Another conspiracy theory

[AuntieEmma[$]]

There's a theory floating around that the "real" reason we're fighting in Afghanistan is because we want to build a pipeline through that country to carry oil from (one of the former Soviet republics -- I forget which one, but it's supposed to have potentially as much oil as Saudi Arabia) out to the sea.

I don't know enough about it to really form a solid opinion, but it sure sounds plausible. As it is, without having some ulterior motive, our war with the Taliban doesn't seem to make a whole lot of sense. Rumsfeld has said that we're not going to able to find bin Laden; the Northern Alliance is just as "evil" as the Taliban; and the Taliban is going to get a role in the new government anyway. So I think there has to be something more going on. And maybe it is this pipeline stuff ...

[kurt_messick]

Wasn't there a strand in here about that? I think perhaps Erik highlighted an article?

[realtraveller]

So you're saying that the United States (I guess that would have to be the Clinton and Bush administrations since the operation was in the planning stages for 18 months) arranged for 19 guys from Al Qaeda to hijack four airplanes and kill 5,000 people, push the country into recession, have 500,000 people lose their jobs, use up the budget surplus on war and homeland security, in other words risk the very stability of the country and the government for the unknown but comparitively miniscule benefit of having an oil pipeline through Afghanistan?

I've heard some crazy conspiracy theories but this one takes the cake.

[erik_kosberg]

I don’t remember which article it was, but it’s probably somewhere within this Google search:

http://www.google.com/search?q=unoca...e+Search&hl=en

[AuntieEmma[$]]

Originally posted by realtraveller
So you're saying that the United States (I guess that would have to be the Clinton and Bush administrations since the operation was in the planning stages for 18 months) arranged for 19 guys from Al Qaeda to hijack four airplanes and kill 5,000 people, push the country into recession, have 500,000 people lose their jobs, use up the budget surplus on war and homeland security, in other words risk the very stability of the country and the government for the unknown but comparitively miniscule benefit of having an oil pipeline through Afghanistan?

I've heard some crazy conspiracy theories but this one takes the cake.

Nice try, but .... I'm saying that our war on Afghanistan, as it's unfolding, seems to have little to do with stopping al-qaeda.

Of course I don't think the U.S. had anything to do with planning the terrorist attacks. What I am wondering is whether the U.S. is now doing things, under the banner of "fighting back against terrorism," that are really being done to advance other agendas.

P.S. If Bush were really concerned about "using up the budget surplus," why did he decide, after the attacks, to give all those new tax breaks to the wealthiest individuals and corporations?

P.P.S. The advantages of having an oil pipeline run through Afghanistan are apparently not "miniscule" at all.

[poseidon]

I have a better conspiracy theory.

GW had sagging poll numbers and a poor economy and needed a quick fix. He took a lesson from his father and decided he needed some middle eastern wacko to pick on.

Understanding that Clinton couldn't muster any sympathy for bombing Saddam every other day for his entire two terms of office, GW decided he needed another target.

So, GW enlists the help of bin Laden and his cronies and arranges for them to hijack a couple of planes and fly them into the WTC and the Pentagon.

Unfortunately, no one was counting on the WTC coming down the way that it did, but it did make GW's job of declaring war easier.

Magically, his poll numbers went up and I saw a recent Gallup poll that said if the election were held today, GW would win by a 2-1 margin.

A second problem is being solved. Nothing fixes a sagging economy better than a good old fashioned war. So now he has a wartime economy that is very slowly starting to slow down the downfall and there are hints it may be starting to have an upswing...

[AuntieEmma[$]]

I found the article that had got me thinking about this stuff in the first place.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...02/ED90804.DTL

[CeeJay62]

Originally posted by AuntieEmma
There's a theory floating around that the "real" reason we're fighting in Afghanistan is because we want to build a pipeline through that country to carry oil from (one of the former Soviet republics -- I forget which one, but it's supposed to have potentially as much oil as Saudi Arabia) out to the sea.
...

Isn't Afghanistan land locked? There must be another conspiracy in the works to blow up Pakistan next

[vania]

Originally posted by poseidon
I have a better conspiracy theory.

GW had sagging poll numbers and a poor economy and needed a quick fix. He took a lesson from his father and decided he needed some middle eastern wacko to pick on.

