Afghanistan: What Are These People Thinking?

Superfreak, the USA wants a pipeline of its own. This is the reason we remain in Afghanistan and also, we have to have a place to be able to launch a quick attack against Pakistan if that Muslim Bomb nation gets out of hand.

It is no longer a UN mission, the German soldiers grow fat on beer, it is another, USA going it alone. We have to reassess our mission in Afghanistan.

By Greg Guma


As troops and planes headed toward Afghanistan in October 2001, few people questioned the reasons for military engagement. But the causes of war are rarely simple and, as time has passed, other powerful motives have come into focus.

As it turns out, the US war plan was in the works months before the 9/11 attacks. And, like the two Gulf Wars, the rationale was also, if not mainly, rooted in a struggle over access to oil and gas, in this case huge finds in the Caspian Sea Basin. What looked at the time like justified retaliation was, in essence, the first resource war of the 21st century.

For the major energy companies, the Caspian is a new "El Dorado." North of the Persian Gulf, and including Russia, Iran, and former republics of the Soviet Union, it is estimated to contain the world's second or third largest reserves of petroleum, along with a vast supply of natural gas. The region is landlocked, however, so resources found there must move to market by rail or pipeline through adjacent, often unstable states.

Despite complex geopolitics and considerable risks, major oil companies have been acquiring development rights and preparing for production since the early 1990s. By 2001, offshore drilling operations were underway in Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan, and were set to commence elsewhere. The majors have also invested significantly in the future construction of oil and gas pipelines to distant ports and refineries. By 2010, they expect to invest at least $50 billion in production and transportation.

The first big move was a joint venture between Chevron and Kazakhstan, signed in 1993 to develop the huge Tenzig oil field on the Caspian coast. Three years later, ExxonMobil purchased a 25 percent share. Another consortium focused on Azerbaijan's offshore fields, with estimated reserves of 32 billion barrels of oil and 35 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, making it the third largest potential regional source.

In 1994, BP Amoco, Lukoil, Unocal, Penzoil, Statoil, and others joined with Azerbaijan's state oil company to form the Azerbaijan International Operating Company. Bush family adviser James A. Baker III, who spearheaded George W. Bush's victory in the Florida election dispute, headed the law firm representing this consortium and sat on the U.S.-Azerbaijan Chamber of Commerce advisory council, as did Vice Pres. Dick Cheney before him. But before their investments could produce profits, roadblocks would have to be removed. The biggest was how to get the fuel to markets.

Prior to 9/11, the U.S. government's preferred future route, known as the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan (BTC) project, went from Azerbaijan through Georgia and then south to the Turkish coast. The goal was to reduce reliance on Russia and bring the southern Caucasus into the US fold. National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice is a former director of Chevron, a lynchpin of the BTC consortium with extensive operations in Azerbaijan. Until 2000, Cheney was chief executive at Halliburton Co., named a finalist in 2001 to bid on engineering work in the Turkish sector.

Some companies showed more interest in a less expensive route to the Persian Gulf through Iran. But this clashed with official US policy, including a 1995 executive order prohibiting US business with Iran and the 1996 Iran and Libya Sanctions Act, which limited oil investments. A third option was a pipeline from the Dauletebad gas fields in eastern Turkmenistan south through Pakistan to the Arabian Sea, a route across western Afghanistan. After 1995, however, that meant dealing with the Taliban.

This wasn't easy. Although a delegation from Afghanistan visited Washington in February 1997 to secure recognition and meet with Unocal, only two months later the new regime unexpectedly announced that it would award a pipeline contract to the company that started work first. Unocal Pres. John Imle was baffled but refused to give up.

During the summer, a new association chaired by Unocal was formed to promote Turkmenistan-U.S. cooperation. But the Taliban threw another curve ball, announcing that it was leaning toward Bridas. To press its advantage, the Argentina-based company joined forces with another major, Amoco. Still in the game, however, Unocal made some headway with Pakistan, signing a 30-year pricing agreement. Despite complaints, US pressure was paying off. By October, the pieces appeared to be in place. Led by Unocal, Delta, Turkmenistan, Japan's Itochi Oil, Indonesia Petroleum, Crescent Group, and Hyundai became partners in the new Central Asia Gas Pipeline Ltd. (CentGas). Gazprom signed soon after.

