Every major terror threat involves Pakistan: CIA

Discussion in 'Pakistan's War' started by batmannow, Nov 15, 2008.

Share This Page

  1. fatman17
    Offline

    fatman17 PDF THINK TANK: CONSULTANT

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2007
    Messages:
    16,810
    Ratings:
    +9 / 16,016 / -1
    Country:
    Pakistan
    Location:
    Pakistan
    u beat me to it. i posted it in the national politics section.!
  2. batmannow
    Offline

    batmannow ELITE MEMBER

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2008
    Messages:
    11,789
    Ratings:
    +1 / 4,242 / -4
    Country:
    Pakistan
    Location:
    Thailand
    Dear S-2; sir
    i guss, this the old policy crap, which was been kept runing from 2002 till now, nothing new!:agree::tsk::crazy:
    well, i guss its about time that ! pakistan should ask US to supply DRONE like equipments to take on TERRORISTS, if US is realy serious in its support to pakistan, the policy of surprized DRONE attacks should be stopped immediatly, CIA opertives should be kept out of pakistan!:angry:
    US govt should have its own policy regurds pakistan, & cia WRITTEN SCRIPT should be scrapped.:agree::tup:
  3. batmannow
    Offline

    batmannow ELITE MEMBER

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2008
    Messages:
    11,789
    Ratings:
    +1 / 4,242 / -4
    Country:
    Pakistan
    Location:
    Thailand
    My very dear waraich66; sir
    good post, but did you think CIA , is a donkey , who ever, whenever, wants it to ride, its available?
    do think that they dont have brains, sory to say but if they can get rid of gen.zia, gen musharaf, they can get rid of gen kiyani?:agree:
  4. S-2
    Offline

    S-2 PROFESSIONAL

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2007
    Messages:
    4,228
    Ratings:
    +0 / 2,500 / -0
    "Obama is house nigro..."

    This is nothing but an unacceptably racist remark and will stop. I'm alerting a moderator.
  5. S-2
    Offline

    S-2 PROFESSIONAL

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2007
    Messages:
    4,228
    Ratings:
    +0 / 2,500 / -0
    ""Uptill now US is covering their expenditure of Afghanistan war through iraq oil income..."

    This is a lie. Not one DROP of Iraqi oil has been stolen or provided free as war booty/largesse. Provide proof or back away from the comment.

    Let's stop with the nonsense along with the tasteless racist slurs.
  6. pkpatriotic
    Offline

    pkpatriotic SENIOR MEMBER

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2008
    Messages:
    2,566
    Ratings:
    +0 / 852 / -0
    Dear Freind S-2, I have good impression about you and Black Stone, that you both are reasonably decent, bold and cool minded with strong nerves...able to face any sort of strong a& bitterest criticism being a bold and a well- determined brave irony soldier who can only assure the success otherwise any sort of anxiety & stress always makes individuals imperfact and unethical who can't win the tasks for his country. Well... its really surprising to me that what happened as you are losing temperament, calm down friend and let allow fellows to express their annoyance against US's strategical policies hurting the world........don't you beleive on freedom of expression? after all USA is a global leader of todays unipolar world .........Here I would suggest you to be bold and think seriously on the situation that what american is doing it's nothing more then to just earn hatered among the peoples. In my view the actual leader always win the heart of peoples besides the conquering of land.
    Dont you think american strategies hurting the image and goodwill of american nation.
    My dear you have asked proof for oil income..........ok it will also expose .....but lets come first come first served basis .........as Americans took plea of WMD but Its now clear that they couldn't find even any single bolt or chemical of WMD to show to the world in support of their fake claim for WMD in IRAQ, for which US planned a severe attack of Iraq........do you please remember.......but no problem being a global citizen I am here to cooperate support you in real sense, principly...:cheers:

    An artical for your ready reference regarding Iraqi Oil beneficiary, (who are now extremly trying to continue there control over Oil):

    Please also check the following link:
    State Department Inspector to Investigate Texas Oil Company’s Deal in Kurdistan
    THANKS & REGARDS
    Last edited: Nov 21, 2008
  7. dk33
    Offline

    dk33 MEMBER

    New Recruit

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2007
    Messages:
    38
    Ratings:
    +0 / 15,629 / -0
    Warraich- the comment you posted about B Obama is unacceptable. It was unacceptable when Zwahiri made it, and it is unacceptable when anyone else makes it.

