# Pipeline in Afganistan



## Makalakumu (Aug 24, 2004)

Interesting research here.  Apparently, the Taliban negotiated a deal in US companies to build a pipeline through Afgahnistan and Pakistan.

A senior delegation from the Taleban movement in Afghanistan is in the United States for talks with an international energy company that wants to construct a gas pipeline from Turkmenistan across Afghanistan to Pakistan. A spokesman for the company, Unocal, said the Taleban were expected to spend several days at the company's headquarters in Sugarland, Texas. Taleban in Texas for Talks on Gas Pipeline, BBC News, December 4, 1997 (Sugarland is 22 miles outside Houston.) 

The Taliban ministers and their advisers stayed in a five-star hotel and were chauffeured in a company minibus. Their only requests were to visit Houston's zoo, the NASA space centre and Omaha's Super Target discount store to buy stockings, toothpaste, combs and soap. The Taliban, which controls two-thirds of Afghanistan and is still fighting for the last third, was also given an insight into how the other half lives. The men, who are accustomed to life without heating, electricity or running water, were amazed by the luxurious homes of Texan oil barons. Invited to dinner at the palatial home of Martin Miller, a vice-president of Unocal, they marvelled at his swimming pool, views of the golf course and six bathrooms. After a meal of specially prepared halal meat, rice and Coca-Cola, the hardline fundamentalists - who have banned women from working and girls from going to school - asked Mr. Miller about his Christmas tree. Caroline Lees, Oil Barons Court Taliban in Texas, The Telegraph (London), December 14, 1997. 

And now we see the connection to the Bush Administration and his backers.  Haliburton and Enron in particular.

On October 27, 1997, both Unocal and Halliburton issued press releases about their energy work in Turkmenistan. Halliburton Energy Services has been providing a variety of services in Turkmenistan for the past five years. Press Release, Halliburton Alliance Awarded Integrated Service Contract Offshore Caspian Sea In Turkmenistan, October 27, 1997.  http://www.halliburton.com/news/archive/1997/hesnws_102797.jsp; 

ASHGABAT, Turkmenistan, Oct. 27, 1997 - Six international companies and the Government of Turkmenistan formed Central Asia Gas Pipeline, Ltd. (CentGas) in formal signing ceremonies here Saturday. Press Release, Consortium Formed to Build Central Asia Gas Pipeline, October 27, 1997. 

Dr. Zaher Wahab of Afghanistan, a professor in the US speaking at International Human Rights Day event, explained that Delta, Unocal as well as Russian, Pakistani and Japanese oil and gas companies have signed agreements with the Turkmenistan government, immediately north of Afghanistan, which has the fourth largest gas reserve in the world. Agreements also have been signed with the Taliban, allowing these oil and gas giants to pump Turkmenistan gas and oil through western Afghanistan to Pakistan, from which it then will be shipped all over the world. The energy consortium Enron plans to be one of the builders of the pipeline. Elaine Kelly, Northwest Groups Discuss Afghan, Iranian and Turkish Rights Violations, Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, March 31, 1997. 

The plan for the New American Century, constructed by ultra-conservative policy groups began in 1997 after all of these deals were made.  This plan calls for an invasion in Iraq and in Afganistan to expidate these business deals and bring "democracy" to the region.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/ 

and 

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/EC20Ak07.html 

Can anyone say _conflict of interest_?

upnorthkyosa


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 24, 2004)

Here is a list of the people who created the Plan for the New American Century.

Elliott Abrams    
Gary Bauer    
William J. Bennett    
Jeb Bush
Dick Cheney    
Eliot A. Cohen    
Midge Decter    
Paula Dobriansky    
Steve Forbes
Aaron Friedberg    
Francis Fukuyama    
Frank Gaffney    
Fred C. Ikle
Donald Kagan    
Zalmay Khalilzad    
I. Lewis Libby    
Norman Podhoretz
Dan Quayle    
Peter W. Rodman   
Stephen P. Rosen    
Henry S. Rowen
Donald Rumsfeld    
Vin Weber    
George Weigel    
Paul Wolfowitz

See any familiar names?  You should.  These are all of the people who are going to make billions of the war in Afganistan and Iraq.  It looks like their plans are coming to fruition and many of us are none the wiser.

upnorthkyosa


----------



## The Kai (Aug 24, 2004)

Unfortunatly it looks like the rich will get richer, while everyone else just bleeds.


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 24, 2004)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Elliott Abrams
> Gary Bauer
> William J. Bennett
> Jeb Bush
> ...



Homework assignment.  Do a search on each of these names.  Come back and report.  Conflict of interest?


----------



## deadhand31 (Aug 24, 2004)

Ok, quick update here. Unocal pulled out of the project in 1998. At that time, a consortium was signed, and Halliburton wasn't involved. The Western oil companies were actually looking for a way to bypass the Afghanistan. Those companies are not currently involved with the project. If those companies are not involved, how can Bush be there to try take money from said projects?

Want to see a source? Take a look.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/2016340.stm

Considering that the Taliban is now no longer in control in Afghanistan, the deal signed in the consortium may be invalid. Anybody have any current info on this?


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 24, 2004)

Hmmm...Hamid Karzai = Old Unocal spokesperson.  I don't think the deal's as dead as its reported.


----------



## deadhand31 (Aug 24, 2004)

Ok, and also considering that, on last check, Western companies were planning on bypassing Afghanistan? Has the pipeline been built since 1998? Current info, please?


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 25, 2004)

deadhand31 said:
			
		

> Ok, and also considering that, on last check, Western companies were planning on bypassing Afghanistan? Has the pipeline been built since 1998? Current info, please?



http://www.newamericancentury.org/


----------



## deadhand31 (Aug 25, 2004)

Ummm.... do you have ACTUAL info that's not put out by a 527 group? It's like asking for info on Kerry and getting moveon.org.

I mean, seriously. The names you have listed above are not even people on this website's staff! What I would like is actual info on the current status of the Afghani pipeline project. Do you have it, or not?

I did a site search and the word "pipe" doesn't appear anywhere on the site!!


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 26, 2004)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> http://www.newamericancentury.org/



I didn't get to finish my thought above.  Poopy diapers called and I forgot.  I apologize if my posting appeared flippant.  

The site is a series of essays that describe exactly the political situation playing out.  Afganistan is too unstable to build right now.  The situation needs to be calmed down and an American friendly ruler needs to be installed first in order to get the project done.  It is not a coincidence that Hamid Karzai is/was a Unocal spokesperson.

I'll post current sources in a bit.  Thank you for your patience.

upnorthkyosa


----------



## TwistofFat (Aug 26, 2004)

http://www.pnl.gov/aisu/pubs/tapvatan.pdf

Folks - this is an interesting white paper from PNNL from the DoE. Not a left or right group (although I bet they employ people who vote and maybe even worked at Haliburton) and if you read page 5 (of 22) it gives a overview of the interests of Unocol, Parkistan, India and many others.

It looks like the oil actually comes from Turkmenistan and IS controlled by private (read oil companies) and governments. This is a huge consortium of money hunters including the World Bank.



