Political Forums

bisurge · 12-04-2009, 08:44 AM

I hate all those people that continually talk about how all the troops are there to fight 100 Al Queda and less than 10,000 Taliban members. Because their sphere of influence reaches many, MANY civilians. Especially religious conservatives/radicals. That's what's first.
Second, I'm disappointed Obama wants to appease the rightists. Honestly, some of them have good ideas, but many of their politicians and leaders want Obama to fail simply because he's left-wing.
Third, I'm angry at all the war supporters not supporting this. Hypocrites. Why don't you support this? Is it because Fox News doesn't? Shouldn't you be happy for the troop surge? You were for the war, just not more troops? Why, is the draft finally looking to close to your own life and family?
That leads me to my fourth point. For all the war supporters, we should have 2 things. For them. 1. A mandatory draft for both genders. 2. A wartime tax. Rich people investing in those companies helping "rebuild" Afghanistan and Iraq and bomb Afghanistan and Iraq are getting richer because of their investments. Those companies are getting money from both the US and the foreign governments to do what they're doing. Part of it goes to investors, of course. What complete BS. Give them a wartime tax and see who will support it. Give those political snobs a mandatory draft for both genders and see who will support it. See who will support it when the people already supporting it have their money taken away and possibly their sons and daughters.
(That's why I don't think McCain is a bad person, just a bad politician.)

Whatever! · 12-28-2009, 01:59 AM

Here's your reality check.

Pentagon Pouring Your Money Into Afghanistan: Are They Preparing for a Very Long War? | | AlterNet

Quote:

In fiscal year 2009, for example, the civilian U.S. Agency for International Development awarded $20 million in contracts for work in Afghanistan, while the U.S. Army alone awarded $2.2 billion -- $834 million of it for construction projects. In fact, according to Walter Pincus of the Washington Post, the Pentagon has spent "roughly $2.7 billion on construction over the past three fiscal years" in that country and, "if its request is approved as part of the fiscal 2010 defense appropriations bill, it would spend another $1.3 billion on more than 100 projects at 40 sites across the country, according to a Senate report on the legislation."

Bogged Down at Bagram

Nowhere has the building boom been more apparent than Bagram Air Base, a key military site used by the Soviet Union during its occupation of Afghanistan in the 1980s. In its American incarnation, the base has significantly expanded from its old Soviet days and, in just the last two years, the population of the more than 5,000 acre compound has doubled to 20,000 troops, in addition to thousands of coalition forces and civilian contractors. To keep up with its exponential growth rate, more than $200 million in construction projects are planned or in-progress at this moment on just the Air Force section of the base. "Seven days a week, concrete trucks rumble along the dusty perimeter road of this air base as bulldozers and backhoes reshape the rocky earth," Chuck Crumbo of The State reported recently. "Hundreds of laborers slap mortar onto bricks as they build barracks and offices. Four concrete plants on the base have operated around the clock for 18 months to keep up with the construction needs."

The base already boasts fast food favorites Burger King, a combination Pizza Hut/Bojangles, and Popeyes as well as a day spa and shops selling jewelry, cell phones and, of course, Afghan rugs. In the near future, notes Pincus, "the military is planning to build a $30 million passenger terminal and adjacent cargo facility to handle the flow of troops, many of whom arrive at the base north of Kabul before moving on to other sites." In addition, according to the Associated Press, the base command is "acquiring more land next year on the east side to expand" even further.

To handle the influx of troops already being dispatched by the Obama administration (with more expected once the president decides on his long-term war plans) "new dormitories" are going up at Bagram, according to David Axe of the Washington Times. The base's population will also increase in the near future, thanks to a project-in-progress recently profiled in The Freedom Builder, an Army Corps of Engineers publication: the MILCON Bagram Theatre Internment Facility (TIF) currently being built at a cost of $60 million by a team of more than 1,000 Filipinos, Indians, Sri Lankans, and Afghans. When completed, it will consist of 19 buildings and 16 guard towers designed to hold more than 1,000 detainees on the sprawling base which has long been notorious for the torture and even murder of prisoners within its confines.

While the United States officially insists that it is not setting up permanent bases in Afghanistan, the scale and permanency of the construction underway at Bagram seems to suggest, at the least, a very long stay. According to published reports, in fact, the new terminal facilities for the complex aren't even slated to be operational until 2011.

The rich are just stealing taxes in Afghanistan since Iraq is shutting down.,

bisurge · 12-28-2009, 04:17 AM

Nice find. I thought the rich were making money off of investing in resources and in "rebuilding" places.
But how is that a reality check? (sorry I'm not good with terms like those)

Whatever! · 01-02-2010, 08:45 AM

Quote:

Originally stated by bisurge

Nice find. I thought the rich were making money off of investing in resources and in "rebuilding" places.
But how is that a reality check? (sorry I'm not good with terms like those)

They are. There's a pipeline being built in Afghanistan. That's why the contractors out number the troops 12 to 1

The Afghan Pipeline You Don't Know About

Quote:

and speaking of oil, just when we were barely getting used to Big Oil and Iraq hitting the front pages of American newspapers in tandem, here comes Afghanistan! Who now remembers that delegation of Taliban officials, shepherded by Unocal ("We're an oil and gas company. We go where the oil and gas is…"), back in 1999, that made an all-expenses paid visit to the U.S. There was even that side trip to Mt. Rushmore, while the company (with U.S. encouragement) was negotiating a $1.9 billion pipeline that would bring Central Asian oil and natural gas through Afghanistan to Pakistan? Oh, and who was a special consultant to Unocal on the prospective deal? Zalmay Khalilzad, our present neocon ambassador to the U.N., George W. Bush's former viceroy of Kabul and then Baghdad, and a rumored future "Afghan" presidential candidate.

