Poly, You asked, "how does the USA benefit from this? Will they make it a 'toll' pipeline?" and I answered "...Haliburton...".
To which you respond:
"So Symp....ur saying that it's all about Haliburton making a pipeline which will benefit no one but Haliburton in the USA ?
Kinda stretches the cred a tad you know. There are so many other factors to consider."

Actually I was not saying that it was "all about Haliburton", but the fact that the former CEO of that corporation was one of the decision makers in initiating the war on Afghanistan is significant.

Nor was I saying that the pipeline would "benefit no one but Haliburton in the USA", as you well know. Haliburton is only one of the corporations to benefit, along with the oil companies extracting, refining and distributing the oil, all well represented in the Bush/Cheney cabinet.

I suppose you accept the line that it was all about saving the poor people of Afghanistan from the dreaded al Qaeda/Taliban dictatorship?

daggett: << Others may choose to look at daggett's recent contributions at OLO...

[...]

I urge people to look at the evidence as cacofonix has urged. >>

James, I tend to think you're getting obsessed when you trot out your "cacofonix" sock puppet in order to back up what "daggett" is arguing, particularly when it involves a far-fetched conspiracy that's been well and truly debunked.

It's a pity, because you often raise good points and then go and blow your credibility by raving on about some conspiracy or another, more often than not deploying one of your sock puppets to try and support your ideas.

CJM to me it is your own credibility in question. You are the sockpuppet. You are the raving lunatic who is opposed to any further exposure of the attacks.

Whether you are naive, ignorant, or simply fearful of the implications, I'm not sure, but it's a disservice not to demand the truth and nothing but the truth that many of these facts (granted some are probably inaccurate, but do you really expect a conspiracy theorist to be 100% accurate when all intelligence agencies allegedly failed to detect the attacks, and crafted lies about the Iraq War?).

It sounds like you need to read this a bit and learn something about history, abuse of power and governments, and the people in them: http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2002/How-To-Start-A-WarMay02.htm

Do I need to even mention that the Iraq War was a TOTAL FABRICATION of Western govenrments (inluding intelligence agencies) and the media?

It is no coincidence that most of those conspiracy theorist who think somehow Mr Bush had something to do with 9/11 are also strong believers in global warming (sorry climate change). And to think that they are the first to mock creation. Just hilarious! Next you will be arguing that the dope you have been smoking has not affected your rationality.

dagget, http://www.loosechangeguide.com/LooseChangeGuide.html A detailed examination of the claims in Loose Change and where they fall short.

I think that may be sufficient.

I will leave other users an form their own judgments as to whether or not 'cacofonix' (i.e myself) like at least two other OLO user accounts, is a fictitious invention of daggett, as C J Morgan has alleged.

If people conclude that it is, then they should also ask themselves if it is likely, as C J Morgan implies, that daggett, having little credibility of his own on OLO, found it necessary to invent at least three other accounts to shore up his shaky credibility, particularly in order to peddle crank conspiracy theories that would otherwise receive little hearing.

I would suggest that even to pose that question would show up C J Morgan as, at best, being illogical and paranoid. Given that there have already been at least two long-winded and time-consuming arguments over this started (in my view with malicious intent) by C J Morgan including the one at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=6482#97773 is it really conceivable that daggett would have thought that he could have pulled it off, given that C J Morgan had already jumped in to denounce daggett's initial contribution as "conspiracy crap" which is "off the wall"?

If anyone were to choose to examine the thread referred to above they would find that another user openly admitted to having set up a second account.

Even if it were to be found that daggett was guilty of having committed that same heinous crime, I would suggest that it may have been for motives, less sinister than what C J Morgan has implied, for example, to get around the OLO limits in order to provide useful and timely contributions to the discussion. Indeed, even C J Morgan himself at one point during that marathon argument curiously acknowledged the value of my contributions.