financial motives for conspiracy

[Triterope]

We are talking about the financial side but what about the theorists claims that there were ideological goals involved
that leads to financial goals in the end.

Well, then you get into contradictory motives.

If the conspiracy theorist is going to argue that 9-11 and subsequent events were all part of some financial venture (or about oil, or gold, or whatever), then you can't really start talking about ideological motivations at the same time.

Not that ideological goals and financial goals are entirely exclusive, but "The war in Iraq was all about oil profits, but they took a loss to establish a military presence in Iraq" is kind of a stupid argument.

 

[stateofgrace]

This is what gets me.

If there is any financial motivation behind 911 then surely it is lost by attacking The World TRADE Centers. These building were the financial hub of the US if not the world, so why attack them?

It just makes no sense at all.

 

[Oliver]

Because they already knew they could kick Saddam's ass. Also, they did attack Afghanistan and remove the Taliban when there was a direct connection to AQ. Afghanistan was the "revenge" war after 9/11. Iraq was Bush finishing the job that should have been finished by Bush Sr.

So why do you think was their reason to get rid of the
Taliban at all and why no consequences concerning the
pakistani connections?

None of the others have got Oil. And North Korea is too dangerous. And it costs too much money! The $95bn (or whatever the real figure is) may have been outstripped by the overall Iraq operation, but you can bet your life they didn't budget for anything like that amount when planning the initial Iraq war.

So you think that all the money america spend on "war
on error" (+9/11) will pay in return for the USA? Or just
for some guys within the Oil-Business? Do you believe
the whole war is a selfish operation for some business-guys?

That is the neocon agenda.

Why?

Wouldn't you?

No, i wouldn´t like to live in a state that was set up
from foreign countries.

Are you getting to understand the fact that there is no connection between 9/11 and the Iraq war yet?

Off course there is a connection. The USG suggested
there is one. WOTerror > Terror Support > Saddam > WMD

Well, go to the Truth sites to find that out.

What do you think are "truth" sites?
AJ like, halftrue Fairytale-Sites?

 

[Oliver]

By the way - which companies made the big money since the
invasion in iraq and which of these companies are in some way
connected to politicians? I know these issues are not very
popular in here.

 

[gumboot]

By the way - which companies made the big money since the
invasion in iraq and which of these companies are in some way
connected to politicians? I know these issues are not very
popular in here.

The most common quoted company is Halliburton. This is actually a false claim. Halliburton made very little profit off their subsidary KBR's Iraq contracts.

-Gumboot

 

[Oliver]

The most common quoted company is Halliburton. This is actually a false claim. Halliburton made very little profit off their subsidary KBR's Iraq contracts.

-Gumboot

So nobody made big profit? What about stock markets and contracts?
What do you think was the reason to throw so much money out of
the window to go to war in iraq if they could have easily removed
Saddam without the invasion, Andrew?

 

[Toro]

6. financial benefits of invading Afghanistan, was the proposed pipeline feasible and worth the expense and risk?

Pipelines are not particularly expensive to build. They are probably the most "boring" of businesses in energy anyways. Pipelines usually do not bring much controversy, unless there is a NIMBY issue.

But the reason why this comes up is because to the Fringe, its always about oil. They come to the conclusion first and work backwards. The only thing that matters is oil. So they find the oil first then work backwards to "prove" their pre-conceived conclusion.

7. financial benefits of invading Iraq?

1. The US could have paid Saddam off to the tune of say, $20 billion, and gotten Exxon, Chevron, Halliburton et.al into Iraq making big bucks.

2. Gasoline is subsidized in Iraq. I believe the average price is $0.30 a gallon (though I could be mistaken on that). Considering that is 1/8th the price oil companies could charge elsewhere, that seems to be a pretty heavy price the evil oil companies are paying to subsidize Iraqi consumers.

3. Iraq still has a national oil company.

 

[Bell]

1. The US could have paid Saddam off to the tune of say, $20 billion, and gotten Exxon, Chevron, Halliburton et.al into Iraq making big bucks.

George W. Bush: "Saddam, how about this deal? We're getting access to Iraq's oilfields and in return we're going to hang you. Fair enough?"

 

[Toro]

The first thing to note is that it is indeed a natural gas pipeline. Although it is possible to compress gas and ship it, it seems unlikely that anybody would do this to transport natural gas to the USA from Turkmenistan via a pipeline across Afghanistan and Pakistan, at least in the short term:

http://www.naturalgas.org/business/analysis.asp#dryng

So we're looking at a gradual shift away from importing gas from Canada to shipping it in from the rest of the world by 2025 - and imports currently account for 15% of supply. Not a huge incentive for the US to secure a pipeline for its own supply.

The process of importing natural gas into the US requires converting nat gas to liquified natural gas. There are four terminals in the US that handle LNG, though there are more on the drawing board. LNG accounts for something like 1 trillion of the 62 trillion cubic feet a day that is consumed in the US. So not a lot.