Still hoping to win over the Taliban, Unocal invited a delegation to visit corporate headquarters in Sugarland, Texas. The Afghan visitors also met with State Department officials. But the negotiations failed, allegedly because the Taliban wanted too much money. Sensing trouble, Gazprom pulled out of the consortium, leaving Unocal at risk with a 54 percent interest. Shortly thereafter, Unocal Vice Pres. John J. Maresca, later to become a special ambassador to Afghanistan, testified before the US House. Until a single, unified, and friendly government was in place in Afghanistan, he told lawmakers on Feb. 12, 1998, a trans-Afghani pipeline wouldn't be built. The need for a regime change had been put on the table.

By this time, it was quite clear that Afghanistan was one of bin Laden's main operational bases. But the CIA apparently ignored the warnings until the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed. Thirteen days later, the United States retaliated, sending cruise missiles into al Qaeda camps near Khost and Jalalabad. Finally getting the message, Unocal officially suspended its Afghan pipeline plan and pulled out staff throughout the region. Before the end of 1998, it also withdrew from the $2.9 billion Turkmenistan-to-Turkey natural gas project, as well as the Afghan consortium. Unocal's quest for "El Dorado" had been indefinitely postponed.

Taking advantage of an opening, Bridas resumed negotiations with Russia, Turkmenistan, and Kazakhstan. Shortly, Turkmenistan's foreign minister met with the Taliban's Mullah Omar to discuss the proposed pipeline. Enron also expressed an interest. With $3 billion invested in a plan to build an electrical generating plant at Dabhol, India, it had recently lost access to liquid natural gas supplies from Qatar to fuel the plant. A trans-Afghani gas pipeline from Turkmenistan, terminating near the Pakistan-India border, looked like a promising alternative. Before the end of April 1999, Pakistan, Turkmenistan, and the Taliban had sealed an agreement to revive that project.

The Bush family was well acquainted with the bin Ladens long before the Saudi renegade declared war on the United States and its allies in Saudi Arabia's royal family. One of Bush II's former business partners claims to have made his first million in the early 1980s with the aid of a company financed by Osama bin Laden's elder brother, Salem. Both Bush I and II had investments with the Saudi family in the Carlyle Group, a relatively small company that went on to become a large US defense contractor.

Even after the 1998 embassy attacks, the relationship remained cordial. In 1998 and 2000, the first Pres. Bush traveled to Saudi Arabia on behalf of Carlyle, meeting privately with both the Saudi royals and several of Osama's relatives.

Shortly after it moved into the White House, the Bush II administration reportedly told the FBI and intelligence agencies to back off investigations involving the family. The bureau was apparently interested in two bin Laden relatives, Abdullah and Omar, who were living near CIA headquarters in Virginia. A blind spot for Saudi Arabia, as well as Bush family contacts with the bin Ladens, also helps explain why no action was taken when the FBI told the new administration there was clear evidence tying al Qaeda to the October 2000 bombing of the USS Cole.

Then-National Security Advisor Rice certainly knew something was up. Her predecessor, Sandy Berger, had briefed her in detail, advising that she would "be spending more time on this issue than on any other." Yet, according to a May 2002 Newsweek cover story, "What Bush Knew," a strategic review "was marginalized and scarcely mentioned in the ensuing months as the administration committed itself to other priorities, like national missile defense (NMD) and Iraq."

The administration didn't ignore the Taliban, however. On the contrary, it offered aid. In May 2001, Secretary of State Colin Powell announced a $43 million package for the regime, purportedly to assist hungry farmers who were starving since the destruction of their opium crop on orders from the Taliban's leaders.