    Quite frankly, for all the criticism some Muslims direct at the West for their being a 'decayed and degenerate society' comments like the one you made only serve to illustrate how deep the prejudices and flaws amongst Muslims are.

    If anything, Zawahiri's racist comments should indicate to you how completely unrepresentative of Islam, or anything that is just. good or 'right', Al Qaeda's agenda is.

    Since this is multiple times that you have made a racial, religious or ethnically derogatory comment, take a break for a while.
    • Thanks Thanks x 3
  8. pkpatriotic
    Offline

    pkpatriotic SENIOR MEMBER

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2008
    Messages:
    2,566
    Ratings:
    +0 / 852 / -0
    The following article as an additional reference for you":enjoy:

    THE STRUGGLE FOR IRAQ: RECONSTRUCTION; Report Offered Bleak Outlook About Iraq Oil - New York Times
    By JEFF GERTH
    Published: October 5, 2003


    The Bush administration's optimistic statements earlier this year that Iraq's oil wealth, not American taxpayers, would cover most of the cost of rebuilding Iraq were at odds with a bleaker assessment of a government task force secretly established last fall to study Iraq's oil industry, according to public records and government officials.

    The task force, which was based at the Pentagon as part of the planning for the war, produced a book-length report that described the Iraqi oil industry as so badly damaged by a decade of trade embargoes that its production capacity had fallen by more than 25 percent, panel members have said.

    Despite those findings, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz told Congress during the war that ''we are dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon.''

    Moreover, Vice President Dick Cheney said in April, on the day Baghdad fell, that Iraq's oil production could hit 3 million barrels a day by the end of the year, even though the task force had determined that Iraq was generating less than 2.4 million barrels a day before the war.

    Now, as the Bush administration requests $20.3 billion from Congress for reconstruction next year, the chief reasons cited for the high price tag are sabotage of oil equipment -- and the poor state of oil infrastructure already documented by the task force.

    ''The problem is this,'' L. Paul Bremer III, the top civilian administrator in Iraq, asserted at a Senate hearing two weeks ago: ''The oil infrastructure was severely run down over the last 20 years, and partly because of sanctions over the last decade.''

    Similarly, Bush administration officials announced earlier this year that Iraq's oil revenues would be $20 billion to $30 billion a year, which added to the impression that the aftermath of the war would place a minimal burden on the United States. Mr. Bremer now estimates that Iraq's total oil revenues from the last half of 2003 to 2005 will amount to $35 billion, running at a rate of about $14 billion a year.

    The administration now plays down the report's findings.

    Senior administration officials said that Mr. Cheney, Mr. Wolfowitz and Donald H. Rumsfeld, the secretary of defense, were aware of the oil group's overall mission, but that they could not say whether they knew of its specific findings.

    ''I think when it is all said and done,'' said Lawrence Di Rita, the Pentagon's chief spokesman, ''prewar estimates that may be borne out in fact are likelier to be more lucky than smart.''

    Mr. Di Rita added that earlier estimates and statements by Mr. Wolfowitz and others ''oozed with uncertainty.''

    Iraq's Most Valuable Asset


    In the months leading up to the war, administration officials said little in public about oil, partly because they were ''encumbered by fear'' that their actions would be seen as helping the American petroleum industry, said one administration adviser. But behind the scenes, officials were studying how to handle Iraq's most valuable asset.

    It was evident from much of the information they received that Iraq's oil was not a ready resource for reconstruction.