Most imported LNG comes from places like Trinidad and Algeria, which are easy-access countries. The break-even cost of importing LNG is $2.50-$3.00 / mm btus. During the 1990s, nat gas bounced from $1.50-$2.50, so it wasn't feesible to import LNG from far-away places like Afghanistan.

One thing to remember is that unlike oil, the infrastructure for nat gas isn't conducive to export in many places of the world. Gas is a by-product of drilling, and in places where they do not have the infrastructure to export it, it is burned at the tip. There is lots and lots of gas in the world, but the problem is that it is stranded. It would be a helluva lot easier to build the infrastructure in Saudi Arabia and Russia and export it.

This issue, for the foilers however, is one of profits for Unocal. Never mind that it would be a drop in the bucket for Unocal. Even profits that would barely move the needle are worth killing 10s of 000s of people.

 

[maccy]

Pipelines are not particularly expensive to build. They are probably the most "boring" of businesses in energy anyways. Pipelines usually do not bring much controversy, unless there is a NIMBY issue.

But the reason why this comes up is because to the Fringe, its always about oil. They come to the conclusion first and work backwards. The only thing that matters is oil. So they find the oil first then work backwards to "prove" their pre-conceived conclusion.

This particular pipelines cost is estimated at $2.5-$3.5 billion.

See Gumboot's and my posts about the details of the pipeline:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2122171#post2122171

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2123774#post2123774

You're absolutely right that the first thing the fringe thinks is oil - even if the pipeline is a natural gas one.

1. The US could have paid Saddam off to the tune of say, $20 billion, and gotten Exxon, Chevron, Halliburton et.al into Iraq making big bucks.

2. Gasoline is subsidized in Iraq. I believe the average price is $0.30 a gallon (though I could be mistaken on that). Considering that is 1/8th the price oil companies could charge elsewhere, that seems to be a pretty heavy price the evil oil companies are paying to subsidize Iraqi consumers.

3. Iraq still has a national oil company.

Yes, I think the neocon concern with oil was strategic rather than financial - they want to secure oil supplies so they couldn't be held to ransom. To be honest, I don't think they were especially fussed about how huge oil companies already large profits would become.

I think they were genuinely worried about the geopolitical stability of the region if either Iraq or Iran developed WMDs. I think they genuinely believed that containing Saddam was not a viable strategy and that they could spread democracy and US influence in the region by forced regime change in Iraq. This faith led them to trust and hype up some pretty flimsy intelligence but I don't think they were expecting to find no WMDs at all (apart from anything else, Saddam was behaving as if he had some).

This faith also led them to underestimate the sectarian tension in Iraq, which was, I think, the main reason why the US kept Saddam in power at the end of the first Gulf War.

If it had been simply all about money and oil, they would have ousted him in 1991.

 

[geggy]

The most common quoted company is Halliburton. This is actually a false claim. Halliburton made very little profit off their subsidary KBR's Iraq contracts.

-Gumboot

US: Halliburton's 2005 profit 'Best in our 86-year history' After three years of losing money, Halliburton reported a hefty profit for 2005 and announced that all six of its divisions posted record results.

http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=13189

Yeah, not much.

 

[geggy]

more on halliburton

 

[Toro]

The most common quoted company is Halliburton. This is actually a false claim. Halliburton made very little profit off their subsidary KBR's Iraq contracts.

-Gumboot

Yeah, not much.

Gumboot is correct. Sort of.

These links you show here

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2124803#post2124803

http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?list=type&type=15

are misleading for two reasons.

First, the profits are soaring for Halliburton for the same reason why they are soaring for Schlumberger, Baker Hughes, Transocean, Diamond Offshore, Todco, Patterson, Smith International, Pride, etc., etc. etc. Its because the costs of drilling and oil services have soared as the price of oil went from $20/bbl to $70. In fact, almost all of the increase in spending my the major oil companies has been because of cost inflation, not because of spending on new oil exploration.

Second, you don't break out the profits for KBR. Instead, the articles reference revenues. Revenues and profits are very diffenent things. Most contracts for work by KBR are cost-plus contracts. But the "plus" part is usually pretty low, ranging from 3% to 8%. It may be higher in Iraq, I don't know. And the no-bid contracts and cronyism reeks of corruption, no doubt. But this is a pretty crappy busines. Halliburton intends to spin off KBR because it is a drag on its results.

http://www.newratings.com/analyst_news/article_1191400.html

Historically, KBR has made far less on its business than Halliburton.

 

[Larry Lovage]

First of all, Oliver, what happened to that pretty girl avatar of yours? :S

Because they already knew they could kick Saddam's ass. Also, they did attack Afghanistan and remove the Taliban when there was a direct connection to AQ. Afghanistan was the "revenge" war after 9/11. Iraq was Bush finishing the job that should have been finished by Bush Sr.