By June 2001, the warning signs were obvious for anyone willing to listen. German intelligence had informed both the CIA and Israel that Middle Eastern terrorists were "planning to hijack commercial aircraft to use as weapons to attack important symbols of American and Israeli culture." On June 28, CIA Director George Tenet informed Rice that it was "highly likely" that a "significant Qaeda attack" would take place "in the near future." Before he reached Genoa in July for the G-8 summit, Bush obviously understood the danger. Among others, Egyptian Pres. Hosni Mubarak had issued a blunt warning: Someone wanted to crash a plane filled with explosives into the conference site.

But word of imminent US military action was also leaking out. During a meeting with Pakistani and Russian intelligence officers in Berlin, three former US officials revealed that Washington was planning military strikes against Afghanistan. They even speculated on the launch date — October 2001.

Unfortunately, Taliban members may also have been in the room, or at least privy to what was said. In any event, the British press later reported that Pakistan's secret service had relayed the news to the Taliban leadership. So much for the element of surprise.

When revelations surfaced that the United States had received credible warnings of an impending attack, officials protested that the information was too vague and that, in any case, Bush II didn't know about the possibility that airplanes might be hijacked until an Aug. 6, 2001, briefing. A key element of this defense was that intelligence available to the CIA never reached the president's desk. True or not, it was the most convenient explanation. However, given the available warnings, not to mention US plans to mount an attack on Afghanistan, the failure to take effective preventive measures looks, at the very least, like a case of willful disregard.

In the weeks after 9/11, national mourning, frustration, and anger, adroitly stoked by the major media, provided a more than adequate justification for the military battle plan hatched months before. A worldwide campaign against terrorism and an alleged "axis of evil" that included Iraq, Iran, and North Korea would have sounded needlessly militant or overly ambitious before 9/11. Afterward, it was hard, even risky, to speak out against the call to war. The order of the day was unity, and whatever the administration needed, Congress (and the public) seemed willing to supply.


This essay is partially excerpted from Uneasy Empire: Repression, Globalization and What We Can Do, and was originally published by The Vermont Guardian and Toward Freedom in September, 2006.

:hand: :hand: :hand:

Excellent article .. but SF has heard all this information before and he rejects it out of hand even though he can't refute a single word of it.

I suggest not wasting time trying to convince a closed mind, but rather post articles and information to convince people with brains, just as was done with regards to Iraq .. speaking of which SF never answered whether he was even smart enough to figure out the fraud of Iraq.

Without any question or doubt, Obama has proven that he cannot be trusted to get our troops out of wars for profit, thus it is incumbant upon the American people to do what he has no courage to do .. just as we did with Vietnam, just as we did with Iraq.

We cannot continue to turn a blind eye to murder for-profit simply because the perpetrators are on our side of the fence, or because we like them, or because we're mad at republicans.

It is our responsibility and our duty .. as enunciated in the Declaration of Independence .. to reject the blind ignorance and apathy of people like SF and take a stand against the evil of war for-profit .. and all the evil things that surrounds them.

I don't expect that Americans would have any empathy for the innocent men, women, and babies that we are slaughtering in other countries as I do .. but we are killing our own and sending more young American men and women off to die so corporations can make a buck.

Time to get serious with Obama.
 
Last edited:
Also... I couldn't help but notice that you have NOTHING to back up your moronic claims on the towers. All you ever do is point to the two laws and pretend that by stating them somehow your point is made.

Had you actually read the peer reviewed scientific articles rather than drinking kool-aid, you would have noticed that the towers did not fall at free fall speed. You would have also noticed all your other 'facts' were also explained by SCIENCE.

You and Damo are free to beleve whatever bullshit they put in your mouth is the truth.

I don't really give a damn .. but I've presented PLENTY of evidence of the towers including the obvious, including that neither you nor any of your "peer" reviews have any clue why WTC7 fell .. and a shitload of crime scene evidence .. none of which do I care to get into anymore with you.

This thread is about AFGHANISTAN .. and all the fraud and backdoor macinations that many have known about since BEFORE 9/11, but is rising to the surface now.

Go scream at your girlfriend dude .. because yyou have no ability to discuss any of this sanely .. NONE.

The question here is AFGHANISTAN .. and according to you, the US had only minor interest in tht CRAZY PIPELINE CONSPIRACY THEORY and besides, it's just a gas pipeline. Yet there is mountains of eveidence that the pipeline and the ROUTE was then, and still is, important to US war-planners.