Meanwhile TheNewsMexico.com has carried an Agence France-Presse story of 5/16/02 reporting that the World Bank Chief spoke on Kabul on 5/15/02 about his own efforts to promote the pipeline: 

`World Bank chief James Wolfensohn said Wednesday he had held talks about financing a fuel pipeline to channel massive gas reserves from Turkmenistan through Afghanistan to India or Pakistan. Wolfensohn, who was in the Afghan capital to open the financial institution's offices here and to confirm 100 million dollars of World Bank grants for the interim administration, said a number of companies had already expressed an interest in the project. Turkmenistan is reportedly estimated to have 159 trillion cubic feet (4.8 trillion cubic meters) of gas reserves, the 11th largest in the world. But its landlocked status and the 23 years of war in Afghanistan have scuppered previous plans to open up the reserves to the outside world. "I have spoken to a number of people concerning a possible pipeline from Turkmenistan through Afghanistan to Pakistan and either out through a port in Pakistan or through to India," Wolfensohn told reporters. "We have expressed interest in that but I think the principals need to discuss that further."' These announcements come at a time when the US (according to Stratfor on 5/15/02) is debating whether or not to help quell the dispute between the Karzai central government and the dissenting warlord Padsha Khan in Paktia Province. The problem is complicated by the fact that Padsha Khan's brother is the governor in Khost province, where the search for al-Qaeda has also been focused. 

Complicated -yes. Conspiracy - I am sure someone can find it.


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 26, 2004)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Here is a list of the people who created the Plan for the New American Century.
> 
> Elliott Abrams
> Gary Bauer
> ...



This is not a 527 group.  These people drafted PNAC.  These are the neo-cons that have taken over the government.


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 26, 2004)

TwistofFat said:
			
		

> Complicated -yes. Conspiracy - I am sure someone can find it.



Looks like you beat me to the punch.  Conspiracy?  What does this really mean?  This deal isn't a very good conspiracy.  Hell, it ain't secret by any means.  The plans for it were in the works in 1998 and now we can see that they are coming to fruition.  The real question is the conflict of interest.  Is this a proper activity for elected officials to engage in, especially since they stand to gain so much off the backs of the military and the taxpayer.  Another question is this, since when were profits a priority in the war on terror?


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 26, 2004)

_Does anyone wonder why most of the Taliban escaped..._

A Taliban envoy appealed to the Bush administration Monday to overlook his group's support of extremist Osama bin Laden and the destruction of priceless centuries-old Buddhist sculptures and lift sanctions on Afghanistan to help alleviate a humanitarian crisis threatening the lives of a million people.  Sayed Rahmatullah Hashemi delivered a letter from the Taliban for President Bush that called for better U.S.-Afghan relations and negotiations to solve the dispute over the Saudi-born Bin Laden. Robin Wright, Taliban Asks US to Lift its Economic Sanctions, Los Angeles Times, March 20, 2001. 

The Town Hall forum was Hashemi's final meeting in a weeklong visit to California, where he spoke at several universities, including USC, UCLA and UC Berkeley. Later Thursday, he left for New York for another stop on his public relations tour before going to Washington, where he is scheduled to deliver a letter from his party to the Bush administration. Teresa Watanabe, Overture By Taliban Hits Resistance," Los Angeles Times, March 16, 2001. 

_And now we see that the Bush Administration did not care at all about Osama bin Laden, the reported reason we are in Afganistan._

Osama bin Laden has claimed credit for the attack on U.S. soldiers in Somalia in October 1993, which killed 18; for the attack on the U.S. Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in August 1998, which killed 224 and injured nearly 5,000; and were linked to the attack on the U.S.S. Cole on 12 October 2000, in which 17 crew members were killed and 40 others injured. They have sought to acquire nuclear and chemical materials for use as terrorist weapons. Britain's Bill of Particulars New York Times, October 5, 2001. 

Osama bin Laden, in recent years, has been America's most wanted terrorism suspect, with a $5 million reward on his head for his alleged role in the August 1998 truck bombings of two American embassies in East Africa that killed more than 200 people, as well as a string of other terrorist attacks Most recently, the F.B.I. has named Mr. bin Laden as a prime suspect in the suicide bombing of the American destroyer Cole, which was attacked in Aden harbor, 350 miles by road southwest of here, on Oct. 12, with the loss of 17 sailors' lives." John F. Burns, Where bin Laden Has Roots, His Mystique Grows, New York Times,  December 31, 2000. 

_Here is a little more information regarding Hamid Karzai...Some of it is very recent._

Cool and worldly, Karzai is a former employee of US oil company Unocal -- one of two main oil companies that was bidding for the lucrative contract to build an oil pipeline from Uzbekistan through Afghanistan to seaports in Pakistan -- and the son of a former Afghan parliament speaker.  Ilene R. Prusher, Scott Baldauf, and Edward Girardet, Afghan power brokers, Christian Science Monitor, June 10, 2002.  http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0610/
p01s03e-wosc.html. 

Afghan President Hamid Karzai, a former Unocal adviser, signed a treaty with Pakistani leader Pervez Musharraf and the Turkmen dictator Saparmurat Niyazov to authorize construction of a $3.2 billion gas pipeline through the Heart-Kandahar corridor in Afghanistan. Lutz Kleveman, Oil and the New Great Game," The Nation, February 16, 2004.   

TRANSLATED FROM FRENCH: He was a consultant for the American oil company Unocal, while they studied the construction of a pipeline in Afghanistan." Chipaux Francoise, Hamid Karzaï, Une Large Connaissance Du Monde Occidental, Le Monde, December 6, 2001.en minutes.

Al-qaeda is out there planning to kill Americans and here we have a president picking targets in the War on Terror based on how much money his backers can rake in.  This is not acceptable and it could very well result in people getting killed in this country.

upnorthkyosa


----------



## deadhand31 (Aug 26, 2004)

Funny thing you neglect to mention in all of the articles containing Bush. THEY'RE BEFORE SEPTEMBER 11TH!!!!!! 

If you read your article, it has NOTHING that says Bush actually DID lift the sanctions! It basically says he was willing to listen to an envoy of the Taliban in his appeal for a lifting of sanctions. What kind of leader would NOT listen to the appeal of a diplomatic envoy? 
Did Bush lift those sanctions? No. These sanctions were in place because of Afghanistan's aid to al qaeda. We later found out, unfortunately, that these sanctions were not adequate.  Was Bin Laden percieved as big of a threat pre-9/11? No.  

Now, tell me, after those first few articles you presented, can you think of anything that might have happened in the United States to change the attitude towards terrorism? Let's see, the latest date on an article regarding Bush is... hmm, interesting... March 20, 2001. Let's go about 6 months in. What happened? Oh yeah, that little trade center incident. Maybe you overlooked that. 

To say that the taliban escaped because Bush accepted letters from them is jumping the gun, don't you think?

Ok, I'll ask again. DO YOU HAVE EVIDENCE THAT WESTERN COMPANIES ARE CURRENTLY INVOLVED IN THE PIPELINE OR NOT??? I want to know what companies are currently involved in it.

And kyosa, as for Bush not taking care of Afghanistan because of the oil pipeline....

THE WESTERN COMPANIES PULLED OUT OF THE DEAL IN 1998!!!!! HE WASN'T EVEN PRESIDENT WHEN UNOCAL PULLED OUT!!! Let's see, Clinton was.... and all he did to get to Bin Laden was send two cruise missiles in, no follow up.... hmm, MAYBE CLINTON WANTED THAT PIPELINE, TOO!!!


----------



## deadhand31 (Aug 26, 2004)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> This is not a 527 group.  These people drafted PNAC.  These are the neo-cons that have taken over the government.



Hmm, let's see... these people drafted up the following principles:

 we need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future;


 we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values;


 we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad;


 we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles. 

These are the conspiratorial principles you are screaming about? God forbid!!


----------



## Bester (Aug 26, 2004)

People read and see what they want to see.


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 27, 2004)

deadhand31 said:
			
		

> Ok, I'll ask again. DO YOU HAVE EVIDENCE THAT WESTERN COMPANIES ARE CURRENTLY INVOLVED IN THE PIPELINE OR NOT??? I want to know what companies are currently involved in it.