    One expert consulted by the government, Amy Myers Jaffe, who heads the energy program at the James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy at Rice University in Houston, said her group concluded in a report last December that ''oil revenues would not be enough and that the expenses of reconstruction would be huge.''

    In addition, United Nations reports dating back to the late 1990's documented the deterioration that occurred in Iraq's oil system as a result of trade embargoes, which curtailed Iraq's access to technology and equipment.

    The administration's examination of the subject began last September when Douglas J. Feith, the under secretary of defense for policy, asked an adviser to oversee plans for Iraq's oil industry in the event of war, according to a Pentagon official involved in the project.

    The result was the Energy Infrastructure Planning Group, whose existence has not been previously disclosed. It drew on the expertise of government specialists including the Central Intelligence Agency and retired senior energy executives. It planned how to secure the oil industry during the war and, afterward, restoring it to its prewar capacity.

    The task force's job was not to make a direct assessment of how much money the oil industry could contribute to rebuilding Iraq. But determining Iraq's actual oil production capacity was important. First, it could help other administration officials gauge how much revenue might be generated for the reconstruction effort. Second, the administration was concerned that it did not want to be seen as profiting from invading an oil-rich nation and giving oil production levels a boost.

    The task force concluded that although Iraq's stated production capacity was just over 3 million barrels per day, the system was only producing 2.1 million to 2.4 million barrels, panel members said.

    ''I think most people would agree that the 2.4 was a little high and the average for 2002 was 2.1,'' said a Pentagon official on the task force who spoke on the condition of anonymity. The ''condition of the Iraqi oil infrastructure was not particularly good,'' the official said. ''That would be evident to anybody who realized the country had been under U.N. sanctions for many years.''

    The United Nations produced reports on Iraq regularly from 1998 to 2001. The documents painted a picture of a troubled system and cited the need for improvements, some of which are now being proposed by Mr. Bremer, like the $125 million repair of the Qarmat Ali water plant in the south.

    In April, when Vice President Cheney was asked about Iraq's oil during an appearance before newspaper editors, he cited higher numbers rather than the task force's more sober findings.

    While noting that Iraq's oil fields were in ''bad shape,'' Mr. Cheney said, ''With some investment we ought to be able to get production back up on the order of 2.5, 3 million barrels a day, within, hopefully by the end of the year.''

    An aide to the vice president said recently that those estimates were ''consistent with prewar capacity,'' but could not say whether Mr. Cheney was aware of the task force's different assessment.

    An Optimistic Vision

    The administration was also optimistic when it came to public estimates of Iraq's oil revenues.

    Shortly after the war began in March, the administration's budget office provided Congress and reporters with a background paper on Iraq. It said that Iraq would ''not require sustained aid'' because of its abundant resources, including oil and natural gas.

    On March 27, Mr. Wolfowitz, the deputy defense secretary, told the House Appropriations Committee that his ''rough recollection'' was that ''The oil revenues of that country could bring between $50 billion and $100 billion over the course of the next two or three years.''

    Testifying in the Senate that same day, Mr. Rumsfeld emphasized that ''when it comes to reconstruction, before we turn to the American taxpayers we will turn first to the resources of the Iraqi government.'' He noted that the war's costs were not knowable, but he also said an important source of money for reconstruction would flow after the United States worked ''with the Iraqi interim authority that will be established to tap Iraq's oil revenues.''

    At the outset of the war, the administration had asked Congress for $62 billion for Iraq, which included $1.7 billion for reconstruction and $489 million for oil-related repairs.

    In a televised interview in late April, Andrew S. Natsios, head of the United States Agency for International Development, the group overseeing Iraq's reconstruction, said that amount was ''it for the U.S.'' He said any other reconstruction money would come from elsewhere, including other countries and future ''Iraqi oil revenues,'' which he predicted at ''$20 billion a year.''

    In an interview this week, Mr. Natsios said he had based those comments on ''the discussion in the interagency process at the time,'' adding, ''That's what the Office of Management and Budget was telling us.''