So why do you think was their reason to get rid of the
Taliban at all and why no consequences concerning the
pakistani connections?

The reason for getting rid of the Taliban was a) they probably couldn't hit back, and consequently b) it was an easy way of advancing the neocon democracy-exporting policy.

None of the others have got Oil. And North Korea is too dangerous. And it costs too much money! The $95bn (or whatever the real figure is) may have been outstripped by the overall Iraq operation, but you can bet your life they didn't budget for anything like that amount when planning the initial Iraq war.

So you think that all the money america spend on "war
on error" (+9/11) will pay in return for the USA?

Erm, no.. I never said anything about the US making an investment, and I explicitly pointed out that whatever their original budgeting for the Iraq war has been blown out of the water by having to stick around for 5+ years afterwards.

Or just for some guys within the Oil-Business? Do you believe the whole war is a selfish operation for some business-guys?

The US is oil-hungry. Policies which "protect" oil supplies don't have to be just to enrich one particular oil tycoon or set of oil tycoons. The tycoons aren't important - what's important to the US is oil per se.

That is the neocon agenda.

Why?

Why what? Pushing democratic government in other (non-democratic) sovereign states is the neocon agenda, or at least forms the basis for neocon rhetoric. Ultimately, democratic states are easier to deal with (monetarily as well as diplomatically), and if it's America forcefeeding the democratic/capitalistic wonder-pill down their throats, the perception amongst the neocons is that those states would at least be US-friendly.

Wouldn't you?

No, i wouldn´t like to live in a state that was set up
from foreign countries.

No, what you originally said was "Why would you install pro-US politicians?" I assumed you meant that the US was doing the installing.

Are you getting to understand the fact that there is no connection between 9/11 and the Iraq war yet?

Off course there is a connection. The USG suggested
there is one. WOTerror > Terror Support > Saddam > WMD

No, at the time they justified the attack on Saddam because he was supposed to have WMD. Then when there weren't any WMD they justified the attack because Saddam was harbouring Al Q'aeda. Saddam never had any truck with Al Q'aeda, he never "harboured" them, he detested them. They were as much a threat to him as they had been to the West, because Saddam was a secular ruler, not an Islamist. Later on the USG has explicitly denied that Saddam had any connection with Al Q'aeda or that they attacked Iraq because of 9/11 or Al Q'aeda. Nobody's denying that the Bush administration lied. But their behaviour is characteristic of opportunists, not of big-planners-ahead. The present day Iraq shambles is proof of that, I would submit.

Well, go to the Truth sites to find that out.

What do you think are "truth" sites?
AJ like, halftrue Fairytale-Sites? [/quote]I was actually simply facetiously suggesting that if you want a good summary of the neocon position without having to purchase all their books and papers yourself, you might as well get the skinny from the Truth sites.

Some of the Truth sites have got excellent resources - quotations from books, testimonies, etc. The fact that many of these testimonies directly contradict the point they are trying to make seems to have escaped most of the people who go there. For example, I do believe it's Killtown's site which directed me to many firefighter testimonies which make it perfectly plain that WTC7's collapse was a surprise to nobody, that the explosions they heard at various times when clearing the buildings could have had nothing to do with demolition charges, etc, etc. Otherwise, there are half-truths, false dichotomies ("If it wasn't this, it must have been this!!") and acres and acres of "Argument from Incredulity".

 

[maccy]

Aha! There's an alternative theory which explains why the point is to lose as much money as possible. See point 5 on this, um, interesting list:

Now I am going to give you why they did it, then i will share some links.

1. Patriot act

2. Patriot act 2

3. Eliminate the Consitution & Bill of Rights

4. Bring forth the NWO and North American Union

5. Bankrupt the USA to bring forth a NWO

6. Scare americans to give up there right in exchange for "security" when you will just get tyranny and a police state.

7. Justify an Iraq and Afganistan Invasion.

8. Bring forth a Real ID Act, which was passed on 5-11-05, and then the "mark of the beast"

9. To Pretty Much Allow Bush to do anything He wants. Look at this:

http://mathaba.net/0_index.shtml?x=504353

10. To allow the Military CommissionsAct of 2006 to Pass.

11. If you Notice Alex Jones speaking at the CSPAN Conference. (Video #5)He says its about World War 3 as well. I dont know to much about this, But If you look at a map. Afganistan is on the Right, Iraq is on the Left, and IRAN Is in the Middle. Once the USA Invades IRAN The US Could control All of the Middle East, and be on the Doorstep with China, for World War 3. According to the Bible 2 Billion+ Will Die (1/3 Population) I have a timeframe of around 2018 (2016-2020) In My Blog Entitled "I know When the End of The Age Begins" Which also connects 9/11 In the End times.

http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=1156&view=findpost&p=9585499

I think it may be appropriate to break out this smiley:

 

[uk_dave]

ahhhhh the old 'mark of the beast' ploy eh?