Afghan President Hamid Karzai, a former Unocal adviser, signed a treaty with Pakistani leader Pervez Musharraf and the Turkmen dictator Saparmurat Niyazov to authorize construction of a $3.2 billion gas pipeline through the Heart-Kandahar corridor in Afghanistan. Lutz Kleveman, Oil and the New Great Game," The Nation, *February 16, 2004*. 



			
				deadhand31 said:
			
		

> THE WESTERN COMPANIES PULLED OUT OF THE DEAL IN 1998!!!!! HE WASN'T EVEN PRESIDENT WHEN UNOCAL PULLED OUT!!! Let's see, Clinton was.... and all he did to get to Bin Laden was send two cruise missiles in, no follow up.... hmm, MAYBE CLINTON WANTED THAT PIPELINE, TOO!!!



Maybe he did, maybe he didn't, I don't have enough information to make that conjecture.  The truth is that if you look through the PNAC document you find many letters writted to the Honerable President Clinton and signed by all of the names above.  These letters beseech the President to follow the plan as stated, including the Iraq and Afganistan parts.

Bill Clinton basically ignored them and that is one of the reasons why the people on the above list hated him so much.

President Bush on the other hand, has many of the people in his cabinet.  The rest have the President in their pockets.  If there is any doubt anymore as to who (and what) is driving our foriegn policy, it should be erased.  

I'll say again, *PROFITS * should not be a *PRIORITY * in the War on Terror.

upnorthkyosa


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 27, 2004)

This is all pretty political doublespeak.  Allow me to me highlight a few key points...

 we need to *increase defense spending significantly * if we are to carry out our global responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future;


 we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to *challenge regimes hostile to our interests* and values;


 we need to promote the cause of political and *economic freedom * abroad;


 we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and *extending an international order * friendly to our security, *our prosperity*, and our principles. 

Connect the boldface statements.  What do you think it means?  The bottom line is that people need to pay more attention to this stuff.  I don't think I've ever see a more egregious case of abuse of power and conflict of interest.


----------



## deadhand31 (Aug 27, 2004)

But you're missing the point....  I want to know what companies are involved in this. Considering that western nations have looked to bypass Afghanistan since 1998, what western involvement is there in this pipeline? I've asked for you to provide this information, and all I get is rhetoric and conspiracy theories. This is just plain nuts. If you're going to accuse someone of making these deals just to make money, well, bring forth the financials! Who's making the pipeline?


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 28, 2004)

deadhand31 said:
			
		

> If you're going to accuse someone of making these deals just to make money, well, bring forth the financials! Who's making the pipeline?



Elliott Abrams 
Gary Bauer 
William J. Bennett 
Jeb Bush
Dick Cheney 
Eliot A. Cohen 
Midge Decter 
Paula Dobriansky 
Steve Forbes
Aaron Friedberg 
Francis Fukuyama 
Frank Gaffney 
Fred C. Ikle
Donald Kagan 
Zalmay Khalilzad 
I. Lewis Libby 
Norman Podhoretz
Dan Quayle 
Peter W. Rodman 
Stephen P. Rosen 
Henry S. Rowen
Donald Rumsfeld 
Vin Weber 
George Weigel 
Paul Wolfowitz

This is all the list you will need.  ALL of these people are involved in some way or another.  They are all tied to Unocal, Haliburton, Enron (now defunct), or Occidental.  For more info, read the article that addresses this point.

upnorthkyosa


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 28, 2004)

Looks like Unocal again.  This makes a lot of sense since Hamid Karzai has such strong ties to the company.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/1984459.stm

Here is a step by step history of this deal.

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=afghanistan_pipeline

Here is an article that details the Enron-Cheney-Taliban connection.

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

Here is an article that offers some legitimate research regarding this matter.

http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forum/forumnew41.php

For the Bush Administration, Profits are the Priority in the War on Terror.  These policies are going to get people killed.  Innocent people.  We need to stop this kind of thing before the terrorists can come at us again.

upnorthkyosa


----------



## deadhand31 (Aug 29, 2004)

Let's take a look at what was in one of your articles, shall we?

_"Unocal is not involved in any projects (including pipelines) in Afghanistan, nor do we have any plans to become involved, nor are we discussing any such projects," a spokesman told BBC News Online._ 

And what else is there? Hmmm, talks about a natural gas pipeline, but who is funding it? Oh wait! There it is!

_The Asian Development Bank (ADB) has been surveying routes for transferring local gas from northern Afghan areas to Kabul, and to iron ore mines at the Haji Gak pass further west. 

"ADB will announce its conclusion soon," Mr Razim said. 

The pipeline is expected to be built with funds from donor countries for the reconstruction of Afghanistan as well as ADB loans, he said. _ 

Donor countries, and ADB loans. Umm...... where's Unocal in this? Don't take me the wrong way.... are you a troll? Is somebody putting you up to this? Are you illiterate? When you went to school, were you in the class with the arsonists and kids who had mittens safety-pinned to their jackets year-round?

Your "Timeline", has a reference stating that Bush met with Taliban to negotiate an oil deal. The article that they link to doesn't even have the word "oil" in it!!! The timeline also has a link stating that there were "secret meetings" between the Taliban and Bush in a last dish effort to get the pipeline. However, the link goes to an essay of a conspiracy theorist. These guys come up with things like "Deodorant is a tool of capitalism!", and "There was no Boeing at the pentagon on 9/11!" The author makes blatant accusations, with NO SOURCES AT ALL to back him up. It also states that 9/11 was a valiant effort of Bin Laden to protect Afghanistan. 

The last article you posted is an editorial essay that also lacks solid sources, and, it seems, objectivity.

Upnorth, you asked in another thread why this doesn't turn people away from Bush. Well, here's why....

In order to believe in this conspiracy, and to see a conspiracy in the sources that you have given, they would have to ignore alot of the articles' content. A person who would do this, would have to be a drooling, grunting, self-diddling, pants soiling retard!


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Aug 29, 2004)

Bester said:
			
		

> People read and see what they want to see.




Rather, "People read only that which confirms what they believe."

People do not read broadly.  They shirk from contradiction and challenges to their accepted paradigms.  Uncertainty leaves them shaken rather than curious.


Regards,


Steve


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 29, 2004)

deadhand31 said:
			
		

> Let's take a look at what was in one of your articles, shall we?
> 
> _"Unocal is not involved in any projects (including pipelines) in Afghanistan, nor do we have any plans to become involved, nor are we discussing any such projects," a spokesman told BBC News Online._
> 
> ...



Your post is weak in rebuttle and strong in personal attack.  I'm not the enemy.  This evidence is clear and this is happening.  The companies, the financing, and the people behind it all line up and you have absolutely NOTHING to challenge that.  You don't want to see this and choose to ignore it...what a pity. :idunno:


----------



## Flatlander (Aug 29, 2004)

deadhand31 said:
			
		

> Don't take me the wrong way.... are you a troll? Is somebody putting you up to this? Are you illiterate? When you went to school, were you in the class with the arsonists and kids who had mittens safety-pinned to their jackets year-round?...<SNIP>....
> A person who would do this, would have to be a drooling, grunting, self-diddling, pants soiling retard!


If this is the top level at which you are capable of debate, you're in the wrong place, son.  You need to do better.

Please don't cause me to read this type of tripe again.  I really don't have time for it.


----------



## deadhand31 (Aug 29, 2004)

Weak in rebuttal? I'm using YOUR sources? When you pointed to an article that YOU said confirmed Unocal's presence in Afghanistan, I read the article. In it, the only thing that was said about Unocal was that they did not have a presence, and that they have no plans to do so. Anyone who wants to read your articles can see this. They should also take a look at the sources cited by your timeline. Yes, I made personal attacks, because I stand by them. It is because I am unable to comprehend how someone can read the articles you presented, and come to your conclusion. 

I mean, how does "We are not involved" become "We're making plans right now."? 

How does a source that doesn't even mention the oil pipeline at all become proof that Bush is planning a pipeline?

