Subject: RE: BS: Tony Blair Finally Tells the Truth
From: CarolC
Date: 15 Jan 10 - 09:35 AM

I think some found it easier to discuss gas storage than to explain how a non existant pipeline was the real cause of the war.

Some people think they can prove that there won't be a pipeline by saying that there will be no way to store the gas. As I have already shown repeatedly, that is a non-argument.

Subject: RE: BS: Tony Blair Finally Tells the Truth
From: Bobert
Date: 15 Jan 10 - 10:35 AM

Hell's bells, T...

What arms are you talkin' about, mah man??? Let's do a little review here... First of all the letters that have come forward from Blair to Bush were one year before the invasion... Yes, an entire year!!! That dates them well before Bush cranked up the war drums...

I mean, we are talkin' well before the world wide demonstartions... Before the aluminum tubes... Before, before...

So what we had were two dilussional leaders (?) who had no evidence of Saddam possessing WMD deciding, for whatever reasons (insert oil here), that it would be nice if Saddam was gone and the US/UK could just move right in and steal the oil...

Then when George Tenant warned Bush not to use the "nuclear" threat wording in his October 11th speech in Cincinitti then Blair came riding to Bush's rescue with an old term paper that some college kid had gotten a C+ on back in the early 90s...

That's the way it went down, T, and you know it as well as everyone else now knows it...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Tony Blair Finally Tells the Truth
From: Teribus
Date: 16 Jan 10 - 06:56 AM

GUEST,OG1 your post of 15 Jan 10 - 02:09 AM has got nothing whatsoever to do with the FACT that the United Nation asked the US and NATO to intervene in Afghanistan as part of what was agreed between UN Officials and Afghan Leaders in Bonn in Germany in December 2001.

Now come on Guest, OG1 tell us how the US is going to control the "Silk Road" region and all its resources. I am dying to hear it.

CarolC, the link re Pakistan's planned storage is from SteelGuru.com (they map world steel prices on a day to day basis) the tanks they seem to be building are steel storage tanks set into the ground to protect them from direct attack.

I also note that all have to be built, therefore the simple answer to my question regarding where the underground storage facilities were located for the TAPI pipeline product was - There aren't any.

The storage facilities being sought for India are for product that will be delivered from Iran, not from Turkmenistan.

"Some people think they can prove that there won't be a pipeline by saying that there will be no way to store the gas." CarolC.

No CarolC that was not what was said at all, to recap:

1. Before TAPI can be built there has to be peace and guaranteed security in both Afghanistan and in the Baluchistan Province of Pakistan. At the moment no-one can state or accurately predict when that will be.

2. Before TAPI can be built sales agreements and delivery contracts must be signed by both Turkmenistan and Pakistan and India (From one of your links it would appear that India has now definitely bowed out of the deal and has sources its gas from Iran).

3. What was stated was that gas cannot be stored like oil therefore the TAPI pipeline cannot be built on spec in the hope that somebody is going to buy the product once the project has been completed. As your links state, if you elect to put gas into the ground you effectively lose half of it to make your storage system work. You could then at enormous expense and effort inject water to lift the remainder but it is hostage to the law of diminishing returns.

4. Turkmenistan has a finite number of gas fields for which it has both a ready market of customers and transport networks and it has potential future customers with transportation pipelines already under construction who do not have to end wars before gas acan be purchased and who are prepared to sign contracts now.

5. As part of their delivery price the Chinese are paying for field development costs and transport pipeline network installation costs for gas from Turkmenistan. The Chinese having done that and the Government of Turkmenistan having accepted that, I would doubt very much if any gas produced would go anywhere else other than to China.

5. All of the above conspire to make it highly unlikely that TAPI will ever come to anything. One thing it most certainly is not - the TAPI pipeline is not the reason that US and NATO forces are fighting in Afghanistan which was the original contention of Guest, OG1 - He is wrong.

Application of commonsense, reasoning and logic CarolC - all of which gives the indications that TAPI will most likely not be built. And to date within the oil & gas industry there are no US Companies who have declared any interest in being part of the TAPI Pipeline Project.