Understanding that Clinton couldn't muster any sympathy for bombing Saddam every other day for his entire two terms of office, GW decided he needed another target.

So, GW enlists the help of bin Laden and his cronies and arranges for them to hijack a couple of planes and fly them into the WTC and the Pentagon.

Unfortunately, no one was counting on the WTC coming down the way that it did, but it did make GW's job of declaring war easier.

Magically, his poll numbers went up and I saw a recent Gallup poll that said if the election were held today, GW would win by a 2-1 margin.

A second problem is being solved. Nothing fixes a sagging economy better than a good old fashioned war. So now he has a wartime economy that is very slowly starting to slow down the downfall and there are hints it may be starting to have an upswing...

Mwaaaa Haaa Ha! How deliciously eee-vil....


Sorry-- couldn't resist!

[kurt_messick]

Actually, I'd heard that conspiracy theory, too. Alas, methinks I hear black helicopters following the path demarcated by the tags on the backs of roadsigns...

[AuntieEmma[$]]

For everyone who just reflexively scoffs, I have some questions:

(1) Bush has said that this is a war against "evildoers." The Northern Alliance are mass rapists, murderers, and thugs. Their beef with the Taliban is not that they (the N.A.) are good and the Taliban evil -- their beef is that the Taliban are from a different ethnic group. Explain how supporting the Northern Alliance equates with fighting evildoers.

(2) In addition to the Northern Alliance, we are planning to install "moderate Taliban" as part of the new government. Explain how the phrase "moderate Taliban" is not an oxymoron.

(3) Do you think that I got this idea that we're not really after bin Laden from some left-wing nut? Well actually ... I got the idea from Rumsfeld. It was Rumsfeld who said that we shouldn't expect to find bin Laden, that it would be like finding a needle in a haystack, that bin Laden had millions of dollars and supporters in 60 countries and could hide virtually anywhere in the world. Explain why I should or should not believe what Rumsfeld said.

(4) Cheney and Blair have said, respectively, that this war will take "longer than our lifetimes" and fifty years. Meanwhile, the threat of a reprisal terrorist attack, probably worse than 9/11, is imminent. Explain how a war that will last for fifty years will protect us from a major attack which may occur any day now.

(5) I think it was only about six months ago that we gave the Taliban a whole ton of money, supposedly in exchange for their promise to stop growing poppies. This was after we had proof that bin Laden was involved in the African embassy bombings, and after we had negotiated for years with the Taliban, trying to get them to give up bin Laden, and after the Taliban had refused to turn him over. Explain how giving millions of dollars to evildoers one day, and then turning around and bombing them the next, is a coherent strategy.

(6) Give one example of a time we were involved in the Middle East when oil was not a factor.

[realtraveller]

Explain where you got the information that oil interests wanted to build a pipeline through Afghanistan and could do that only through removing the Taliban from power.

Explain how any oil pipeline can be built when we are dropping bombs on Afghanistan.

Your conspiracy theory began with the premise that the war in Afghanistan was just a ruse to develop an oil pipeline. I still have seen no evidence to support that.

[CeeJay62]

Where to start.........

1) I'm not thrilled with Bush's use of the word evildoers either. Everytime he says that I think that after the military is done with the Taliban, they need to come back to America and stop the evil in this country and take out all the murders, rapists, people who use the word party as a verb and drug dealers. I think in the case of the Northern Alliance the old "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" cliche applies. Also, as bad as they are, the Northern Alliance did not run terrorist camps for global destruction.

2) I didn't think the decision on "moderate Taliban" has been made. I haven't read that the United States has embraced that idea but I doubt we will have total veto power over the new Afghan government.

3) Rumsfeld said we might not find him because of the size of the world and the fact we might blow him up with a bunker buster and never find the corpse.........not because we are secretly after oil.

4) They said the war against terror will take 50 years, something along the lines of a cold war and not always an actual military battle. I am sure we do not have plans to spend 50 years fighting the Taliban.

5) I was under the impression we gave the Taliban money as a humanitarian gesture so the people of Afghanistan would not starve. It was not an endorsement of their government, and if I remember correctly there was a lot of discussion on this very board about the wisdom of using the devil to deliver good works.