How does an EDITORIAL with NO SOURCES become "legitimate research"?

I will give you the bleeding truth, which is actually supported by some of YOUR sources:

WESTERN COMPANIES ARE NOT CURRENTLY INVOLVED IN AN AFGHANI OIL PIPELINE. THEY USED TO BE, BUT PULLED OUT IN 1998. THEY ARE NOT COMING BACK TO IT.

Tell you what, Upnorth. You give me a valid, concrete explanation on how the following source states that Unocal is CURRENTLY involved in the Afghani pipeline:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/1984459.stm

and I will personally vote for John Kerry this election. This is YOUR source, which you said is PROOF of current Unocal involvement, which I say is not.

I also invite you to meet my challenge on equal terms, though I'm not forcing you to do so.


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 29, 2004)

deadhand31 said:
			
		

> Weak in rebuttal?



Yes, weak in rebuttal.  You are picking a few things here and there, relying on logical fallacies, and ranting about my intelligence.  I humbly accept your challenge though.  

http://www.export.gov/afghanistan/pdf/oil_gas_1-sheberghankabul_pipeline.pdf

Here is a description of the current deal, who is involved, and when.  *June 2003*.  As I stated above, Hamid Karzai, already signed a deal which was backed by the same people who backed the above to extend this pipeline through Pakistan.

I disagree with your assessment of my sources.  Perhaps you should go back and read them again and then read the link I posted.  Then you will see that they have been pointing arrows at this the entire time.  Enjoy  :asian:

upnorthkyosa

PS - If you go back and take a look at all that has been posted and all that has transpired, not once, have I disparaged you in any way.  I don't deserve your personal attacks and as MAists we should have a higher level of respect for each other.  Would we bow to each other as peers in the dojo and speak to each other like this?


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 29, 2004)

Stabilizing Afghanistan is the only hitch in this deal.  Getting rid of the Taliban and installing Hamid Karzai is the first step toward getting the oil and gas.  All of this is detailed in PNAC which was written by the people who run the companies in question.  Unocal, Halliburton, and Enron have all bid on this in the past and they are now waiting in the wings until the Bush Administration uses are tax money lay the groundwork and cleans out the bugs.

Here are a few more sources for purusal

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_28-11-2002_pg1_8

This is a current description for the financing of the deal.  The money will come from ABD.  Oil companies are welcome to bid when the region is stabilized.

http://www.adb.org/Documents/Articles/AFG/afg_2003001.asp

This source talks about the deal in detail and illustrates the interest of US companies.

http://www.kisi.kz/English/Economy/09-09-03narbaev.pdf

And finally...

*U.S. presence in Afghanistan renews hopes of oil, gas investors * 

By Sudarsan Raghavan 

Knight Ridder Newspapers 

TASHKENT, Uzbekistan - Afghanistan in the midst of a grinding war may not look like an investor's paradise. Yet oilman Joseph Naemi sees the conflict - and America's involvement - as a potential opportunity for vast riches. 

The 39-year-old executive plans to invest hundred of millions of dollars over the next five to seven years developing oil and natural gas fields in neighboring Uzbekistan, in hope eventually of selling oil and gas to and through Afghanistan by pipeline. 

"If the United States' presence continues in the region, (Sept. 11) is probably the best thing that could have happened here for the Central Asian republics," said Naemi, managing director of Chase Energy, a small oil company based in Amsterdam, Netherlands. 

America's efforts to replace the puritanical Taliban and bring stability to Afghanistan are resurrecting hopes for a controversial proposal for trans-Afghanistan oil and natural gas pipelines, once strongly backed by the United States. And wildcatters such as Naemi are lining up to capitalize on what may be the most valuable, inaccessible stretch of land in Central Asia. 

"This region in terms of oil economics is the frontier for this century," said Naemi. "And Afghanistan is part and parcel of this." 

In 1998, the Taliban signed a $2 billion agreement for a proposed 890-mile natural gas pipeline that would start in Turkmenistan's Dauletabad fields, snake through Taliban-controlled areas in Herat and Kandahar, Afghanistan, and end in Quetta, Pakistan. A $2.5 billion oil pipeline stretching 1,000 miles through Afghanistan also was considered. 

The pipelines would provide the most direct route from Central Asia's oil and gas fields to Arabian Sea ports such as the Pakistani city of Karachi. They would link oil and gas fields in land-locked Central Asia to lucrative markets in Asia and Australia, and could free up more Middle East oil to flow to the United States and Europe. They also could reduce U.S. dependence on oil from OPEC nations, which have dictated oil prices for decades. 

The proposal has been seriously batted around in corporate boardrooms from Texas to Saudi Arabia since the mid-1990s. But given Afghanistan's 22 years of war, there were serious doubts that the pipelines would be built. Now, with the United States vowing to uproot the Taliban, the project seems more possible. 

"The oil companies have never stopped thinking about the Afghan pipeline, but they all lowered it on the list of priorities," said a U.S. Embassy commercial officer in Almaty, Kazakhstan, who has close contacts with American energy firms there. "But now they are re-evaluating it with the possible political change happening in Afghanistan." The officer spoke on condition of anonymity. 

In recent weeks, the English-language newspaper Baku Sun in oil-rich Azerbaijan has published stories discussing the hopes for proposed Afghan pipelines. Last week, Turkmenistan's president, Saparamurad Niyazov, asked the United Nations to help revive the project, saying it would be "advantageous for all the neighboring countries, and primarily Afghanistan," according to Turkmenistan's official news agency. 

Some Central Asian oil consultants are publicly lobbying for the pipeline to be a key part of any post-Taliban "Marshall plan" for the United States to help rebuild Afghanistan. 

"It should be an absolute must for the U.S. to pursue this option," said Rob Sobhani, president of Washington-based Caspian Energy Consulting and a former consultant in Central Asia for Amoco, which is now part of British Petroleum. Sobhani has pushed the pipeline on various U.S. television programs. 

The Afghan pipelines would make it cheaper and faster for Naemi and Chase Energy to get their oil and natural gas to Asian markets. Currently, they are planning to use railroads along long, circuitous routes via the Caspian Sea region and Turkey. 

At war since the Soviets invaded in 1979, Afghanistan has never been able to fully tap its significant deposits of natural gas, oil and coal. Conflict after conflict has shattered its infrastructure, eroded its economy and spawned one of the world's largest refugee populations. 

All that seemed to be forgotten when the Taliban grabbed power in 1996, bringing stability to much of the country. By then, an international consortium of oil companies led by Houston-based Unocal Corp. was wooing the hard-line Islamic regime to sign the pipeline deal. 

The group included companies from Saudi Arabia, Russia, South Korea, Japan and Pakistan. The Argentine firm Bridas also was competing for the rights to build a pipeline through Afghanistan. 

Unocal pulled out of the pipeline consortium in December 1998, after the U.S. Embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania and the subsequent American military strikes on Osama bin Laden's training camps in Afghanistan. The civil war in Afghanistan, low oil prices and pressure at home from U.S. women's groups protesting the Taliban's subjugation of women also played roles. 

The State Department was helping Unocal, despite the Taliban's brutal human-rights record and its harboring of bin Laden. U.S. officials said they hoped the Taliban would moderate their policies and the pipeline would boost Afghanistan's crippled economy. 

According to the Washington-based Heritage Foundation, a conservative public policy organization, the American diplomatic dance with the Taliban was partly an attempt to prevent the construction of a pipeline through Iran and to reduce Russian leverage over Turkmenistan and Kazakhstan. 

U.S. ties with the oil-producing former Soviet republics are closer after the Sept.11 terrorist attacks. Uzbekistan's government, which hopes that a stable Afghanistan will open direct routes for its oil and natural gas, and its neighbors have supported the American-led anti-terrorism coalition. 

