Iraq and Afghanistan .

Alright, I will be kind, history lesson of the Afghan pipeline:

http://www.alternet.org/story/12525

It is rather long, so just the begining:

"Where the "Great Game" in Afghanistan was once about czars and commissars seeking access to the warm water ports of the Persian Gulf, today it is about laying oil and gas pipelines via the untapped petroleum reserves of Central Asia, a region previously dominated by the former Soviet Union, with strong influence from Iran and Pakistan. Studies have placed the total worth of oil and gas reserves in the Central Asian republics at between $3 and $6 trillion.

Who has access to that vast sea of oil? Right now the only existing export routes from the Caspian Basin lead through Russia. U.S. oil companies have longed dreamed of their own pipeline routes that will give them control of the oil and gas resources of the Caspian Sea. Likewise, the U.S. government also wants to dominate Central Asian oil in order to reduce dependency on resources from the Persian/Arabian Gulf, which it cannot control. Thus the U.S. is poised to challenge Russian hegemony in a new version of the "Great Game."

Construction of oil and natural gas export pipelines through Afghanistan was under serious consideration during the Clinton years. In 1996, Unocal -- one of the world's leading energy resource and project development companies -- won a contract to build a 1,005-mile oil pipeline in order to exploit the vast Turkmenistan natural gas fields in Duletabad. The pipeline would extend through Afghanistan and Pakistan, terminating in Multan, near the India border."

-------------------------------------------

"However, from all records, relationships became strained. The Taliban had demanded that the U.S. should also reconstruct Afghanistan's infrastructure and that the pipeline be open for local consumption. Instead, the U.S. wanted a closed pipeline pumping gas for export only and was not interested in helping to rebuild the country.

In turn, the U.S. threatened the Taliban during the negotiations. The directive of "we'll either carpet you in gold or carpet you in bombs" was bantered about in the press to underscore the emerging willfulness of the U.S." <<<<< summer of 2001
 
Alright, I will be kind, history lesson of the Afghan pipeline:

http://www.alternet.org/story/12525

It is rather long, so just the begining:

"Where the "Great Game" in Afghanistan was once about czars and commissars seeking access to the warm water ports of the Persian Gulf, today it is about laying oil and gas pipelines via the untapped petroleum reserves of Central Asia, a region previously dominated by the former Soviet Union, with strong influence from Iran and Pakistan. Studies have placed the total worth of oil and gas reserves in the Central Asian republics at between $3 and $6 trillion.

Who has access to that vast sea of oil? Right now the only existing export routes from the Caspian Basin lead through Russia. U.S. oil companies have longed dreamed of their own pipeline routes that will give them control of the oil and gas resources of the Caspian Sea. Likewise, the U.S. government also wants to dominate Central Asian oil in order to reduce dependency on resources from the Persian/Arabian Gulf, which it cannot control. Thus the U.S. is poised to challenge Russian hegemony in a new version of the "Great Game."

Construction of oil and natural gas export pipelines through Afghanistan was under serious consideration during the Clinton years. In 1996, Unocal -- one of the world's leading energy resource and project development companies -- won a contract to build a 1,005-mile oil pipeline in order to exploit the vast Turkmenistan natural gas fields in Duletabad. The pipeline would extend through Afghanistan and Pakistan, terminating in Multan, near the India border."

-------------------------------------------

"However, from all records, relationships became strained. The Taliban had demanded that the U.S. should also reconstruct Afghanistan's infrastructure and that the pipeline be open for local consumption. Instead, the U.S. wanted a closed pipeline pumping gas for export only and was not interested in helping to rebuild the country.

In turn, the U.S. threatened the Taliban during the negotiations. The directive of "we'll either carpet you in gold or carpet you in bombs" was bantered about in the press to underscore the emerging willfulness of the U.S." <<<<< summer of 2001

I'm reading the piece Syz. You do realize that there's a difference between investigative journalism and opinion pieces? Not one single claim in the linked article provides names of officials interviewed or documents seen. Do you know why? Simple: IT'S AN OPINION PIECE. Which, while interesting, isn't really proof. I mean, I can just as easily find opinion pieces claiming the opposite, couldn't I? But it really wouldn't mean much.

~String
 
So, you've posted a link that shows that the project is non-existent.

Only the oil pipe and because they realized the oil was actually in very bad quality, not worthy of the transfer.

you've yet to demonstrate that such a project is the motivating factor for the US governments stubborn involvement in Afghanistan.

What do you want me to do? Post sercet government memos where they acknowledge it? They are SECRET for a reason, you know. On the other hand just use your BRAIN and you will see that.

Or maybe not... :(
 
Only the oil pipe and because they realized the oil was actually in very bad quality, not worthy of the transfer.



What do you want me to do? Post sercet government memos where they acknowledge it? They are SECRET for a reason, you know. On the other hand just use your BRAIN and you will see that.

Or maybe not... :(

I want you to admit that you're speculating--which is fine, and should merely be labeled as such--and have provided, heretofore, nothing beyond an opinion piece to support your lofty claims.