6) When terrorists kill 5,000+ people in our country.

[AuntieEmma[$]]

Here's something interesting. This is from testimony that a vice president of Unocal gave to Congress in 1998:

Mr. Chairman, I am John Maresca, Vice President, International Relations, of Unocal Corporation. Unocal is one of the world's leading energy resource and project development companies. Our activities are focused on three major regions -- Asia, Latin America and the U.S. Gulf of Mexico. In Asia and the U.S. Gulf of Mexico, we are a major oil and gas producer. I appreciate your invitation to speak here today. I believe these hearings are important and timely, and I congratulate you for focusing on Central Asia oil and gas reserves and the role they play in shaping U.S. policy.

Today we would like to focus on three issues concerning this region, its resources and U.S. policy:

The need for multiple pipeline routes for Central Asian oil and gas.

The need for U.S. support for international and regional efforts to achieve balanced and lasting political settlements within Russia, other newly independent states and in Afghanistan.

The need for structured assistance to encourage economic reforms and the development of appropriate investment climates in the region. In this regard, we specifically support repeal or removal of Section 907 of the Freedom Support Act.

<snip>

One obvious potential route south would be across Iran. However, this option is foreclosed for American companies because of U.S. sanctions legislation. The only other possible route option is across Afghanistan, which has its own unique challenges.

The country has been involved in bitter warfare for almost two decades. The territory across which the pipeline would extend is controlled by the Taliban, an Islamic movement that is not recognized as a government by most other nations.

From the outset, we have made it clear that construction of our proposed pipeline cannot begin until a recognized government is in place that has the confidence of governments, lenders and our company.

In spite of this, a route through Afghanistan appears to be the best option with the fewest technical obstacles. It is the shortest route to the sea and has relatively favorable terrain for a pipeline. The route through Afghanistan is the one that would bring Central Asian oil closest to Asian markets and thus would be the cheapest in terms of transporting the oil.

Unocal envisions the creation of a Central Asian Oil Pipeline Consortium. The pipeline would become an integral part of a regional oil pipeline system that will utilize and gather oil from existing pipeline infrastructure in Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan and Russia.
The 1,040-mile-long oil pipeline would begin near the town of Chardzhou, in northern Turkmenistan, and extend southeasterly through Afghanistan to an export terminal that would be constructed on the Pakistan coast on the Arabian Sea. Only about 440 miles of the pipeline would be in Afghanistan.

This 42-inch-diameter pipeline will have a shipping capacity of one million barrels of oil per day. Estimated cost of the project -- which is similar in scope to the Trans Alaska Pipeline -- is about US$2.5 billion.

There is considerable international and regional political interest in this pipeline. Asian crude oil importers, particularly from Japan, are looking to Central Asia and the Caspian as a new strategic source of supply to satisfy their desire for resource diversity. The pipeline benefits Central Asian countries because it would allow them to sell their oil in expanding and highly prospective hard currency markets. The pipeline would benefit Afghanistan, which would receive revenues from transport tariffs, and would promote stability and encourage trade and economic development. Although Unocal has not negotiated with any one group, and does not favor any group, we have had contacts with and briefings for all of them. We know that the different factions in Afghanistan understand the importance of the pipeline project for their country, and have expressed their support of it.

A recent study for the World Bank states that the proposed pipeline from Central Asia across Afghanistan and Pakistan to the Arabian Sea would provide more favorable netbacks to oil producers through access to higher value markets than those currently being accessed through the traditional Baltic and Black Sea export routes.
This is evidenced by the netback values producers will receive as determined by the World Bank study. For West Siberian crude, the netback value will increase by nearly $2.00 per barrel by going south to Asia. For a producer in western Kazakhstan, the netback value will increase by more than $1 per barrel by going south to Asia as compared to west to the Mediterranean via the Black Sea.

<snip>

Conclusion

The Central Asia and Caspian region is blessed with abundant oil and gas that can enhance the lives of the region's residents and provide energy for growth for Europe and Asia.

The impact of these resources on U.S. commercial interests and U.S. foreign policy is also significant and intertwined. Without peaceful settlement of conflicts within the region, cross-border oil and gas pipelines are not likely to be built. We urge the Administration and the Congress to give strong support to the United Nations-led peace process in Afghanistan.