Subject: RE: BS: Tony Blair Finally Tells the Truth
From: Bobert
Date: 16 Jan 10 - 08:56 AM

There's a reason why T ignored my last post... He can't deal with the truth...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Tony Blair Finally Tells the Truth
From: GUEST,OG1
Date: 16 Jan 10 - 02:11 PM

GUEST,OG1 your post of 15 Jan 10 - 02:09 AM has got nothing whatsoever to do with the FACT that the United Nation asked the US and NATO to intervene in Afghanistan as part of what was agreed between UN Officials and Afghan Leaders in Bonn in Germany in December 2001.-Teribus

Is it not interesting how you are referencing that "UN Officials and Afghan Leaders" came to an agreement in Bonn, Germany, but you fail to mention that the Interim Authority of the "Afghan Leaders" -and I use the term "leaders" loosley- was chaired by Hamid Karzai. Yes, the same Hamid Karzai that was a "consultant" to UNOCAL. Hmmm... Now... Let's see... Where have I seen that name "UNOCAL"?

Unfortunately, Teribus, humans have some thing called "memory", and can use the "Google" or just as good ol' "Dubbya" once said "We can have filters on Internets".

It's as basic as looking in:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamid_Karzai

"...Karzai was involved in helping to provide financial and military support for the Mujahideen during the 1980s Soviet war in Afghanistan. The Mujahideen were secretly supplied and funded by the United States, and Karzai was a contact for the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) at the time".

"...While Karzai's brothers emigrated to the United States,Hamid Karzai remained in Pakistan during the Soviet occupation. He accompanied the first Mujahideen leaders into Kabul in 1992 following the Soviet withdrawal."

But, wait... There is more:

http://www.counterpunch.org/tomenron.html

A Creeping Collapse in Credibility at the White House:
From ENRON Entanglements to UNOCAL Bringing the Taliban to Texas and Controlling Afghanistan
By Tom Turnipseed

The Bush Administration's entanglement with ENRON is beginning to unravel as it finally admits that Enron executives entered the White House six times last year to secretly plan the Administration's energy policy with Vice-President Cheney before the collapse of the Texas-based energy giant. Meanwhile, even more trouble for our former-Texas-oil-man-turned-President is brewing with reports that unveil UNOCAL, another big energy company, for being in bed with the Taliban, along with the U.S. government in a major, continuing effort to construct pipelines through Afghanistan from the petroleum-rich Caspian Basin in Central Asia. Beneath their burkas, UNOCAL is being exposed for giving the five star treatment to Taliban Mullahs in the Lone Star State in 1997. The "evil-ones" were also invited to meet with U.S. government officials in Washington, D.C.

According to a December 17, 1997 article in the British paper, The Telegraph, headlined, "Oil barons court Taliban in Texas," the Taliban was about to sign a "£2 billion contract with an American oil company to build a pipeline across the war-torn country. ... The Islamic warriors appear to have been persuaded to close the deal, not through delicate negotiation but by old-fashioned Texan hospitality. ... Dressed in traditional salwar khameez,Afghan waistcoats and loose, black turbans, the high-ranking delegation was given VIP treatment during the four-day stay."

At the same time, U.S. government documents reveal that the Taliban were harboring Osama bin Laden as their "guest" since June 1996. By then, bin Laden had: been expelled by Sudan in early 1996 in response to US insistence and the threat of UN sanctions; publicly declared war against the U.S. on or about August 23, 1996; pronounced the bombings in Riyadh and at Khobar in Saudi Arabia killing 19 US servicemen as 'praiseworthy terrorism', promising that other attacks would follow in November 1996 and further admitted carrying out attacks on U.S. military personnel in Somalia in 1993 and Yemen in 1992, declaring that "we used to hunt them down in Mogadishu"; stated in an interview broadcast in February 1997 that "if someone can kill an American soldier, it is better than wasting time on other matters." Evidence was also developing which linked bin Laden to: the 1995 bombing of a U.S. military barracks in Riyadh which killed five; Ramzi Yuosef, who led the 1993 World Trade Center attacks; and a 1994 assassination plot against President Clinton in the Philippines.

Back in Houston, the Taliban was learning how the "other half lives," and according to The Telegraph, "stayed in a five-star hotel and were chauffeured in a company minibus." The Taliban representatives "...were amazed by the luxurious homes of Texan oil barons. Invited to dinner at the palatial home of Martin Miller, a vice-president of Unocal, they marveled at his swimming pool, views of the golf course and six bathrooms." Mr. Miller, said he hoped that UNOCAL had clinched the deal.

Dick Cheney was then CEO of Haliburton Corporation, a pipeline services vendor based in Texas. Gushed Cheney in 1998, "I can't think of a time when we've had a region emerge as suddenly to become as strategically significant as the Caspian. It's almost as if the opportunities have arisen overnight. The good Lord didn't see fit to put oil and gas only where there are democratically elected regimes friendly to the United States. Occasionally we have to operate in places where, all things considered, one would not normally choose to go. But we go where the business is." Would Cheney bargain with the harborers of U.S. troop killers if that's where the business was?