~String
 
I'm reading the piece Syz. You do realize that there's a difference between investigative journalism and opinion pieces?

No. But I do realize the difference between facts and opinions. Was there a meeting between the Taliban and Texas oil executives in the summer of 2001? Yes, a fact.
Was there a disagreement and basicly a US government threat? Yes.

Also in real life we don't always get smoking guns just lots of small facts and common sense conclusions.

The Afghan pipeline explain PERFECTLY the US stubborn occupation in Afghanistan. Trying to fight ghost terrorists doesn't...
 
No. But I do realize the difference between facts and opinions. Was there a meeting between the Taliban and Texas oil executives in the summer of 2001? Yes, a fact.

How do you know this? Have you see the documents? While I don't expect to see every document, I want to know how the researcher came across his information too. It's clalled "Peer Review" and it's the standard in the industry.

Was there a disagreement and basicly a US government threat? Yes.

Where? When? Who made the threat?

Also in real life we don't always get smoking guns just lots of small facts and common sense conclusions.

Duh, but when YOU make claims Syz, you're required to support those claims with something concrete. You haven't. You've connected dots which suit your end means and have trumpeted them as something credible, which they are not.

The Afghan pipeline explain PERFECTLY the US stubborn occupation in Afghanistan. Trying to fight ghost terrorists doesn't...

Well, there are scores of far more credible--even Anti-US government--journalists who've been there, sifted through papers, interviewed officials, whoe've come to very different conclusions than you. Pick up any number of books on the subjects.

"The Looming Tower"
"Ghost Wars"
"The Cell"
"Inside the Jihad"

They're pretty good starts. All of them were written by seasoned jornalists; two by notably anti-American men.

Take your pick.

When you've done even an ounce of legwork on the subject beyond google research, let me know. Your claims will be credible.

And then, if you really wanna get crazy, just read the 9/11 Report.

~String
 
I'm reading the piece Syz. You do realize that there's a difference between investigative journalism and opinion pieces? Not one single claim in the linked article provides names of officials interviewed or documents seen. Do you know why? Simple: IT'S AN OPINION PIECE. Which, while interesting, isn't really proof. I mean, I can just as easily find opinion pieces claiming the opposite, couldn't I? But it really wouldn't mean much.

~String

Do you consider the opinion of long standing civilian representative Matthew Hoh, with his years of embedded experience in the region, and who resigned on the grounds of his sincere and substantial "doubts" an opinion piece?

He expresses grave doubts not on "how" the US is pursuing the war in Afghanistan, but on "why" and to "what end". transcript
 
Last edited:
Duh, but when YOU make claims Syz, you're required to support those claims with something concrete. You haven't.

1. Just because something at the time is a SPECULATION that doesn't mean it is not TRUE. Scientists speculated for 100s of years that the Earth was round before it was proven beyond doubt.

2. Let me give you a historical analogy about speculation and documentation. Ladies and gentlemen, please enter my Timemachine:

The year is 1944 and String and Syz are sitting in a London coffe house talking about German plans about the Jews.

Syz: I think they decided to exterminate the whole nationality/religion.
String: Hogwash, where do you get such an idea?

Syz: Well, all evidence show that way. Jews are disappearing in so called workcamps and noone ever comes back alive.
String: I don't believe it, can you show me documentation of it? Maybe some of them die because of the hardness, but nothing evil is going on.

Syz: There was a secret conference at Wannsee in 1942, where they probably made the decission about the Jews' extermination.
String: Were you there? How do you know? Did you see any documents signed by Hitler or anyone higher ranked nazis?

Syz: String, it was a SECRET meeting, what do you want me to do?
String: This whole concept is just SPECULATION, until I see a document.You are crazy. You might even going to call this conspiracy Endlosung...

Well, guess whom was proven correct by TIME, documentation or not?

For extra credit:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wannsee_Conference
 
Last edited:
Oh, my motto about current history and politics is:

You believe what you want, I know what I do... :)
 
People, really. Life is so simple sometimes. The wars are not crazy, they are just immoral. They are basicly RESOURCE wars, Iraq is about oil and keeping the petrodollar the dominant world currency, not to mention removing a threat to Israel, and Afghanistan is about a natural gas pipeline.

What is so difficult about this to understand???
You are right and I agree with you .
Add to that all the military bases which represent another dominance of stealing anything they wish .:D .
 
Only the oil pipe and because they realized the oil was actually in very bad quality, not worthy of the transfer.



What do you want me to do? Post sercet government memos where they acknowledge it? They are SECRET for a reason, you know. On the other hand just use your BRAIN and you will see that.

Or maybe not... :(

Seriously, I doubt you're in possession of classified material. If you did have classified material I'd question two things.

1. How would you know it's secret?
2. Who gave you, or how did you aquire these documents?


Forgive me if I'm off my rocker though Syz. I've never had a problem with your posts in the past but just saying your verifying material is secret sounds awfuly fishy.
 