But what am I doing discussing facts with you.

I ask again, did you support the Iraq War?
 
I was deeply disappointed in his words and his actions.

We will be mired in for a long time.

What pre-text existed for the invasion of Afghanistan before 9/11.

Without question the Bush Adminstration was prepared to invade Afghanistan before 9/11, before a New Pearl Harbor just dropped in their lap.

I'm not asking whether you believe the events of 9/11 as officially stated or not, but your opinion of how they planned to pull it off without 9/11.
 
Deadly Afghan ambush shows perils of ill-supplied deployment
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/251/story/75300.html

'We're pinned down:' 4 U.S. Marines die in Afghan ambush
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/75036.html

U.S. deaths in Afghanistan headed for another record
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/74342.html

Anti-Americanism rises in Pakistan over U.S. motives
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/117/story/74966.html

Taliban's growth in Afghanistan's north threatens to expand war
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/world/story/74543.html

Taliban-led insurgents strike Kabul airport
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/251/story/74990.html

Military leaders: U.S. effort in Afghanistan just beginning
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/world/story/74881.html

Poll: Most Americans oppose more troops for Afghanistan
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/world/story/74730.html
 
Murtha to Obama: No more troops

House defense spending cardinal John Murtha, an early bellwether of congressional opposition to the Iraq war, has made his strongest comments yet opposing more U.S. troops for the war in Afghanistan.

The Pennsylvania lawmaker and Vietnam veteran, who plays a crucial role in forming the budgets that would fund an increased troop presence, is skeptical of the basic logic of adding personnel.

"In Vietnam it took 500,000 troops and that didn't solve the problem. So we have to take a different approach," Murtha told The Cable in an exclusive interview. "I think that's what McChrystal is trying to do," he said, referring to Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the top U.S. military commander in Afghanistan, who recently delivered a status report to the White House on the situation there.

Murtha's dissent comes at a critical juncture, with the Washington debate heating up and public support for the war effort dropping. The Pennsylvania congressman is only the latest senior Democratic lawmaker to come out against a troop increase, following similar statements last week by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Armed Services Committee chairman Carl Levin.

But opposition from Murtha, who has deep contacts among the military brass, could ultimately prove more problematic for an Obama administration that has yet to launch a full-throated to defense of the war. In 2005, the congressman's call for a rapid pullout from Iraq rallied the anti-war camp and led to a series of fights with the Bush administration over restrictions that Democrats sought but ultimately failed to attach to war funds. This time, he's going against a president of his own party.

McChrystal's status report did not include specific requests for more troops. Those are expected in the coming weeks. But Murtha said that it was premature to add more troops to Afghanistan, especially since the current plan to increase U.S. forces there to the level of 68,000 is still underway.

"Look how long it took us to get 22,000 more troops, it took 18 months! Jesus Christ!" said Murtha, "When they talk about more troops they act as if you can send them in immediately."

Murtha also had some choice words for the NATO countries that are part of the international mission in Afghanistan.

"At the same time, the American people are supporting this and the Europeans aren't supporting this," Murtha said, "The Europeans aren't doing a damn thing."

-- more at link
http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/09/14/murtha_to_obama_no_more_troops

And NO, the europeans aren't doing a damn thing .. because they know it's a manufactured war, no different tham Iraq or Vietnam.
 
Sanders Calls for National Dialogue on Afghanistan Exit Strategy

Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders has joined Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold is declaring that the United States needs to start thinking about how to extract its military from Afghanistan.

While almost 100 members of the House (including many conservative Republicans) have signed on to Massachusetts Congressman Jim McGovern's call for the development of an Afghanistan exit strategy, Feingold has been a relatively lonely Senate advocate for a rethink of the eight-year-old occupation.

At the annual "Fighting Bob Fest" gathering in Baraboo, Wisconsin, however, Sanders drew loud and sustained applause from the crowd of 8,000 when he said, "We need to take a very, very hard look at our war in Afghanistan. We need to be clear in our goals and we need a real discussion about an exit strategy to bring our troops home."