Those pipeline negotiations only broke down definitively in August 2001, one month before, well, you know… and, as Toronto's Globe and Mail columnist Lawrence Martin put it, "Washington was furious, leading to speculation it might take out the Taliban. After 9/11, the Taliban, with good reason, were removed -- and pipeline planning continued with the Karzai government. U.S. forces installed bases near Kandahar, where the pipeline was to run. A key motivation for the pipeline was to block a competing bid involving Iran, a charter member of the 'axis of evil.'"

Well, speak of the dead and not-quite-buried. It turns out that, in April, Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and India (acronymically TAPI) signed a Gas Pipeline Framework Agreement to build a U.S.-backed $7.6 billion pipeline. It would, of course, bypass Iran and new energy giant Russia, carrying Turkmeni natural gas and oil to Pakistan and India. Construction would, theoretically, begin in 2010. Put the emphasis on "theoretically," because the pipeline is, once again, to run straight through Kandahar and so directly into the heartland of the Taliban insurgency.

Pepe Escobar of Asia Times caught the spirit of the moment perfectly: "The government of Afghan President Hamid Karzai, which cannot even provide security for a few streets in central Kabul, has engaged in Hollywood-style suspension of disbelief by assuring unsuspecting customers it will not only get rid of millions of land mines blocking TAPI's route, it will get rid of the Taliban themselves." Nonetheless, as in Iraq, American (and NATO) troops could one day be directly protecting (and dying for) the investments of Big Oil in a new version of the old imperial "Great Game" with a special modern emphasis on pipeline politics.

There has been a flurry of reportage on the revived pipeline plan in Canada, where -- bizarrely enough -- journalists and columnists actually worry about such ephemeral possibilities as Canadian troops spending the next half century protecting Turkmeni energy. If you happen to live in the U.S., though, you would really have no way of knowing about such developments, no less their backstory, unless you were wandering the foreign press online.

To put the lack of coverage here in perspective, consider Nick Turse's latest piece on the Iraq/Big Oil story that did, at last, hit the mainstream news here (only a few years late in the Great Game). Turse offers further leads for mainstream reporters finally ready to pursue the story wherever it leads, even back into an ignored, and oily, past. Let's hope Afghanistan's pipeline gets similar attention one of these days. Tom

bisurge · 01-06-2010, 02:46 PM

Quote:

Originally stated by Whatever!

They are. There's a pipeline being built in Afghanistan. That's why the contractors out number the troops 12 to 1

The Afghan Pipeline You Don't Know About

There's more than just pipelines. There's just a whole reconstruction of Afghanistan (including oil fields) that wasn't even put up to bid.
Here's one example.
BearingPoint Wins Afghanistan Rebuilding Contract -- Outsourcing -- InformationWeek
Now tell me it isn't coincidence that the army is giving these contracts away to big American corporations? Maybe boost American economy? Or make the rich richer in this case. Give the stockholders what they came for. Give the CEOs the rest. Hopefully let some trickle down to the lower employees before these big businessmen plug up the holes.
Now here's an even more ridiculous one.
Halliburton Watch
A no-bid $7 billion contract to extinguish oil fires and rebuild Iraq's oil infrastructure. How ridiculous. That's just complete crap. We don't see these making headline news.
How about Blackwater?
Blackwater CIA Updates Civilianism News

Quote:

Obviously, Blackwater is now protecting the oil companies.

That's what should be noted. They're protecting oil companies, not governments. They're guarding the CIA and oil fields. What? How about protecting the Iraqi government?

12-04-2009, 08:44 AM	#1
bisurge Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 122	30,000+ Troop Surge I hate all those people that continually talk about how all the troops are there to fight 100 Al Queda and less than 10,000 Taliban members. Because their sphere of influence reaches many, MANY civilians. Especially religious conservatives/radicals. That's what's first. Second, I'm disappointed Obama wants to appease the rightists. Honestly, some of them have good ideas, but many of their politicians and leaders want Obama to fail simply because he's left-wing. Third, I'm angry at all the war supporters not supporting this. Hypocrites. Why don't you support this? Is it because Fox News doesn't? Shouldn't you be happy for the troop surge? You were for the war, just not more troops? Why, is the draft finally looking to close to your own life and family? That leads me to my fourth point. For all the war supporters, we should have 2 things. For them. 1. A mandatory draft for both genders. 2. A wartime tax. Rich people investing in those companies helping "rebuild" Afghanistan and Iraq and bomb Afghanistan and Iraq are getting richer because of their investments. Those companies are getting money from both the US and the foreign governments to do what they're doing. Part of it goes to investors, of course. What complete BS. Give them a wartime tax and see who will support it. Give those political snobs a mandatory draft for both genders and see who will support it. See who will support it when the people already supporting it have their money taken away and possibly their sons and daughters. (That's why I don't think McCain is a bad person, just a bad politician.)

12-28-2009, 04:17 AM	#3
bisurge Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 122	Re: 30,000+ Troop Surge Nice find. I thought the rich were making money off of investing in resources and in "rebuilding" places. But how is that a reality check? (sorry I'm not good with terms like those)

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
AP: Troop and Civilain casualties contiue to fall!	Silverchild79	World Politics	42	11-16-2007 09:15 AM
Dems backing down from troop withdrawl	Silverchild79	World Politics	4	10-10-2007 01:53 PM
The Surge and the Al Qaeda Bunny	aaronssongs	World Politics	4	09-22-2007 05:03 AM
U.S. Considers Large, Temporary Troop Increase in Iraq	Curmudgeon	World Politics	12	11-29-2006 12:24 PM
Bush won't commit to Iraq troop changes	tumbleweed	American Politics	23	11-21-2006 07:29 PM