Surprisingly, I agree--somewhat--on that point. Not on the Afghanistan part, but on the point that the USA can not politically cut the military because of what it's pumping back into the economy. My little brother is receiving a commission in the Airforce for lack of work in his collegiate field (and a great commission at that). Right now the ranks of the military are flooded with over-qualified citizens who cannot otherwise find civilian jobs.

Recruiters have commented on how easy it is right now to fill the ranks.

~String

Oh, come on String.

Recruiters cannot get anyone to sign up. And defense spending in the US has always been big, war or peace-time. The men and women in the military who went there because they had no other options, itself a stereotype, also equally applies in peace.

The one major area of concern is the proliferation of private security contractors. What do they do when their business dries up in the two wars?

And if Iraq was about oil, how come we're not seeing any?

No. But I do realize the difference between facts and opinions. Was there a meeting between the Taliban and Texas oil executives in the summer of 2001? Yes, a fact.
Was there a disagreement and basicly a US government threat? Yes.

Also in real life we don't always get smoking guns just lots of small facts and common sense conclusions.

The Afghan pipeline explain PERFECTLY the US stubborn occupation in Afghanistan. Trying to fight ghost terrorists doesn't...

You really think there are no terrorists in Central Asia? Reality suggests otherwise. Meanwhile, in trumpeting the pipeline theories Leftists so love, you're making yourself look even more ridiculous. The idea for those pipelines was abandoned years ago. Efforts to restart them, efforts which would benefit Afghans, have largely failed. If the US really wanted oil and natural gas, there are plenty of other, less dangerous places to get them. Oh, and how you account for 9/11? Did we just get lucky and get hit by the country we wanted to occupy for resources?
 
Last edited:
1. How would you know it's secret?

Because Dick, the Cheney blocked the release of the information of his meeting with Ken Lay and other executives. It is a fact.

2. Who gave you, or how did you aquire these documents?

I never said I have any, but obviously there must be some kind of record of that meeting.

By the way the analogy with Wannsee stands, because the nazis also made sure nothing got recorded or whatever was, it was a pretty good secret...
 
You are on my ignore, but I made an exception out of curiosity.

You really think there are no terrorists in Central Asia?

Nobody said there weren't, but that isn't the main reason. We could have just blasted a few dozens camps and that would have been the end of it. As long as the underlying reason exists, there will always be terrorists.

The idea for those pipelines was abandoned years ago.

Documentation? :)

It is just postponed.

" Due to increasing instability, the project has essentially stalled; construction of the Turkmen part was supposed to start in 2006, but the overall feasibility is questionable since the southern part of the Afghan section runs through territory which continues to be under de facto Taliban control."

This pretty much explains it. But hey guys, let's see if time will prove me right. If in 2 years the country gets stabilized I bet there will be a sudden rush to build those pipelines.

...and I don't care who thinks the same as I do. Logic and facts are on my side....

Recruiters cannot get anyone to sign up.


WRONG again, as Ricky proved it above. They are actually cutting back on incentives, because there are so many people willing to have a job. Thanks to the recession and less casualties...

So if you don't mind I will keep ignoring you in the future. Good luck learning history!
 
Last edited:
Because Dick, the Cheney blocked the release of the information of his meeting with Ken Lay and other executives. It is a fact.

I never said I have any, but obviously there must be some kind of record of that meeting.

By the way the analogy with Wannsee stands, because the nazis also made sure nothing got recorded or whatever was, it was a pretty good secret...


:bugeye:

You'd believe that? I wouldn't look too much into conspiracies Syz. If you do however, I wouldn't post it. I also wouldn't say it's obvious to anyone.
 
Conspiracy is just a word, that usually has a negative connoctation, although it shouldn't be always the case...

Let's enter my Timemachine, one more time:

The year is 1630, you are with Galileo in Italy and you guys are working on proving the geocentric theory of the Solar system. Since it is against the popular view of the world, the Vatican calls you conspiracists, nevertheless you happen to be CORRECT.

And yes, you and Galileo think that it is OBVIOUS that the Earth goes around the Sun. :)

In plain: you CONSPIRING scientist are OBVIOUSLY CORRECT. Who would have thought?
 
Last edited:
Nah, I'm saying it's a conspiracy to be nice. It's absolutely incorrect. It holds no water, and for more reasons then one makes no sense.

Others have stated this, I won't beat a dead horse. But if you've ever talked to an Afghani, or a member(s) of the Taliban you'd have a decent idea of what is going on. Besides, it'd cost the government more money to run military bases in afghanistan then they'd make off of oil. Believe it or not.
 
It's absolutely incorrect. It holds no water,

...and these are not arguments just opinions, without some kind of logical or factual back up.

But if you've ever talked to an Afghani, or a member(s) of the Taliban you'd have a decent idea of what is going on.

Why don't you share it with us?

Besides, it'd cost the government more money to run military bases in afghanistan then they'd make off of oil. Believe it or not.

What is the cost of printing a 100 dollar bill? About 50 cents or so. Not to mention the Chinese and other foreigners financing the US debt. On the other hand, oil and gas actually can be used for making energy.
 
Back
Top