Oil pipeline from Iraq to Israel
If true, very worrying!
It will never work!!! unless every inch of it is protected.
Hmmmm of course this war has nothing to do with OIL.......
It will never work!!! unless every inch of it is protected.
Hmmmm of course this war has nothing to do with OIL.......
Comments
This pipeline will probabily a target of choice for terrorists. It will be better to hide this pipeline under meters of rock or sand ...
Originally posted by Scott
Good example of poor journalism.
Care to elaborate on that?
Originally posted by Anders the White
Care to elaborate on that?
It's from the Guardian = not conservative = poor journalism.
One of the major problems with this article is it's use of connotative words.
siphon, conquered, US-dominated, cutting out, quietly renewed
Just to mention a few. This all basic stuff and I'm surprised I have to tell supposedly educated people about this. As a homework assignment find 10 other words that convey a connotation and tell me if they are negative or positive.
Here's how some of these are used
"Plans to build a pipeline to siphon oil from newly conquered Iraq to Israel" Now I get the impression that the evil thieving Jews are up to it again. Gonna cheat people by "siphon"ing oil from Iraq.
"bringing revenue to the new US-dominated Iraq" Ahhhh here we see the real reason ... bring revenue the US-dominated Iraq. Those evil Americans wanted to take the oil the whole time and sell it to the Jews.
"It would also create an end less and easily accessible source of cheap Iraqi oil for the US ..."
"endless"? How is sipping Iraq's oil threw an straw in Israel "endless".
... guaranteed by reliable allies other than Saudi Arabia - a keystone of US foreign policy for decades and especially since 11 September 2001."
This one's interesting. Why mention 9-11?
We have only a few anonymous quotes to back up the supposed underlying motivation for all of this. How is that good journalism?
then later
"The memorandum has been quietly renewed every five years"
AHHHHH! "quietly renewed" I see! Normally when something is renewed it's done with a horn section on the Tonight Show but this one was quietly renewed. Must have been done quietly too keep people from knowing about it.
All joking aside if I were to click off my brain and not think for myself and allow the Guardian do it for me I'd get the following impression. Now that the US controls Iraqi oil they are going to pipe it to the Jews to undercut the arabs and then buy for less than market value.
The fact that people can't see the bias and over analysis in a hard news story just show that you have been starved of good journalism for too long. You don't know bad journalism when you see it.
And it's a heavily-biased speculation piece with little substance.
Originally posted by Scott
The fact that people can't see the bias and over analysis in a hard news story just show that you have been starved of good journalism for too long. You don't know bad journalism when you see it.
I don't think it's that we couldn't see the bias, it's just that your original post had less information than even this report from the Guardian, thus it was more useless than the report from the Guardian.
Originally posted by Anders the White
ANd me and Bunge didn´t even coordinate the posts above
They are time stamped to prove it!
Originally posted by Scott
Oh god where to start....
And here I thought he was just talking about the repeated use of the phrase "At a stroke."
http://www.janes.com/security/intern...0416_1_n.shtml
Here's John Marshall's take on it:
At a Passover seder a few days ago I was talking to an Israeli emigre who told me there was a long-abandoned oil pipeline connecting the Iraqi city of Mosul to the Israeli port city in Haifa. The pipeline was built by the British in the 1930s and 1940s. But it was shut down in 1948 when the Brits quit Palestine and the state of Israel was born. It's sat unused for more than half a century.
The implications of reopening such a pipeline under the auspices of a pro-American Iraqi government were obvious to me immediately. But I didn't know if the idea had yet gotten much serious attention.
It turns out that it has. Quite a lot, actually. The issue was first raised by Israel's Minister of National Infrastructure at the end of March. His comments were reported in the Israeli daily Ha'aretz. Here's a more recent piece from Janes (the British defense industry news publisher) and another in Sunday's Guardian.
The Guardian piece not only confirms that this is being actively discussed in Israel, but also that the Israelis are discussing it with US administration officials as well as members of Ahmed Chalabi's INC. (Add to this, Richard Perle's statement last month that Chalabi "and his people have confirmed that they want a real peace process, and that they would recognize the state of Israel. There is no doubt about that if they come to power."
This captures what's at the heart of my deepest misgivings about this whole endeavor we're now embarked upon: fatal overreach on the part of American policy-makers. It's an overreach with multiple causes, none of which will lead to anything good.
I'd like nothing better than to see a pro-Israeli government in Baghdad. It would be great if they could start pumping oil from Mosul through Jordan to Haifa. Same goes for a "real peace process." But what is the chance of any of these things happening in the short term and the new government of Iraq actually being democratic?
What sort of government in the Arab world, born of what is at best the iffy origin of an American invasion, would kick things off by establishing warm relations with Israel and opening a pipeline to sell Iraqi oil to the Israelis? The answer, I'd imagine, is one that won't last a second longer than American troops are on the ground.
There are those who think that Arab hostility toward Israel is largely the product of corrupt, authoritarian governments that divert popular unrest into rage against Israel. I think there's a degree of truth to that argument. But even if you grant the point, which I do only to a limited degree, it's still quite possible that that antipathy will persist long after the corrupt, authoritarian governments who fed it leave the scene.
It's already clear that our credibility and Arab perceptions of our motives are extremely poor. To make this democratization project work, we will really have to be, as the old-timers say, purer than Caesar's wife. If we treat Iraq simultaneously as a democratization project and as grab-bag to fill out our geopolitical wish list, then we're heading for disaster.
We hear a lot, and rightly so, that this effort is going to require patience. Usually that's meant in the sense of patience to stay involved in Iraq's affairs for a very long time. But we're just as much in need of patience to achieve our most desired ends in the region. If we don't have it, if we try to squeeze this orange for every quick advantage, we really are heading for disaster.
-- Josh Marshall
from TPM: http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/
furthermore
scott:
"... guaranteed by reliable allies other than Saudi Arabia - a keystone of US foreign policy for decades and especially since 11 September 2001."
This one's interesting. Why mention 9-11? If that's been the policy for a long time and didn't change on 9-11 why mention it now. It's irrelevant.
I see you apparently aren't aware of one of the major neo-con objectives. I didn't realize there were caves to live in here in Chicago.
Originally posted by Scott
Giant you've added nothing new. As usual.
keep trying. Maybe someday you and alcimedes can make the sun rise in the west if you repeat it enough times
Originally posted by giant
keep trying. Maybe someday you and alcimedes can make the sun rise in the west if you repeat it enough times
I'm not sure what you are talking about?
Originally posted by alcimedes
*whew* here i thought i was the only one.
Considering the mean IQ score is 100, there will be a few of your sub-100 kind. But that's ok. 85 is still considered normal.
Originally posted by bunge
So has everyone decided if this is or isn't a bad thing?
I like what Josh said:
What sort of government in the Arab world, born of what is at best the iffy origin of an American invasion, would kick things off by establishing warm relations with Israel and opening a pipeline to sell Iraqi oil to the Israelis?