Sanders made his statement at the largest annual gathering of grassroots activists in the Midwest, where there was no question of the crowd's enthusiasm for the "Health Care Not Warfare" message that was promoted at the festival by activists with Progressive Democrats of America.

Prior to coming to Wisconsin for the event, Sanders explained his views on the need to rethink Afghanistan in a video produced as part of the Brave New Films "Senator Sanders Unfiltered" project. Responding to a question from British singer Billy Bragg, Sanders said:

My major concern about the war in Afghanistan, and why I voted against the recent defense authorization bill is tat we seem to be getting sucked into a quagmire without the kind of debate, without the kind of discussion that this country desperately needs and that the people of our country are entitled. What we know now is that the number of troops that the general are requesting is going up and up. We know that we... have already poured several hundred billion dollars into Afghanistan; that number is going to go up. But we don't know what the goals of our efforts in Afghanistan are or what kind of exit strategy we have.

I worry that Afghanistan will be another Vietnam. I worry that Afghanistan will be another Iraq. We've been there eight years already, and how many more years are we supposed to be there? How many more American troops are supposed to die? How many more American troops are supposed to die? How many more tens and tens of billions of dollars are we supposed to be spending at a time when we have a record-breaking deficit? I find it amusing that some of my more conservative friends are saying, 'Well, we can't afford to spend more money on health care in this country. We can't afford to spend more money on education or environmental protection. But, yes, we can afford to pump tens and tens of billions more into the war in Afghanistan.

Sanders says: "We need a real national discussion of an exit strategy, a real national discussion about what our goals are. We haven't had that and the American people should be demanding it."
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/theb...ational_dialogue_on_afghanistan_exit_strategy
 
I'd be happy with Obama using him as an advisor, he seems pretty wise and practicle to me.

C'mon brother.

Haven't you figured this out by now?

Why do you think neither Stiglitz nor Krugamn, both Nobel Prize winners on Economics, are nowhere to be seen around Obama?

Sanders IS a socialist .. do you think the carefully crafted story of Obama wants any real socialists in his administration? Hell, he doesn't even want any real liberals.

Why do you think Wall Street had near-record days on the same day that Obama is delivering his "stern" warning to banking institutions?

Exactly who was it who warned you of Obama's connection to Wall Street and where his huge money was coming from BEFORE he was elected?
 
C'mon brother.

Haven't you figured this out by now?

Why do you think neither Stiglitz nor Krugamn, both Nobel Prize winners on Economics, are nowhere to be seen around Obama?

Sanders IS a socialist .. do you think the carefully crafted story of Obama wants any real socialists in his administration? Hell, he doesn't even want any real liberals.

Why do you think Wall Street had near-record days on the same day that Obama is delivering his "stern" warning to banking institutions?

Exactly who was it who warned you of Obama's connection to Wall Street and where his huge money was coming from BEFORE he was elected?

I'm the voice of wild eyed misplased optimism, your the voice of cold hard reasoning
 
Once again you post data on what happened back in 1998. We have been over this time and again. YES, Unocal was working on a deal for the pipeline back in 1998. The part you keep ignoring is the one where they ceased all plans to do so once we launched missles at Al Queda in Afghanistan.

Since that point in time, they have not changed their minds.

Since that point in time, the oil pipeline was built in Azerbaijan and Georgia to give us the pipeline we wanted from the Caspian, while still allowing us to bypass both Iran and Russia. This route was chosen to avoid the political turmoil in Afghanistan. A far easier option than going to war in Afghanistan.

Afghanistan was a war of retaliation for 9/11. You cannot accept this because of your desire to believe in your idiotic 9/11 conspiracy.

edit.... sorry Froggie, I saw the outdated information once again and thought it was BAC posting it. :)
The conspiracy is not idiotic, you have to remember who was in charge of the White House for the first four years. Oily Dick!
 
The conspiracy is not idiotic, you have to remember who was in charge of the White House for the first four years. Oily Dick!

sigh.... they gave up the pipeline in 1998... three years PRIOR to Bush/Cheney coming into office.