Although the United States is talking about buying oil from Russia, it also is supporting the proposed construction of a pipeline from Baku, Azerbaijan, to the Turkish seaport of Ceyhan, which would allow the Caspian Sea nations to lessen their reliance on Moscow. 

While modern-day wildcatters such as Naemi are betting on the Afghan pipelines, larger oil companies aren't jumping in so soon. A Unocal spokeswoman said the company had no plans to invest anywhere in Central Asia in the near future. 

"The prospects are there, the potential is there," said Abdul Raheem Yaseer, the assistant director of the Center for Afghanistan Studies at the University of Nebraska in Omaha. "But first the Taliban have to be removed, then the terrorists have to be removed. Then the Afghans have to be helped to form their own government, and then they'll need a lot of money for reconstructing their country. Then they will talk about oil projects." 

End of Article

upnorthkyosa


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 29, 2004)

Unocal is kind of a red herring in this case.  This company is not the focus of my argument, even though they have expressed interest in the building of the actual pipeline.  For clarification purposes, my point has always been the Bush Administrations insistance that they balance what is best for the oil industry with what is best for the War on Terror.  Profits should not be a priority in my opinion.


----------



## deadhand31 (Aug 29, 2004)

OMG. Where to begin on this one.... First off, this source:
http://www.export.gov/afghanistan/p...ul_pipeline.pdf

This is not the proposed oil pipeline in question. This is a project that would supply natural gas to various areas in the country, among them, Kabul, and several ore mining sites. This article also states that former members of the consortium from 1998 may end up bidding. However, Unocal has already stated that they do not plan on making any bids in Afghanistan. This is also the pipeline that is refferred to by your source here:

http://www.adb.org/Documents/Articles/AFG/afg_2003001.asp.

This is not the pipeline that was proposed which would take Caspian oil like you say it is.  This is a natural gas pipeline that would be used for Afghanistan's current infrastructure, as well as export. 

Your final source, which can be found here: 

http://www.kisi.kz/English/Economy/09-09-03narbaev.pdf

Puts nothing new on the table. It pretty much sums up what has already been said, minus the views of the conspiracy theorists. It even states that at this time, US companies are not looking to invest in an oil pipeline. 

I really can't say that these are irrellevant, however, you really did not understand what my challenge was. I will reiterate:


You had stated the following source: 
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/1984459.stm

had implicated that Unocal had a CURRENT plan on creating an oil pipeline in Afghanistan. My challenge to you was to back up this statement on this source. Let me repost the body of the challenge: 

*Tell you what, Upnorth. You give me a valid, concrete explanation on how the following source states that Unocal is CURRENTLY involved in the Afghani pipeline:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/1984459.stm

and I will personally vote for John Kerry this election. This is YOUR source, which you said is PROOF of current Unocal involvement, which I say is not.*

As for if we would talk like this in the dojang, well, of course not. Politics and world affairs have no place in the dojang. Outside, it's a much different story. One of my major pet peeves is people who don't read what they are using to back up. If you look at the previous source, that is the case. I also really despise those who use conspiracy editorials that lack proof as fact. Micheal Moore is another such idiot. You have to admit, you have yet to bring forth a source that says that western companies currently have plans on becoming involved with the oil pipeline. So far, you have not, and you accuse the Bush administration of plotting a war to make this pipeline, which, if anything, has discouraged the involvement of western oil companies. Now, I have answered what you have said, but you still need to meet my challenge.


----------



## deadhand31 (Aug 29, 2004)

I should also state that in the future, when I read posts like the ones that have been strewn about, I'm going to listen to Weird Al Yankovich. If I have to have a 100% serious mindset when dealing with such missapplied information, I will suffer a cerebral explosion. In otherwords, my head will burst.


----------



## Tgace (Aug 29, 2004)

Conspiracy Theory hit list........

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=13978
http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=13669
http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=13573
http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=11911
http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=11909
http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=11887

Guess i can add this one now.


----------



## Tgace (Aug 29, 2004)

What I STILL dont understand is, if the Bush administration is so skilled in conspiracy , why they didnt airdrop some WMD's into Iraq and make a convenient discovery.....


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 29, 2004)

Unocal is not the point but...



> Mr Razim said US energy company Unocal was the "lead company" among those that would build the pipeline, which would bring 30bn cubic meters of Turkmen gas to market annually.



This indicates that they are waiting for Unocal to bid.

http://www.export.gov/afghanistan/pdf/oil_gas_1-sheberghankabul_pipeline.pdf

This indicates that Unocal would like to see Afghanistan in a more peaceful state before they (or any other US company) would even consider it.  This statement is backed up by the following...



> Unocal - which led a consortium of companies from Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Turkmenistan, Japan and South Korea - has maintained the project is both economically and technically feasible once Afghan stability was secured.
> 
> "Unocal is not involved in any projects (including pipelines) in Afghanistan, nor do we have any plans to become involved, nor are we discussing any such projects," a spokesman told BBC News Online.



This site again...which you have already indicated... 

http://www.export.gov/afghanistan/p...ul_pipeline.pdf...

Says that a pipeline is being consider to provide natural gas for Afghani infrastructure and for EXPORT.  Unocal is interested in bidding, but will not at this time because Afghanistan is to unstable.

In comes Hamid Karzai, former Unocal spokesperson.  The Taliban is cleaned out and Al-qaeda is being chased into Pakistan.  He signed a deal with Pakistan to build the very pipeline suggested by Unocal.  This pipeline is an addition to the pipeline that will be run to Kabul.

THIS SITE INDICATES THE PLANS OF WESTERN COMPANIES TO BUILD A PIPELINE IN AFGHANISTAN.

http://www.export.gov/afghanistan/p...ul_pipeline.pdf...

I seriously don't know how much clearer it can be.  Take a look at the bottom of each page.  Where did this study occur?  Who performed this study?  Who funded it?  The answer to all of those questions is the USA.

upnorthkyosa

ps - a lot of people shout about "proof" and haven't a clue what they are talking about.  What do you think is proof?  Have you set a criteria?  Do you even need to because you refuse to admit the possability?


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 29, 2004)

deadhand31 said:
			
		

> I should also state that in the future, when I read posts like the ones that have been strewn about, I'm going to listen to Weird Al Yankovich. If I have to have a 100% serious mindset when dealing with such missapplied information, I will suffer a cerebral explosion. In otherwords, my head will burst.



You still are ignoring major points in every source and in every post.  Meanwhile, interspersed in your prose is personal attack after personal attack.  Is this how conservatives win arguments?  Do you need to drive people away who challenge your beliefs?


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 29, 2004)

Tgace said:
			
		

> What I STILL dont understand is, if the Bush administration is so skilled in conspiracy , why they didnt airdrop some WMD's into Iraq and make a convenient discovery.....



So, umm, nothing constructive to add?


----------



## Tgace (Aug 29, 2004)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> You still are ignoring major points in every source and in every post. Meanwhile, interspersed in your prose is personal attack after personal attack. Is this how conservatives win arguments? Do you need to drive people away who challenge your beliefs?


Ive only seen deadhand31 on this thread but what makes you believe he is a "conservative"? Because he disagrees with you on this thread??


----------



## Tgace (Aug 29, 2004)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> So, umm, nothing constructive to add?


No yet another convoluted conspiracy theory.....nope thats about it.


----------



## deadhand31 (Aug 30, 2004)

What do you mean ignoring major points? Look who's talking. 


_Unocal - which led a consortium of companies from Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Turkmenistan, Japan and South Korea - has maintained the project is both economically and technically feasible once Afghan stability was secured. 