    Trent Duffy, a budget office spokesman, said this week that ''the administration was very clear that the $1.7 billion in initial reconstruction was for the beginning stages and that it was necessary to get a better understanding of the fuller, comprehensive needs going forward.''

    Last week, appearing again before the Senate committee, Mr. Rumsfeld said, ''I don't think I did misjudge'' Iraq's oil capacity. According to current projections, he said, the country's oil revenues will grow to $12 billion next year from $2 billion this year; they should reach $19 billion in 2005 and $20 billion in 2006.

    ''So, their oil revenues will be contributing,'' Mr. Rumsfeld said.

    Yet Mr. Bremer, in his remarks to legislators two weeks ago, said that for the next two years, whatever revenue was reaped from oil production would not exceed the cost of Iraq's day-to-day operating expenses. In 2005, he said, there would be a surplus of only $4 million to $5 million.

    As for Mr. Cheney's projection in April that oil would produce as much as $20 billion a year, a Cheney aide said last week that ''there was much more extensive damage due to looting and sabotage, so we're not going to get there when the vice president anticipated.''

    Reassessing Revenues


    The public revenue estimates made in the spring were in line with the very top range of projections made by the Pentagon task force.

    According to the Pentagon official who served on the task force, its projections for yearly oil revenues were $25 billion to $30 billion ''in the very best case, no sabotage and little or no battle damage,'' and about $16 billion in the ''worse than best case.''

    The worst case was no revenue for a few years, if there was ''major sabotage and some significant battle damage.''

    Last December the Baker Institute estimated that even if there was no war damage, ''Iraq's total oil revenues would still only likely average around $10 billion to $12 billion annually.''

    Yet even after the war, some officials in Washington seemed to cling to an optimistic view of Iraq's oil production.

    In July, Mr. Wolfowitz told a group of senators that production had reached ''over a million barrels per day.'' Although Iraq was having electrical power problems, Mr. Wolfowitz said the oil was flowing ''because we brought in portable generators to provide electricity'' and planned to bring in more.

    But Philip Carroll, a retired petroleum executive and the senior American oil adviser in Baghdad, said in an interview that Iraqi oil production ''experienced a terrible month in July because electrical problems cut us back to half of what we should have produced.'' Those problems, including the need to import considerable fuel, he said, led him to arrange new generator leases in late July.

    Mr. Carroll said that although gross production for the week of July 25 was a million barrels a day, 350,000 barrels had to be injected back into the ground, because of a lack of storage or distribution infrastructure.

    An aide to Mr. Wolfowitz said he believed that the oil information came from a briefing and that Mr. Wolfowitz's testimony was ''sober and nuanced.''

    Once the war ended, and United States officials gained access to Iraq's oil records, they got a more complete picture.

    ''When we actually got their production figures for 2002, we were able to make a distinction between productive capacity and what they were actually producing,'' said Gary Loew, an Army Corps of Engineers official, reducing their capacity figures by 20 to 25 percent.

    That reduction roughly corresponded to the Pentagon task force's cuts before the war began.
  9. S-2
    Offline

    S-2 PROFESSIONAL

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2007
    Messages:
    4,228
    Ratings:
    +0 / 2,500 / -0
    Please remember Waraich66 specific comment-

    "Uptill now US is covering their expenditure of Afghanistan war through iraq oil income..."

    This demands substantiation. His comment is definitive. His sourcing is non-existent. It's never happened but here and throughout the muslim world it's accepted as fact.

    Couldn't be further from the truth. It's comments such as this that reflects the huge gulf existing today between peoples.

    I see your article from Oct. 5, 2003. I presume that you wish to make a case that Iraqi oil production is an unmanagable mess and subject to the whims of U.S. officials.

    This, too, couldn't be further from the truth. Here's something a bit closer to today's reality. From Feb. 1, 2008-

    Iraq's Rivival Boosted as Oil Production Rises to 2.4m barrels a Day- Times of London

    Their minister sees production exceeding Hussain's era this year with production to reach 6.0m bbls daily within four years.

