Posted on 12/10/2001 9:04:18 AM PST by Timesink
Fact: Afghanistan('s ruling regime) was harboring terrorists which, as it turned out, attacked our country, prompting us to attack back.
Fact: Afghanistan('s territory) is considered a good place to put a pipeline but the situation thus far has been deemed too unstable.
Some people draw the conclusion from these two things that somehow the war Isn't Really About The Attack, It's About The Oil. (Or even further, some will imply that the attack was allowed....) From this view, the oil pipeline need for "stability" (somehow) caused the attack and ensuing war.
But doesn't it make more sense to say that they are both caused by the same underlying factor? Both the "harboring terrorists" and "bad for a pipeline" situations are caused by the fact that Afghanistan has been ruled by a brutal theocracy. So it's not surprising that there is a correlation between the war and oil interests, but that doesn't imply that oil "caused" the war.
"Even if ways were found to get oil and gas out of Central Asia -- a task that will be expensive and difficult -- the unhappy truth is that there just isn't enough fuel there to make a significant difference."
Being in the Oil Business thought you might have some observations, if not just ignore!
BTW, almost don't you mean "toolate"?
Suzi, I believe that is exactly the loopy formulation that got Michael Rivero tossed from FR. I believe that this conspiracy-oriented website is representative of Rivero's ideas.
d.o.l.
Criminal Number 18F
Also, many thinkers are comfortable with the conditioned response that dates back to Ida Tarbell vs. Standard Oil: When in Doubt, Blame Oil First.
Even normally sane Freepers often have this response. Every time gasoline prices rise in this country, many here blame it on a conspiracy of Big Oil. Yet, they are silent when gasoline prices fall 40 cents a gallon like they have in the last 3 months. You might think that if Big Oil were so powerful, they wouldn't allow that to happen.
Big Oil is the favorite target of the left and they use it as a whipping boy whenever they can. Most of us grew up learning nothing but hostility toward oil companies, because that is the mindset of the media. We didn't have Free Republic around when we were kids to provide a truth check to what we were being told.
Anyway, these conspiracy theories are a crock and more people are becoming educated enough to understand that. There will still be some who continue to blame oil for everything and I'll continue to comment whenever I think it will be helpful.
Thanks for the flag!
Yeah, they probably won't end up piping oil through Afghanistan. That will end up going through one of the other 'Stans to the north. Natural gas for India's electrical generation might well go though Afghanistan and Pakistan though. That would be a good thing from everyone's perspective: fostering economic ties and interdependencies between India and Pakistan.
Development of Central Asian oil resources, and economically viable infrastructure to get the oil and gas to market, would also be good from everyone's perspective (except maybe the autocratic, fundamentalist fostering, wealth hoarding Arab oil states, but screw them).
In fact I think the lefties pushing the "it's all about oil" B.S. need to be challenged on this score at every opportunity. Oil IS important. It's important to maintaining a world economy which provides food, water and shelter and (ideally) resources for education and betterment to the earth's six billion souls.
On any resonable moral theory all humans are corporately responsible for the wellfare of all our fellow humans, and those with the largest and most influencial economies (i.e., The U.S. and Europe) are most responsible for maintaining the effectiveness and prosperity of the world economy. An American President should (in part as a MORAL imperative) be thinking about the future stability of the world's oil supply. A significant interruption would lead to a recession or depression that would KILL tens or hundreds of millions worldwide, and disproportionately affect the poor and oppressed the lefties pretend to be so concerned about. (Even mild recessions, that may only cause those in the prosperous West to take on a second mortgage, or cancel vacation plans, lead to significantly increased DEATH rates in more economically marginal regions.)
It just drives me nuts when these lefties posture about defending the poor, and then turn around and work stalwartly AGAINST their interests on so many fronts. For example the lefties and anti-globablists (read "anti-capitalists") fighting free trade are the ones insisting that trade be tied to universal "environmental" and "labor" standards which the developing world cannot meet. The third world countries clearly (and correctly) see such measures as devices of PROTECTIONISM by the developed world, but that doesn't stop the lefties (almost all priveledged elistists) from pretending to be "on their side". The nihilistic and/or utopian ideals of the left would bring death, degradation and oppression on a truly massive scale if put into practice, and those already most impoverished and degraded would suffer first and worst. Their hypocrisy knows no bounds.
I thank God we have an adminstration that IS concerned about the welfare of our country, our civilization AND the wider world, and which understands the material factors on which these things depend. Adults know there are things in life which must be provided for. Children think it all happens as if by magic.
Dostum, the Uzbek, is reportedly consolidating his control over the corridor from the Caspian hydrocarbon deposits through Afghanistan.
Actions speak louder than words. Whining about the differentiation between actions and "conspiracy theories" is irrelevant.
Amen. Putin's already turning on the taps in Russia. If it makes logistic and economic sense, let's get the stuff flowing through whichever 'Stans want to line up some jobs and hard currency income. Take some cheap energy and build us some more civilization. Hell with the libs whining from the sidelines.
Still, who needs to go into details when we know what is true and what is false?
VRN
BJ, "Give 'em the truth. They'll think{?} it's hell." Peace and love, George.
My point was that even if the "it's all about oil" claims were completely true, these would be GOOD and much needed "schemes". Fact is the powers that be probably have other plans (than an Afghan oil pipeline), but to the extent that America and other Western nations are pushing buttons to get more Central Asian oil to market more economically, they are performing an important SERVICE to the world.
Central Asia badly needs development, jobs and income, India needs natural gas, Pakistan needs foreseable rewards for reforming its backward economic policies, and the world needs a greater diversity of oil supplies (so a single war or other regional interruption won't send all six billion of us spinning into a killing depression). Win-win situation here. As a non-colonial world power, America's interests are in global stability and prosperity. Despite the incessant accusations, whining and hand-wringing from the Left, American "interventions" on balance leave affected regions and people better off than they were before.
I am PROUD and GRATEFUL that our leaders consider issues such as the world oil supply and the health of the world economy. What would you have them do differently?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.