"Unocal is not involved in any projects (including pipelines) in Afghanistan, nor do we have any plans to become involved, nor are we discussing any such projects," a spokesman told BBC News Online. _ 

Well guess what? I think the project is feasible too. I don't have plans to become involved either. By your logic, I'M PLANNING ON BUILDING A PIPELINE! Do you think it's feasible? Are you planning on becoming involved? If your answers are yes and no, respectively, THEN YOU'RE PLANNING ON BUILDING THE PIPELINE! 

You site a source that you claim states western interest, while in fact it states that western companies don't want to touch the place. Are you really wondering why I put your intelligence in question? It's called "reading comprehension". That means you read words, and understand what they mean. Emulating Michael Moore does not make something mean what you want it to.


----------



## deadhand31 (Aug 30, 2004)

Tgace said:
			
		

> What I STILL dont understand is, if the Bush administration is so skilled in conspiracy , why they didnt airdrop some WMD's into Iraq and make a convenient discovery.....




Maybe the Bush administration put the sarin warhead in Iraq which injured several troops a few months back. Bush is making WMD!! He needs to be stopped!!! 

(For those who cannot tell, this is what is called "sarcasm".)


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 30, 2004)

deadhand31 said:
			
		

> What do you mean ignoring major points? Look who's talking.
> 
> 
> _Unocal - which led a consortium of companies from Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Turkmenistan, Japan and South Korea - has maintained the project is both economically and technically feasible once Afghan stability was secured.
> ...



You are not ignoring the fact that all of these companies have stated that Afghanistan is too unstable.  You are ignoring the fact that many of the sources I posted say that a stable Afghanistan changes all of this.  

The plans for the pipelines in Afghanistan were made in the USA by a US agency populated by officials from US oil companies.  Hamid Karzai signed a deal to build the very same pipeline that Unocal was going to build.  

Yes, even Unocal.

This is no conspiracy.  It is a clear cut case of _national interest _ in a military industrial complex.

Are you refusing to read anything that does not conform to your beliefs?

upnorthkyosa


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 30, 2004)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Ive only seen deadhand31 on this thread but what makes you believe he is a "conservative"? Because he disagrees with you on this thread??



He has stated as much.  No assumption on my part.


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 30, 2004)

Tgace said:
			
		

> No yet another convoluted conspiracy theory.....nope thats about it.



So why is this just another conspiracy?  Do you understand what a conspiracy is?  Two people who bake an apple pie without telling another have formed a conspiracy?

I'm not seeing anything so secret about any of this.

Perhaps it's a _conspiracy _ because you can't bring yourself around to even examine the ramifications.


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 30, 2004)

Enough pummeling with the Left hand.  How about the Right? :whip: 

So what.  So what if the Bush administration planned on securing Afghanistan for the oil companies.  911 may have changed everything, but it did not change the way American works.  Can you imagine if the Bush Administration was so short sighted as to go after the terrorists in Afghanistan and completely forget about what our country needs in order to run?  Oil and gas, the bottom line is that we need it.  Our economy is suffering because the prices are rising through the roof.  We are losing jobs and we are losing our place in the world as an economic superpower.  The Bush Administration has shown shrewd diplomacy in this regard.  In one fell swoop, we have taken out the Taliban and the terrorists AND we have secured a source of resources to help keep America great!  In the end, this pipeline deal will be good for everybody.  It will give the Afghani citizens jobs and boost their economy and it will do more to show the average Afghani how great America is.  Talk about winning their hearts and minds and really putting a stop to terrorism in Afghanistan!  The Bush Administration has had noting but the best interests of everyone in mind all along.

Now quit whining you peacenik liberal. :supcool: 

upnorthkyosa :asian:


----------



## deadhand31 (Aug 30, 2004)

The only thing that stated that the companies would move in to a more stable guy was a minister of Afghan studies. Other companies have looked to BYPASS Afghanistan. Bypassing Afghanistan would mean that Afghanistan would not be used. Unocal stated that there were NO plans. DO you know what NO plans means? That means there aren't any plans. They didn't say "We're waiting for a stable Afghanistan."  

You also are mixing up pipelines. The pipeline that is currently put in production is a NATURAL GAS pipeline. This is not an OIL pipeline. This is a pipeline that is being put into place for two reasons: 1. Internal infrastructure to supply natural gas to Afghanistan, and 2. For the export of natural gas to other countries as a way to pump money into the Afghani economy.


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 30, 2004)

deadhand31 said:
			
		

> The only thing that stated that the companies would move in to a more stable guy was a minister of Afghan studies. Other companies have looked to BYPASS Afghanistan. Bypassing Afghanistan would mean that Afghanistan would not be used. Unocal stated that there were NO plans. DO you know what NO plans means? That means there aren't any plans. They didn't say "We're waiting for a stable Afghanistan."



Funny, the US Trade and Development Agency seems to expect these companies to come back to the table as soon as Afghanistan is stabilized.  Unocal is not the only company in question either.  Many other companies have bid on this deal and are waiting to see what happens.  Who do you think the US Trade and Development Agency is?

If you would actually read all of the sources you might find out that "No Plans" means no plans while Afghanistan is unstable.

Take a look at this...Please note the emphasis near the bottom.

*U.S. presence in Afghanistan renews hopes of oil, gas investors * 

By Sudarsan Raghavan 

Knight Ridder Newspapers 

TASHKENT, Uzbekistan - Afghanistan in the midst of a grinding war may not look like an investor's paradise. Yet oilman Joseph Naemi sees the conflict - and America's involvement - as a potential opportunity for vast riches. 

The 39-year-old executive plans to invest hundred of millions of dollars over the next five to seven years developing oil and natural gas fields in neighboring Uzbekistan, in hope eventually of selling oil and gas to and through Afghanistan by pipeline. 

"If the United States' presence continues in the region, (Sept. 11) is probably the best thing that could have happened here for the Central Asian republics," said Naemi, managing director of Chase Energy, a small oil company based in Amsterdam, Netherlands. 

America's efforts to replace the puritanical Taliban and bring stability to Afghanistan are resurrecting hopes for a controversial proposal for trans-Afghanistan oil and natural gas pipelines, once strongly backed by the United States. And wildcatters such as Naemi are lining up to capitalize on what may be the most valuable, inaccessible stretch of land in Central Asia. 

"This region in terms of oil economics is the frontier for this century," said Naemi. "And Afghanistan is part and parcel of this." 

In 1998, the Taliban signed a $2 billion agreement for a proposed 890-mile natural gas pipeline that would start in Turkmenistan's Dauletabad fields, snake through Taliban-controlled areas in Herat and Kandahar, Afghanistan, and end in Quetta, Pakistan. A $2.5 billion oil pipeline stretching 1,000 miles through Afghanistan also was considered. 

The pipelines would provide the most direct route from Central Asia's oil and gas fields to Arabian Sea ports such as the Pakistani city of Karachi. They would link oil and gas fields in land-locked Central Asia to lucrative markets in Asia and Australia, and could free up more Middle East oil to flow to the United States and Europe. They also could reduce U.S. dependence on oil from OPEC nations, which have dictated oil prices for decades. 

The proposal has been seriously batted around in corporate boardrooms from Texas to Saudi Arabia since the mid-1990s. But given Afghanistan's 22 years of war, there were serious doubts that the pipelines would be built. Now, with the United States vowing to uproot the Taliban, the project seems more possible. 

"The oil companies have never stopped thinking about the Afghan pipeline, but they all lowered it on the list of priorities," said a U.S. Embassy commercial officer in Almaty, Kazakhstan, who has close contacts with American energy firms there. "But now they are re-evaluating it with the possible political change happening in Afghanistan." The officer spoke on condition of anonymity. 