Instead the pipeline was to be built from Azerbaijan through Georgia. Then it was to be linked up with the Turkish lines.

Again... if this conspiracy were true... why would they abandon it so quickly? Why would they not focus all their efforts on Afghanistan to stabilize the country so they could build their pipeline?

the answer... because they were no longer interested in the pipeline.

That conspiracy is simply NOT true. Not one shred of evidence has been provided to back it up. NONE. All BAC continues to do is point to the 1998 articles and say.... 'see SEE!!! they wanted to build a pipeline so they allowed 9/11 to happen (or helped make it happen) so that we could go to war in Afghanistan to build a pipeline.
 
sigh.... they gave up the pipeline in 1998... three years PRIOR to Bush/Cheney coming into office.

Instead the pipeline was to be built from Azerbaijan through Georgia. Then it was to be linked up with the Turkish lines.

Again... if this conspiracy were true... why would they abandon it so quickly? Why would they not focus all their efforts on Afghanistan to stabilize the country so they could build their pipeline?

the answer... because they were no longer interested in the pipeline.

That conspiracy is simply NOT true. Not one shred of evidence has been provided to back it up. NONE. All BAC continues to do is point to the 1998 articles and say.... 'see SEE!!! they wanted to build a pipeline so they allowed 9/11 to happen (or helped make it happen) so that we could go to war in Afghanistan to build a pipeline.
SF, it is always about oil when it comes to the USA and our defenses. It is not conspiracy, it is fact!
 
sigh.... they gave up the pipeline in 1998... three years PRIOR to Bush/Cheney coming into office.

Instead the pipeline was to be built from Azerbaijan through Georgia. Then it was to be linked up with the Turkish lines.

Again... if this conspiracy were true... why would they abandon it so quickly? Why would they not focus all their efforts on Afghanistan to stabilize the country so they could build their pipeline?

the answer... because they were no longer interested in the pipeline.

That conspiracy is simply NOT true. Not one shred of evidence has been provided to back it up. NONE. All BAC continues to do is point to the 1998 articles and say.... 'see SEE!!! they wanted to build a pipeline so they allowed 9/11 to happen (or helped make it happen) so that we could go to war in Afghanistan to build a pipeline.

:lmao:

Oh the joy.

SOMEBODY please make me pay for this.

:lmao:
 
SF, it is always about oil when it comes to the USA and our defenses. It is not conspiracy, it is fact!

I am not suggesting that the US isn't concerned with our oil supply froggie or that it wouldn't fight to protect its oil supply. The point is, Afghanistan does not have oil. The oil in question is being piped through Azerbaijan and Georgia precisely because Afghanistan was too risky. Once that decision was made, there was NO LONGER A NEED to build an oil pipeline through Afghanistan. NONE.

So yes, it is a conspiracy to suggest that is the reason we went to war with Afghanistan.
 
:lmao:

Oh the joy.

SOMEBODY please make me pay for this.

:lmao:

Again with your stupidity.... did you not just suggest that I was following YOU around and now here you are jumping into conversation between myself and froggie?

As for paying... there is a donate button right at the top of the page... it is in Green. I expect you will be quick to make a contribution given your above statement.

Damo appreciates your generosity.
 
I am not suggesting that the US isn't concerned with our oil supply froggie or that it wouldn't fight to protect its oil supply. The point is, Afghanistan does not have oil. The oil in question is being piped through Azerbaijan and Georgia precisely because Afghanistan was too risky. Once that decision was made, there was NO LONGER A NEED to build an oil pipeline through Afghanistan. NONE.

So yes, it is a conspiracy to suggest that is the reason we went to war with Afghanistan.

But if afghanistan was secured, it wouldn't be too risky and they could undo the decision and make a different one. Issues are often revisited.
 
But if afghanistan was secured, it wouldn't be too risky and they could undo the decision and make a different one. Issues are often revisited.
The area next to Afghanistan has a lot of oil and Afghanistan may have some, also.

It is a prized piece of real estate right now for Russia, China and the USA, not to mention Canada and Europe! Everyone wants a pipeline and everyone wants the oil. Hugo is even looking at the possibilities!
 
Back
Top