Pipe Dreams: The origin of the "bombing Afghanistan for oil pipelines" theory (Lefties Proved Liars)

Slate ^ | December 6, 2001 | Seth Stevenson

[wcbtinman]

"Afghanistan in 2001, on the other hand, is merely a dirthole where the mass murderers are hiding."

I agree. But so was the Middle East until vast deposits of oil were found there. Afghanistan may be next.

[Medium Rare]

Nevermind the fact that the Caspian Sea pipeline goes nowhere NEAR Afghanistan... or have certain conspiracists STILL not bothered to check that on the map...?

Of course there is no pipeline currently in Afghanistan. However the proposed pipeline goes right through the middle of Afghanistan with a branch veering off to the east toward Pakistan, India and China. The other branch continues on down to the Indian Ocean.

You do undertand the difference between existing and proposed don't you?

[detsaoT]

You do undertand the difference between existing and proposed don't you?

Of course. It's you who seems to have difficulty with the concept. You see, "proposals" can be changed, killed, or otherwise altered in any manner conceivable LONG before they reach the "under construction" phase. Pointing to a "proposed" pipeline (which has been "proposed" off and on for over 25 years) proves absolutely nothing about the War on Terror and it's supposed link to the Oil industry.

(Besides, if we were smart, we'd dump OPEC and begin importing oil from the Russian Federation, anyway. Therefore we would not NEED an Afghani pipeline... but that's my bonus 2 quid.)

;) ttt

[Stultis]

I do appreciate your candor. I strongly disagree with the notion that we should be fighting wars to secure US petroleum investments.

Oh, Bull Cr*p. We are not fighting this war over oil, and I never said we were. Are you channeling Noam Chompsky? If you can't understand the real reason we are fighting, I'm not going to bother belaboring the bloody obvious.

What I AM saying is that bringing development, and thereby some measure of prosperity and economic opportunity, to this region will make it that much less likely that we will have to fight another war there. I am also saying that bringing more Central Asian oil to the world market will provide more security and economic stability and resilience to the world if things ever go totally to sh!t in the Middle East.

I repeat the question you ignored. How is this a BAD thing? Aside, that is, from the fact that class baiting populists think it's simply wrong for big corporations to make a profit, or for world leaders to push a few buttons or remove a few obstacles to lift populations out of mideval degradation and provide jobs and opportunities.

[George Frm Br00klyn Park]

"How is this a BAD thing? Aside, that is, from the fact that class baiting populists think it's simply wrong for big corporations to make a profit, or for world leaders to push a few buttons or remove a few obstacles to lift populations out of mideval degradation and provide jobs and opportunities."

S, The "Public Private Partnerships" between godgov{s} and "big corporations" to run everything to "lift populations out of mideval degradation and provide jobs and opportunities." is a VERY "BAD thing'. Corporations of today are owned by investors that INSIST on a GOOD return on their investment.

Unlike the Henry Fords of yesteryear who brought back their companies in able to be able to sell their wares to the populace. There is NO incentive for BIG corporations to "lift populations out of mideval degradation", and any government that thinks so is living in a dream world of Hitler's "Third Way". Peace and love, George.

[Stultis]

Corporations of today are owned by investors that INSIST on a GOOD return on their investment.

Yeah. And your point? (Or are you being sarcastic?)

[George Frm Br00klyn Park]

S, My "point" being that for ANYBODY to REALLY think that government is in partnership with BIG business to bring populations out of poverty is ludicrous to say the least. And, most like "misleading", again, to say the least. The business of BIG business is to make money for their investors, and the business of BIG government is to grow ever more powerful. The incentive for both entities would be to KEEP the populace "in its place" and provide "good" workers for the "partnership". Peace and love, George.

[DugwayDuke]

Guys, it’s not just the lefty loonies. We also have loonies on the right who subscribe to variations of this pipeline theory. They are the LewRockwell.Com wing of the Libertarian Party. The “loony left” see this all as a conspiracy by evil big oil using it’s money to control the government, start a war, and increase their profits. In this theory, government is essentially good, it’s just unable to resist the powerful (and evil) corporate interests (Campaign Finance Reform). The “looney right”, OTOH, sees big business as good, and big government as evil. The “looney right” sees 9-11 either as masterminded by the government or exploited by the government in order to enslave the people. Anyone who doubts the existence of the “looney right” need only look around FR for their threads or visit LewRockwell.

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Personally, I would love for the local gasoline stations to publish the federal, state, and local taxes which they are forced to charge at the pump along with the actual price of gasoline.  That would give people a real feel for the actual cost of gasoline...

[TomB]

But this article here also documents that the Bush Administration's policy is that the Taliban are to be part of the new regime:

That article is from 10/22, almost 2 months ago. The "moderate" Taliban trail baloon was burst a long time ago.

See also: The Powell Fix is in - "Moderate" Taliban to be part of New Afghan Government

Another article from ancient history (10/16. Do you have anything more current?

There is nothing in that Wash. Post article that refutes the fact that "moderate" Taliban will be in the new regime. The make-up of the new regime is far from complete.

Then perhaps you can identify the members of the Taliban that have signed the new peace accord in Germany last week. Every ethnic minority was there, I guess the missed the Taliban.

"Logistic support" is not simply "providing intelligence." Clearly US military involvement went far beyond simply "providing intelligence."

Yes, but it is hardly "US military intervention".

I find you implication that our government was complicit in the 9/11 attacks troubling. Perhaps you should post any proof you have of that instead of nibbling around the edges.

[RedBloodedAmerican]

"it's for the oil" is nothing but a load of crap and an insult to all those who lost their lives and family members and friends in the attacks on September 11th. Anyone who thinks other, please freepmail me, I will gladly tell you where to go.