In recent weeks, the English-language newspaper Baku Sun in oil-rich Azerbaijan has published stories discussing the hopes for proposed Afghan pipelines. Last week, Turkmenistan's president, Saparamurad Niyazov, asked the United Nations to help revive the project, saying it would be "advantageous for all the neighboring countries, and primarily Afghanistan," according to Turkmenistan's official news agency. 

Some Central Asian oil consultants are publicly lobbying for the pipeline to be a key part of any post-Taliban "Marshall plan" for the United States to help rebuild Afghanistan. 

"It should be an absolute must for the U.S. to pursue this option," said Rob Sobhani, president of Washington-based Caspian Energy Consulting and a former consultant in Central Asia for Amoco, which is now part of British Petroleum. Sobhani has pushed the pipeline on various U.S. television programs. 

The Afghan pipelines would make it cheaper and faster for Naemi and Chase Energy to get their oil and natural gas to Asian markets. Currently, they are planning to use railroads along long, circuitous routes via the Caspian Sea region and Turkey. 

At war since the Soviets invaded in 1979, Afghanistan has never been able to fully tap its significant deposits of natural gas, oil and coal. Conflict after conflict has shattered its infrastructure, eroded its economy and spawned one of the world's largest refugee populations. 

All that seemed to be forgotten when the Taliban grabbed power in 1996, bringing stability to much of the country. By then, an international consortium of oil companies led by Houston-based Unocal Corp. was wooing the hard-line Islamic regime to sign the pipeline deal. 

The group included companies from Saudi Arabia, Russia, South Korea, Japan and Pakistan. The Argentine firm Bridas also was competing for the rights to build a pipeline through Afghanistan. 

Unocal pulled out of the pipeline consortium in December 1998, after the U.S. Embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania and the subsequent American military strikes on Osama bin Laden's training camps in Afghanistan. The civil war in Afghanistan, low oil prices and pressure at home from U.S. women's groups protesting the Taliban's subjugation of women also played roles. 

The State Department was helping Unocal, despite the Taliban's brutal human-rights record and its harboring of bin Laden. U.S. officials said they hoped the Taliban would moderate their policies and the pipeline would boost Afghanistan's crippled economy. 

According to the Washington-based Heritage Foundation, a conservative public policy organization, the American diplomatic dance with the Taliban was partly an attempt to prevent the construction of a pipeline through Iran and to reduce Russian leverage over Turkmenistan and Kazakhstan. 

U.S. ties with the oil-producing former Soviet republics are closer after the Sept.11 terrorist attacks. Uzbekistan's government, which hopes that a stable Afghanistan will open direct routes for its oil and natural gas, and its neighbors have supported the American-led anti-terrorism coalition. 

Although the United States is talking about buying oil from Russia, it also is supporting the proposed construction of a pipeline from Baku, Azerbaijan, to the Turkish seaport of Ceyhan, which would allow the Caspian Sea nations to lessen their reliance on Moscow. 

While modern-day wildcatters such as Naemi are betting on the Afghan pipelines, larger oil companies aren't jumping in so soon. A Unocal spokeswoman said the company had no plans to invest anywhere in Central Asia in the near future. 

"_The prospects are there, the potential is there," said Abdul Raheem Yaseer, the assistant director of the Center for Afghanistan Studies at the University of Nebraska in Omaha. "But first the Taliban have to be removed, then the terrorists have to be removed. Then the Afghans have to be helped to form their own government, and then they'll need a lot of money for reconstructing their country. Then they will talk about oil projects_." 

End of Article



			
				deadhand31 said:
			
		

> You also are mixing up pipelines. The pipeline that is currently put in production is a NATURAL GAS pipeline. This is not an OIL pipeline. This is a pipeline that is being put into place for two reasons: 1. Internal infrastructure to supply natural gas to Afghanistan, and 2. For the export of natural gas to other countries as a way to pump money into the Afghani economy.



Nope.  Natural Gas and Petroleum form in geologically similar areas and by very similar processes.  Nearly all major pipe routes across the world move both.  Unocal wants to move both.  The ground work for Unocal's pipeline has been set.  Hamid Karzai, their man, signed the deal.  The pipeline above is part of one suggested to go through Pakistan.  How else do you think they are going to be able to export the gas if they don't build the rest of it?  Kabul is landlocked and natural gas is not an easy material to transport by vehicle.


----------



## deadhand31 (Aug 30, 2004)

Dude, the article you put in your last thread basically stated that there was HOPE of investors returning. Yes, they would probably like that, as it would be a boon to their economy. However, I'd like to review your contentions, starting from the very beginning. 

1. You stated that Bush was courting the Taliban pre-9/11. This was not the case. As your own articles showed, he simply accepted letters from their envoys to remove sanctions from their country. He did not lift those sanctions.

2. You contended that Bush invaded Afghanistan to get oil there. You seem to forget a few things... like.. 9/11, perhaps? He also did not revert to the invasion right away. He gave them orders to follow, which were: 1, Turn over Bin Laden, 2. Close down the terrorist training camps, and 3, release all foreign aid workers. This would have been a peaceful solution, and if followed, the Taliban wouldn't be on the run. When somebody organizes an attack against innocent civilians, the prudent thing to do is to go after them. When a rogue faux-government is aiding said person, you want to get them to stop. They did not agree to stop. They also tried to use imprisoned foreign aid workers as bargaining chips. 

3. You contend that the oil companies are waiting for a stable Afghanistan. Since 1998, the western oil companies have pulled out. All of your articles has the companies themselves stating that they do not have plans. These companies also looked to BYPASS Afghanistan for future projects. The current projects in the works are currently looking to be funded by the ADB, and potential donor countries. You articles state only a possibility of western involvement, however, they looked to bypass Afghanistan. If they were dead-set on Afghanistan, they would not have looked at other areas. 

In conclusion, looking at what your own sources say, it is easy to sort out what is pure speculation, and what is, in actuality, happening. This pipeline deal was started in the Clinton era, and was abandoned by western companies at the same time. You're also stating that Bush went after Afghanistan purely for oil. Given how he had ignored the Taliban pre-9/11, do you honestly think that Afghanistan would have been invaded?


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 31, 2004)

A quote by Tom Simmons, US delegate at a meeting with the Taliban and Former US ambassador to Pakistan, "accept our carpet of gold (oil pipeline), or you will recieve a carpet of bombs."  July, 2001.  The US government met with Taliban officials up until August of 2001, then the talks fell apart.

Now that the Taliban are gone and Afghanistan is on its way to becoming more secure because of our brave soldiers...

White House announces 10 new bases in Afghanistan _'in hopes of boosting reconstruction efforts and regional security_', whose locations coincide with the route proposed by Unocal in 1998 for a gas pipeline from Turkmenistan through Afghanistan to Pakistan. [Boston Globe 12/2002] 

Hamid Karzai signs deal to build the pipeline.  Construction will begin when Afghanistan security has been established.

The economies of all the countries in that region _need _ this pipeline, deadhand31.  Our way of life in the US depends on securing foriegn sources of fossil fuels.  There is no dispute to the fact that President Bush has strings tied to the Oil Industry.  No dispute.  I think that you are failing to recognize that this is what happens when those strings are pulled.  This is a done deal.  It follows the US Agency on Trade and Foriegn Relations plan to get the pipeline done.

As far as my position, I've been very careful in stating in all along.  I do not think that *profits * should be a *priority * in the War on Terror.  This does not mean that I don't think that our country should go after the people who perpetrated 911.  My ethical position is based on the fact that the Bush Administration is using 911 to accomplish something they have been planning for years.  This is, by definition, a _conflict of interest_.