U.S. assistance in developing these new economies will be crucial to business' success. We encourage strong technical assistance programs throughout the region. We also urge repeal or removal of Section 907 of the Freedom Support Act. This section unfairly restricts U.S. government assistance to the government of Azerbaijan and limits U.S. influence in the region.

Developing cost-effective, profitable and efficient export routes for Central Asia resources is a formidable, but not impossible, task. It has been accomplished before. A commercial corridor, a "new" Silk Road, can link the Central Asia supply with the demand -- once again making Central Asia the crossroads between Europe and Asia.

Thank you.

http://www.house.gov/international_r...wsap212982.htm

(edited to fix the spacing)

[AuntieEmma[$]]

Originally posted by realtraveller
Explain where you got the information that oil interests wanted to build a pipeline through Afghanistan and could do that only through removing the Taliban from power.

Does this (from the testimony quoted above) answer that question?

The country has been involved in bitter warfare for almost two decades. The territory across which the pipeline would extend is controlled by the Taliban, an Islamic movement that is not recognized as a government by most other nations.

From the outset, we have made it clear that construction of our proposed pipeline cannot begin until a recognized government is in place that has the confidence of governments, lenders and our company.

[realtraveller]

Interesting, but still not any evidence that this war against the Taliban was undertaken to build an oil pipeline rather than to root out terrorists. In fact, the Bush administration has been consistently saying that they do not want to become involved in "nation-building" in Afghanistan.

[AuntieEmma[$]]

Originally posted by realtraveller
Interesting, but still not any evidence that this war against the Taliban was undertaken to build an oil pipeline rather than to root out terrorists.

It could be both.

In fact, the Bush administration has been consistently saying that they do not want to become involved in "nation-building" in Afghanistan.

Not sure what to make of that. He says, on the one hand, that he's not interested in nation-building, but then on the other, he launches an attack to unseat the Taliban and has a list of exactly who he would like to see put into power in their place.

He does want the U.N. to implement the plan to deflect all the flak that would surely come our way if it were seen as an American coup. But it is, essentially, an American coup, even if the U.N. will nominally be in charge.

And here's the thing: Having a new, internationally-recognized government in Afghanistan will give a tremendous boost to our commercial interests -- it's exactly what Unocal needs to get back to working on the pipeline. It's much less certain, though, that having a new government there will do anything much to rid the world of terrorists. So I do wonder what is the primary reason we're there.

[AuntieEmma[$]]

Here's a page with a lot of information. The site itself appears to have a clear bias, but the articles it links to are legit.

http://germany.indymedia.org/2001/10/8305.html

---------------------
From what I've been able to piece together, Unocal withdrew from the pipeline plans in August 1998, after Clinton's attacks on Afghanistan and the Sudan. Before that, Unocal had reportedly been cooperating with the Taliban in order to get the pipeline project going, an association that feminist and human rights groups had been protesting.

Curiouser and curiouser ...

[AuntieEmma[$]]

In the stuff I've been reading (newspaper/online) about the oil pipeline aspect of the war, I keep on coming across references to a book called "Taliban: Militant Islam, Oil and Fundamentalism in Central Asia," by Ahmed Rashid, a Pakastani journalist. It's now on my to-read-soon list. Has anybody read it?

[jankp]

Haven't read it, but should be interesting. I just want to point out that the new hybrid cars have already started coming out from Toyota and Honda and all car manufacturers will have them by 2003 probably. They're half-electric, half-gas and recharge when the brakes are used. Fast, quiet, no emissions, 70 mpg for small cars, about 35-40 for bigger.

Jan

[erik_kosberg]

Not yet (it’s still on my gotta get around to reading it list), but I’m about a third of the way through John K. Cooley’s Unholy Wars: Afghanistan, America and international Terrorism.

[CeeJay62]

www.drudgereport.com

Drudge has an article featured on his site that is claiming Bin Laden is now taking responsibility for the 9/11 attacks. Take it with the proverbial grain of salt (the article, not his guilt), but this follows his typical pattern of deny then claim.

[AuntieEmma[$]]

Originally posted by erik_kosberg
I’m about a third of the way through John K. Cooley’s Unholy Wars: Afghanistan, America and international Terrorism.

Is that good?

Quo