The Telegraph reported that Unocal had promised to start building the pipeline and paying the Taliban immediately, with the added inducements and a donation of £500,000 to the University of Nebraska for courses in Afghanistan to train 400 teachers, electricians, carpenters and pipefitters.

The Telegraph also reported, "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." In a paper prepared by Neamatollah Nojumi, at the Tufts University Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, Nojumi wrote in August 1997 that Madeline Albright sat in a "full-dress CIA briefing" on the Caspian region. CIA agents then accompanied "some well-trained petroleum engineers" to the region. Albright concluded that shaping the region's policies was "one of the most exciting things that we can do."

It's also exciting to the Bush Administration. According to the authors of Bin Laden, the Hidden Truth, one of the FBI's leading counter terrorism agents, John O'Neill, resigned last year in protest over the Bush Administration's alleged obstruction of his investigation into bin Laden. (A similar complaint has been filed on behalf of another unidentified FBI Agent by the conservative Judicial Watch public interest group.) Supposedly the Bush Administration had been meeting since January 2001 with the Taliban, and was also reluctant to offend Saudi Arabians who O'Neill had linked to bin Laden. Mr. O'Neill, after leaving the FBI, assumed the position of security director at the World Trade Center, where he was killed in the 911 attacks.

As America's New War now begins focusing on other "rogue nations," UNOCAL's stars have magically aligned. About two months after the Houston parties, UNOCAL executive John Maresca addressed the House Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific and urged support for establishment of an investor-friendly climate in Afghanistan, "... we have made it clear that construction of our proposed pipeline cannot begin until a recognized government is in place that has the confidence of governments, lenders and our company." Meaning that UNOCAL's ability to construct the Afghan pipeline was a cause worthy of U.S. taxpayer dollars.

Maresca's prayers have been answered with the Taliban's replacement. As reported in Le Monde, the new Afghan government's head, Hamid Karzai, formerly served as a UNOCAL consultant. Only nine days after Karzai's ascension, President Bush nominated another UNOCAL consultant and former Taliban defender, Zalmay Khalilzad, as his special envoy to Afghanistan.

When UNOCAL makes big bucks from the pipeline they should donate 50% of all pretax profits to the 911 Fund. And they should also cut a very special check to the widow of FBI Agent O'Neill.


Please... Teribus, the next thing you will be doing is telling me that "Corporations do not rule the world, its citizens do."

Now come on Guest, OG1 tell us how the US is going to control the "Silk Road" region and all its resources. I am dying to hear it.-Teribus.

Perhaps you should ask how the British and Russian Empires, and Soviet Union, intended to "control" the "Silk Road" region and all of its resources.

But, the better question is not the "how" but the "why" they wanted to control the "Silk Road" region.

Let history be your guide.

Next you will be asking me to explain to you the procedures on how to build the U.S.'s next secret spy satellite.

Subject: RE: BS: Tony Blair Finally Tells the Truth
From: Teribus
Date: 17 Jan 10 - 08:30 AM

"There's a reason why T ignored my last post... He can't deal with the truth..." Says Bobert

Well yes there is a reason I ignored your post Bobert, after reading through it three times I still couldn't make any bloody sense out of it.

But on those letters Bobert, that both Alister Campbell and the Chilcott Inquiry Panel Members have seen, but the ones that you have not. Was there any mention of pursuing a diplomatic solution to the problem first, anything reported about that at all Bobert? The answer to that is a simple Yes, according to those who have actually seen and read the correspondence. Your apparent attempt to portray the correspondence as Blair demanding war in Iraq to ensure compliance to outstanding UN Resolutions as of March 2002 is plain downright silly, a total misrepresentation, something that belongs alongside those other famous Bobert Facts you know like:

- Heads on Sticks
- 3000 Patriot Missiles raining down on Baghdad
- Blix quote; "The Iraqi's are co-operating fully"
- etc.

Subject: RE: BS: Tony Blair Finally Tells the Truth
From: Teribus
Date: 17 Jan 10 - 08:47 AM

Guest, OG1:

1. Provide me with any proof at all that Hamid Karzai ever worked for any Oil Company let alone an American one. If you cannot, then please shut the fuck up about it. It is a lie, a myth, it never happened. the ball is in your court provide the proof to back up your assertion, somehow I don't think that you will be able to do that. Unocal had an office in Kandahar between 1995/6 and 1998 during that time Hamid Karzai and his family were living in exile in Quetta, Pakistan. After December 1998, Unocal withdrew from the TAPI Project.