    A U.S. lock on production? Let's look at the words of Mr. Hussain al-Shahristani, Iraq's Oil Minister-

    “Everybody in the world, more than 45 companies, have approached us and shown a very keen interest in working with us — the Chinese, Russians, Indians, Brazilians,”

    Gosh! Sure didn't even mention America, did he?

    The truth as it occurs daily flies in the face of much that's believed here. This is one more example. Should muslims the world over and others care to base their views of America on a narrowly-constructed narrative, they'll invariably be proved wrong.

    We're much too complex a nation to be easily pigeon-holed.

    For more information on Iraq's reconstruction, I'd recommend this site and it's updates-

    Iraq Index- Tracking Variables of Re-Construction and Security in Post-Saddam Iraq- Brookings Institute

    There's plenty of accurate information for those who wish. I hope that includes you.:agree:
    Last edited: Nov 22, 2008
  10. Awesome
    Offline

    Awesome RETIRED

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2006
    Messages:
    22,977
    Ratings:
    +5 / 20,529 / -0
    What about pumping rights? Are there not US companies in charge of drilling, pumping and refining? I don't think the US people are benefiting from Iraq, but you know very well that the US companies are having a field day in Iraq.

    The US economy as a whole as taken a hit from Iraq. The US did spend a lot a more than it can hope to benefit from it. But all that expenditure was done into hiring and operating sub-contractors. All those $500 Billion + figures that are quoted are not actually spent in bombs and bullets. They were spent in hiring a $200/hr truck driver. A $100/hr janitor and so on.

    It is quite clear that Iraqis and the Americans are not seeing a lot of money as surplus from all that oil.
  11. ejaz007
    Offline

    ejaz007 SENIOR MEMBER

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2007
    Messages:
    4,755
    Ratings:
    +1 / 1,659 / -0
    Country:
    Pakistan
    Location:
    Pakistan
    Missing Oil in Iraq Undercuts Progress
    Government Report Finds 300,000 Barrels Go Missing Each Day

    By JOHN HENDREN
    May 12, 2007

    An estimated 100,000 to 300,000 barrels of Iraq's daily oil production is unaccounted for, according to a draft report by the federal Government Accountability Office due out this week, ABC News has learned.

    At an average price of $50 a barrel, that amounts to between $5 million and $15 million lost every day in oil revenues, which currently fund at least 85 percent of the Iraqi government.

    "Since a lot of the country depends on government subsidized gasoline, food rations, without this money, it means there isn't enough for the government to spend on the people," said Pratap Chatterjee, managing editor of CorpWatch and author of "Iraq Inc."

    "It is a very critical part of the Iraqi economy," he said.

    It's impossible to know precisely how much oil goes missing. After four years of war and $38 billion in aid, Iraq still does not have accurate meters to measure how much is being exported. Therefore, the GAO compared Iraq's official oil production figures with exports and domestic consumption figures.

    "When you look at that, there's a discrepancy of a couple of hundred thousand barrels of oil a day," Chatterjee said.

    Some Iraqi officials are downplaying the situation, saying that not all the oil is going missing, but that over enthusiastic oil officials are inflating production figures to show reconstruction progress in Iraq.

    There could be a degree of truth to that, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. The agency does not rely on official Iraqi government figures on oil production because it finds them unreliable, said Erik Kreil, an oil expert with the agency.

    Yet analysts insist corruption -- in Kirkuk in the north and Shiite-dominated Basra in the south -- is at least partly to blame, and that in some cases government officials are involved.

    "It's a combination of Shiite political parties, people in Shiite government, people who are criminals, people who are contractors," said Anthony Cordesman, an ABC News consultant and military analyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, D.C. "It is a very broad-based network of corruption."