The Trans Afghan-Pakistan Pipeline, whoever builds it, will be a boon to US oil companies.

upnorthkyosa


----------



## deadhand31 (Sep 1, 2004)

I would like for you to find the exact date of the meeting that this "Carpet of Bombs" citation was made. I would also like for you to name the delegates present. Also, I would like to know the location, if you can find it.  I did a google search on that line, and all I found were forums, conspiracy theory sites, and only one real news reference. However, this news reference was a response to an editorial where a reader asked why the paper didn't put the term in their story. This was because it was not documented aside from a second-hand account in a newspaper. 

Basically, what I'm getting at is, you're going to find a conspiracy. This is because you have the Mooreian mindset, and will find one where none exists. I would like to go through a flow of what articles actually said, and what you said they meant. 

1. What was actually said: Bush accepted a letter from a Taliban envoy. 

What you said: Bush was in league with the Taliban.

2. What was actually said: Unocal pulled out of the deal, and has no plans to participate.

What you said: Unocal is going to build there.

3. What was actually said: Afghanistan is looking for members of the old consortium (including Unocal, among others) to resume the pipeline.

What you said: Unocal is going to be a member, no doubt. 

4. What was actually there: An editorial of someone who thinks Bush went in for oil, with no documented sources.

What you said it was: Legitimate research on Bush's oil deal with the Taliban.

4.What you said: Bush went in because of the pipeline. 

What actually happened: The Taliban were unwilling to work against Al-qaeda. They refused to turn over bin Laden, and release wrongly imprisoned foreign aid workers. They basically refused any peaceful resolution to the conflict, and sealed their own demise. 


Now, another interesting thing, you say that profits should not be a priority on the war against terror. True. It wasn't in this case. You also say that we should go after those who helped make 9/11 to happen. Now, for that to happen, we needed to get cooperation from the Taliban. We did not get it. So we went in after al qaeda ourselves. So, basically, no matter what, Afghanistan would have been a target, since that's what was required. You can agree we should have gone after Afghanistan.

Now, you also say that no matter who builds it, the pipeline will be a boon to US oil. So.... let me get this straight..... with ZERO involvement in the pipeline from the US, the US companies will profit? Interesting point. 

So basically what you're saying is that even if we did what was neccessary (which was go after those who made 9/11 a reality), with no plans whatsoever by Bush, no US involvement in the reconstruction efforts, the result would have been the same. 

So basically, Bush can invade for security reasons with no motivation for oil whatsoever, and no matter what, you will attack him on this oil conspiracy. 

I'll also wait for the date of that meeting, and those who attended.  :uhyeah:


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 2, 2004)

deadhand31 said:
			
		

> I would like for you to find the exact date of the meeting that this "Carpet of Bombs" citation was made. I would also like for you to name the delegates present. Also, I would like to know the location, if you can find it.  I did a google search on that line, and all I found were forums, conspiracy theory sites, and only one real news reference. However, this news reference was a response to an editorial where a reader asked why the paper didn't put the term in their story. This was because it was not documented aside from a second-hand account in a newspaper.



"Forbidden Truth: U.S.-Taliban Secret Diplomacy and the Failed Hunt for Bin Laden." Jean-Charles Brisard and Guillaume Dasquie.  This source is controversial and it makes a few points I disagree with, but the meeting you would like specific information on is well documented in this book.



			
				deadhand31 said:
			
		

> Basically, what I'm getting at is, you're going to find a conspiracy. This is because you have the Mooreian mindset, and will find one where none exists. I would like to go through a flow of what articles actually said, and what you said they meant.



This is not conspiracy.  It's fact.  Its happening.  I think the reason you are having so much difficulty seeing it is that you don't understand the following...

A.  US dependence/obsession with oil
B.  Military Industrial Complex
C.  Economic Supremacy
D.  National Interest



			
				deadhand31 said:
			
		

> 1. What was actually said: Bush accepted a letter from a Taliban envoy.



President Bush not only accepted a letter, his administration was meeting with the Taliban up until August 2001.  Then the talks fell apart.



			
				deadhand31 said:
			
		

> 2. What was actually said: Unocal pulled out of the deal, and has no plans to participate.



Unocal may have pulled out of the deal, but the pipeline they wanted is still being pushed.  You need to ask yourself the question, why build the pipeline in the first place?  Surely the construction of such a thing cannot be the only incentive for US involvement.



			
				deadhand31 said:
			
		

> 3. What was actually said: Afghanistan is looking for members of the old consortium (including Unocal, among others) to resume the pipeline.



Considering that the US agency of Trade and Foriegn relations, of which Unocal is a member, expects them to be a part of the deal, I would say its pretty much a sure thing.  Also, Unocal is the DOMINANT oil company in that region.  No one else is bigger.   



			
				deadhand31 said:
			
		

> 4. What was actually there: An editorial of someone who thinks Bush went in for oil, with no documented sources.



The source in which you refer documents the sources throughout the entire peice.  I don't know how you can say this unless you didn't read it very carefully.  Also, editorial implies some sort of bias.  Everything has bias.  Check the sources.



			
				deadhand31 said:
			
		

> 4.What you said: Bush went in because of the pipeline.



These plans were stated by Bush Administration officials in the Plan for the New American Century.  They even told other countries in the region...



> Plans existed before 911 to put troops on the ground in Afghanistan. Washington tells India that US troops will be in Afghanistan "before the snow falls" - this deadline is then met thanks to the Sept. 11 attacks two months later. [BBC, 9/18/01; 8/5/02]



After 911, the purpose of the Bush Administration became duel.  Get the terrorists AND secure Afghanistan for the pipeline.  For which do you want the lives of your countrymen and your tax money to be spent.



			
				deadhand31 said:
			
		

> Now, another interesting thing, you say that profits should not be a priority on the war against terror. True. It wasn't in this case. You also say that we should go after those who helped make 9/11 to happen. Now, for that to happen, we needed to get cooperation from the Taliban. We did not get it. So we went in after al qaeda ourselves. So, basically, no matter what, Afghanistan would have been a target, since that's what was required. You can agree we should have gone after Afghanistan.



This is the official story, for sure, but as you can see, it is much more complicated.  



			
				deadhand31 said:
			
		

> Now, you also say that no matter who builds it, the pipeline will be a boon to US oil. So.... let me get this straight..... with ZERO involvement in the pipeline from the US, the US companies will profit? Interesting point.



The money is going to be lent by ABD.  No company will step forward to build it until Afghanistan is secure.  The Afghan and Pakistani government PREFER a US company.  The future will tell this story.  

Here is a scenario that could play out.  US companies do not want to risk their money, so they get a local oil company, buy its stock and pump in a little capital.  US companies risk very little.  The pipeline is built.  What comes out of the pipeline?  That is where the real profits are located.

The bottom line.

911 gave our Administration an excuse to pursue its own interests as well as the Terrorists.  I have an ethical problem with this and I think that many others do to.  Profits should not be a priority in the war on terror.  Heaven forbid, if we are attacked again, the people of this country are going to find out the hard way why this is true.  And that is a lesson that will cost too much in my humble opinion.

Peace.

upnorthkyosa


----------



## deadhand31 (Sep 2, 2004)

Like I said, you're finding a conspiracy which none exists. 

Also, whether or not Bush went in with no plans of oil, you'll still attack him on it, because you say 
A. We have to go after who attacked us, 
and 
B. The oil will be a boon to US companies, regardless of who builds it. 

You basically set up a trap, where if he didn't go after Afghanistan, then he wasn't going after the terrorists, and if he did, he's only after oil. It's a lose/lose situation made up by Mooreons like yourself. 

Now, exact date and delegates, please.


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 2, 2004)

deadhand31 said:
			
		

> Now, exact date and delegates, please.



Read the book.  This is no conspiracy.  This is reality.  If it seems a trap to you then maybe you should re-evaluate why you think so.

 :asian: 

upnorthkyosa


----------



## deadhand31 (Sep 2, 2004)

I don't have the book, you do. Exact date and delegates, please.


----------