2. Look at a map, your "cut-n-pastes" mention much that is totally disconnected, Afghanistan is not "The Caspian" and I doubt very much whether Cheney or Albright were thinking much about Afghanistan. I was in Azebaijan when Albright visited, what was under discussion then was first oil from the Chirag Field and its future expansion, the upgrading of the Sangachal refinery and pipeline export routes.

3. No mention or detail of ACTUAL meetings between the US Government and that so called Taliban delegation

4. Karzai worked for Unocal according a French Nespaper - Ah that's alright then they've NEVER GOT ANYTHING WRONG BEFORE HAVE THEY - Sheeesh. As I asked above go away and find some definitive evidence that Karzai ever worked for Unocal.

Subject: RE: BS: Tony Blair Finally Tells the Truth
From: GUEST,OG1
Date: 17 Jan 10 - 02:05 PM

"Provide me with any proof at all that Hamid Karzai ever worked for any Oil Company let alone an American one. If you cannot, then please shut the fuck up about it." -Teribus

Wooow!! I will be sure to send you a copy of Hamid Karzai's pay stub and tax filings.

"It is a lie, a myth, it never happened." -Teribus

I do not think that it is necessary for me to post a link to every site on the internet that points to the opposite, but if you say its a myth it must be; I guess we all better go back to sleep to see what other good stories we could all dream up.

Next you will be telling all of us that the U.S. does not install "Puppet Governments" (i.e. Saddam Husssein and Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi), especially not in areas that have vast natural resources and/or are located in strategical locations.

Subject: RE: BS: Tony Blair Finally Tells the Truth
From: CarolC
Date: 18 Jan 10 - 02:26 AM

I also note that all have to be built, therefore the simple answer to my question regarding where the underground storage facilities were located for the TAPI pipeline product was - There aren't any.

Teribus, you didn't ask where the storage facilities were located. You asked where the depleted gas reservoirs and salt cavern were located. However, it really doesn't matter if the underground storage facilities are going to be developed in depleted natural gas fields, salt caverns, or if they're going to use large underground tanks. What matters for the purpose of this discussion is that they will have underground storage that will allow them to store large amounts of gas. According to this 2008 article in the Pakistani newspaper, The Times...

Sources added that Pakistan would need gas storages to maintain the gas reserves in the country. Sources further said that these gas reserves would help Pakistan to tackle any situation of gas shortages in the country

The country is said to be facing shortage of gas by 2011 and the imported gas would be stored in the underground storages as reserved stocks. In Pakistan, the energy requirements are increasing after the use of gas in auto sector due to which the demand has hiked by 40 percent in the country...

...Despite importing 2.2 billion cubic feet gas from Iran, Pakistan would import 3.2 billion cubic feet gas from Turkemanistan and it will be shared by India and Pakistan. Turkemanistan claims to have gas reserves of 159 trillion cubic feet at its Dauletabad fields, and Russia is the main importer.

So we can see that they will be importing gas from Turkmenistan, and they will be developing enough underground storage to be able to use the stored gas as reserve stock. And India will be doing the same.


Here's more on the subject from India's perspective (note the very strong encouragement that India has been getting from the US government to sign on to participate in the TAP [now, TAPI])...


"India join US-backed gas pipeline project
New Delhi May 20, 2006

With Iran playing tough on gas pricing, India has decided to join the United States-backed 3.5 billion dollar Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan (TAP) gas pipeline project to meet its burgeoning energy demands. 'The cabinet has approved petroleum ministry's proposal for joining the TAP project,' an official said here on Thursday night.
India had in mid-February participated for the first time as an 'observer' in the 9th meeting of the steering committee of the TAP project and has since decided to join the project which will now be renamed TAPI (Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India pipeline), he said.

Besides the fact that Iran was bargaining for a very high price for the gas it wants to sell to India through Iran-Pakistan-India pipeline and in its liquid form (LNG), the pipeline from Turkmenistan would be easier to implement than IPI line as it already has the backing of the Asian Development Bank (ADB).

Iran's controversial nuclear programme and Washington's strong reservations have clearly cast a shadow on the future of the proposed eight billion dollar Iran-Pakistan-India (IPI) pipeline. Moreover, unlike IPI, the TAPI project does not run the risk of being blacklisted for participation by US and European financiers and companies.

The US has been encouraging Pakistan to abandon the IPI project and consider TAP for meeting its gas needs.

The proposed natural gas pipeline would stretch from the Turkmenistan/Afghanistan border in south-eastern Turkmenistan to Multan, Pakistan (1,271km), with a 640km extension to India. The estimated cost of the project is 2.9 billion dollars for the segment to Pakistan and an additional 600 million dollars for the extension to India.