    ABC News: Missing Oil in Iraq Undercuts Progress

    I found this on the web. I do not wish to point finger on any body but considering that corrupt officials is one of the reason stated for the unaccounted oil there is a possibility that some of the US officials might be involved. After all with 150,000 US troops in the country you can not transport oil without getting noticed especially in a bowzer and that too across the border.
  12. S-2
    Offline

    S-2 PROFESSIONAL

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2007
    Messages:
    4,228
    Ratings:
    +0 / 2,500 / -0
    "...considering that corrupt officials is one of the reason stated for the unaccounted oil there is a possibility that some of the US officials might be involved."

    I see that we're side-tracking. Remember that this stems from Waraich66 assertion about how the Afghan war is being funded through stolen or misappropriated oil largesse steming from our "occupation".

    Having demolished that, we've now moved on to corruption and U.S. control of oil fields.

    I'll say this-America SHOULD have exclusivity. The facts are clear that we don't nor are we pursuing such a gambit. In truth, I'd happily argue that we shouldn't pay a penny for fuel- but we are.

    100,000-300,000 bbls per day stolen. O.K. Let's say it's true. Let's say it's VERY true. Does going from wherever we bottomed out to 2.4m bbls a day offset that? How about if production rises to 6.0m bbls daily as predicted in four years by Mr. al-Shahristani?

    Asim Aquil, you saw the nations mentioned by Mr. Shahristani, correct? It's clear that this is an open bid process for the most part. Certainly, the Iraqi gov't is determined that they gain the levers of power wherever possible and this is one area of INTENSE concentration (and more than a wee tad of COMPETITION) within the Iraqi gov't.

    The biggest question of American involvement/meddling may lay with the final resolution of oil-revenue sharing. To what extent will/can/should the U.S. support Kurdistan's propensity to "go it alone".

    If there's a rogue elephant charging about the porcelain shop, it's the Kurds position on oil.

    Speaking of revenues-

    "It is quite clear that Iraqis and the Americans are not seeing a lot of money as surplus from all that oil."

    True enough about America but how do you explain this-

    "From 2005 through 2007, the Iraqi government generated an estimated $96 billion in cumulative revenues, of which crude oil export sales accounted for about $90.2 billion, or 94 percent...From 2005 through 2007, the Iraqi government spent an estimated $67 billion on operating and investment activities."

    Neither money nor surplus is an issue. Neither is the source of those revenues-virtually all oil.

    Stabilizing and Rebuilding Iraq: Iraqi Revenues, Expenditures, and Surplus- GAO

    Before the bottom fell out of oil last month, projections for this year based upon actual revenues through June were double the average of 2005-07. Now less but still certain to exceed the annual average over the last three years.

    Allocation is the issue and, thus, politically driven.
  13. S-2
    Offline

    S-2 PROFESSIONAL

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2007
    Messages:
    4,228
    Ratings:
    +0 / 2,500 / -0
    Remember, too, that we're only discussing export revenues. This doesn't account for the allocation of Iraqi oil to IRAQ. They serve their own sector, like the Iranians, at a subsidized discount- not market pricing.
  14. S-2
    Offline

    S-2 PROFESSIONAL

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2007
    Messages:
    4,228
    Ratings:
    +0 / 2,500 / -0
    "Its now clear that they couldn't find even any single bolt or chemical of WMD to show to the world in support of their fake claim for WMD in IRAQ, for which US planned a severe attack of Iraq........do you please remember.......but no problem being a global citizen I am here to cooperate support you in real sense, principly..."

    Really?

    Try this-

    NGIC De-classified Report- June 2006

    Not a single "...bolt or chemical of WMD...", eh? How about 500 chemical munitions? Does that work? Probably not is my suspicion. Well, whatever you do, don't let the truth stand in the way of your narrative. You'll find agreement with many here on that score.

    Here's the Duelfer report to itemize the extent of Iraq's WMD programs-

    Duelfer Report (Revised w/ Addendums Added)
    • Thanks Thanks x 1