What i've never understood about the mark of the beast, being generally accepted as the number 666 (except those awkward types who maintian that it's actually 616) is what happens if you view it upside down?

I mean you could be a fearless warrior for truth tasked with finding those carrying the mark of the beast and make the mistake of seeing 999 and dismissing it as just a birthmark...or the tatoo of someone particularily taken with the UK emergency services, but anyway, my point is WHY would the powers that be choose one of the easiest numbers to get wrong?

Perhaps it's a conspiracy......

 

[Alt+F4]

I love how that moron doesn't even know that the Bill of Rights is PART of the Constitution.

As for allowing Bush to do whatever he wants, well that doesn't seem to be working out so well for him, just ask Nancy Pelosi.

And by now, wasn't Don Rumsfeld supposed to be God-King-Chancelor of the entire world, universe and nearby star systems?

 

[Oliver]

First of all, Oliver, what happened to that pretty girl avatar of yours? :S

Oliver if you keep showing your girlfriend mu wife willl feel jealieuos.

The reason for getting rid of the Taliban was a) they probably couldn't hit back, and consequently b) it was an easy way of advancing the neocon democracy-exporting policy.

Where can i find more info about the neocons
and their evil plans? Is there an official source
with their political intentions?

Erm, no.. I never said anything about the US making an investment, and I explicitly pointed out that whatever their original budgeting for the Iraq war has been blown out of the water by having to stick around for 5+ years afterwards.

Well, i guess that´s what they should have known
before the war. I don´t believe that the strategic minds
within the government were so naive to think that the
job is done within some months.

The US is oil-hungry. Policies which "protect" oil supplies don't have to be just to enrich one particular oil tycoon or set of oil tycoons. The tycoons aren't important - what's important to the US is oil per se.

So what´s the big power of oil? I mean we have a lot
of efforts for alternate energies and fuels. Why not invest
in independence concerning oil instead the greed for oil?

Why what? Pushing democratic government in other (non-democratic) sovereign states is the neocon agenda, or at least forms the basis for neocon rhetoric. Ultimately, democratic states are easier to deal with (monetarily as well as diplomatically), and if it's America forcefeeding the democratic/capitalistic wonder-pill down their throats, the perception amongst the neocons is that those states would at least be US-friendly.

I don´t believe that this will result in a Mac Donalds eating
country within the next 50 years. The neocons don´t under-
stand the mentality down there if they believe otherwise.

No, what you originally said was "Why would you install pro-US politicians?" I assumed you meant that the US was doing the installing.
No, at the time they justified the attack on Saddam because he was supposed to have WMD. Then when there weren't any WMD they justified the attack because Saddam was harbouring Al Q'aeda. Saddam never had any truck with Al Q'aeda, he never "harboured" them, he detested them. They were as much a threat to him as they had been to the West, because Saddam was a secular ruler, not an Islamist. Later on the USG has explicitly denied that Saddam had any connection with Al Q'aeda or that they attacked Iraq because of 9/11 or Al Q'aeda. Nobody's denying that the Bush administration lied. But their behaviour is characteristic of opportunists, not of big-planners-ahead. The present day Iraq shambles is proof of that, I would submit.

Let´s hope that the USG didn´t created another pool
for terrorists. That´s what i think will be a result of all
the mess down there.

Some of the Truth sites have got excellent resources - quotations from books, testimonies, etc. The fact that many of these testimonies directly contradict the point they are trying to make seems to have escaped most of the people who go there. For example, I do believe it's Killtown's site which directed me to many firefighter testimonies which make it perfectly plain that WTC7's collapse was a surprise to nobody, that the explosions they heard at various times when clearing the buildings could have had nothing to do with demolition charges, etc, etc. Otherwise, there are half-truths, false dichotomies ("If it wasn't this, it must have been this!!") and acres and acres of "Argument from Incredulity".

It might be true that "truth"-sites and -articles might have
some good information but i don´t prefer sites that try to
blur between true and untrue. And it´s the same opinion i
have about CT-books. I wonder what Childlike thinks about
this argument.

 

[Toro]

5. Bankrupt the USA to bring forth a NWO

This is completely and utterly moronic.

 

[Larry Lovage]

Now to clarify things once and for all.

Oliver, you and I are in complete agreement as to the validity, the correctness and the final outcome of the Bush administration's policies.


I just told it the way it looked to me. I don't agree with anything they did.

Where can i find more info about the neocons
and their evil plans? Is there an official source
with their political intentions?

The Project for a New American Century: http://www.newamericancentury.org/

Ironically, www.pnac.org is a Catholic seminary.

Kindly ignore anything I may have said about going to Truth sites for valid information of any kind.