'With a view to meeting the burgeoning gas demand, it is estimated that substantial volumes of gas would need to be imported. Joining the TAP project offers the possibility of an alternative source of gas supply to India,' said the petroleum ministry proposal without referring to Iran."

http://www.lngplants.com/TurkistanGasNewsletterMay262006.html


And then there's this...


"Construction work on TAPI pipeline project to start from 2010
Sunday, 04 May 2008

The 10th steering committee of oil ministers from Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, Pakistan and India have agreed to start construction work on the much delayed TAPI pipeline project in 2010.

This was stated at a joint press conference by Mr Khwaja Muhammad Asif Pakistan's minister for petroleum & natural resources, Turkmen minister for oil & gas industry Dr Baymurad Hojamuhamedov, Afghan minister of mines Mr Mohammad Ibrahim Adel and Indian minister for petroleum & natural gas Mr Murli Deora here after the conclusion of the steering committee meeting.

The second meeting of the technical working group of the 4 countries was also held the same day.

The gas pipeline project, to be completed at the cost of USD 7.6 billion, will start supplying 3.2 billion cubic feet gas per day through 56 inch diameter pipeline. The pipeline will start from Dauletabad field in Turkmenistan to Fazilka at the Pakistan India border, passing through Herat and Kandahar in Afghanistan and Multan in Pakistan. Key principles for future gas sales and purchase agreement will be agreed bilaterally between the buyer and sellers under the heads of agreement discussions."

http://steelguru.com/news/index/2008/05/04/NDQxOTc=/Construction_work_on_TAPI_pipeline_project_to_start_from_2010.html


Before TAPI can be built there has to be peace and guaranteed security in both Afghanistan and in the Baluchistan Province of Pakistan.

Precisely so. Hence the current ratcheting up of US military efforts in Afghanistan and Pakistan. You are making my arguments for me, Teribus.

Subject: RE: BS: Tony Blair Finally Tells the Truth
From: CarolC
Date: 18 Jan 10 - 02:28 AM

Here's a link to the article in The Times...

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2008\02\16\story_16-2-2008_pg5_9

Subject: RE: BS: Tony Blair Finally Tells the Truth
From: CarolC
Date: 18 Jan 10 - 03:09 AM

(From one of your links it would appear that India has now definitely bowed out of the deal and has sources its gas from Iran).


No, that article was published in 2005, before India signed on to the TAPI (in 2006).

Subject: RE: BS: Tony Blair Finally Tells the Truth
From: Teribus
Date: 18 Jan 10 - 06:07 PM

So construction of TAPI will start this year will it CarolC??

How come no pipe or steel has been ordered for it? Ever heard of long lead items for a project? A 56" Pipeline eh? Over 1600 kilometers long, now that takes time to manufacture, any idea how much construction work requiring steel is going on in the world Carol? Think how many other major overland pipeline projects are underway in the world let alone in the region. How many companies do you think make that diameter of pipe in the world?

Have the gas compressors been ordered yet CarolC, they would have to be if construction was going to start this year.

So far the only work that has been carried out on this project is a feasibility study, that was done on behalf of the Asia Development Bank by a consultancy firm based in London. Now what hasn't been done apart from all that ordering of materials is:

- FEED Study
- Design Basis
- Mine Clearance
- Route surveys

And nobody has signed any sales agreements.

Keep googling away there CarolC

Your links are old news.

Oh if the work is to start this year (2010) who is doing the job? I ask you see because no tenders have gone out for the work, and certainly no construction contracts have been awarded and for a job of this size all that should have started about three years ago.

Subject: RE: BS: Tony Blair Finally Tells the Truth
From: Teribus
Date: 05 Jan 11 - 12:11 PM

Perhaps CarolC can tell us how much of the 1640 kilometer long 56" Diameter TAPI Pipeline has been constructed during the course of 2010.

My prediction was Not One Single Metre

Her's quoting an article by SteelGuru.com dated some time in May 2008 stated that construction work would commence in 2010.

I believe that my prediction has proved to be correct.

Subject: RE: BS: Tony Blair Finally Tells the Truth
From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie
Date: 06 Jan 11 - 06:00 AM

Of course Bliar and Bush had the moral high ground. They used to pray together if the tittle tattle from aides is to be believed.

Say no more.

if you can't win an argument, get the big man on side. History is littered with such disgusting examples, from Crusades, through Spanish Inquisition all the way to Jihad.

Invoking superstition is a tried and trusted way of disguising your more material aims.