|
U-Know! Forum » Afghanistan |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
stray 2057 posts |
Nov 07, 2001, 12:39
|
||
|
I know what yr saying Grufty. But, why the hell did dubya (a mere senator in Texas at the time) have meetings with the Taliban to discuss Oil rights. Was it just 'cos they're better at talking to the oil producing nations than the US ? (which does sound likely really) As you've done lots of research here I'd be interested to hear your take on the agenda of those meetings.
|
|||
grufty jim 1978 posts |
Nov 07, 2001, 13:08
|
||
|
yeah, i read a news item that said they've started to use: "the 'Daisy Cutter' fire bomb. Known in defence circles as 'the poor man's nuclear weapon', the 15,000lb (6,800kg) bombs explode in a fiery mix of air and fuel just feet above the ground". doesn't it make you sick you live in these times? when napalm isn't considered murderous enough...
|
|||
FourWinds 10943 posts |
Nov 07, 2001, 13:09
|
||
|
These meetings too were part of my 'evidence'. And just a question that I don't really know the definitive answer to. How many oil companies are the Bush family board members of? And are any of these companies linked to the pipelines proposals through Afghan territory?
|
|||
|
grufty jim 1978 posts |
Nov 07, 2001, 13:20
|
||
|
i'm not sure Dubya ever did meet with the Taliban. was he working for Unocal in 1996? i don't believe he was ever a senator either (he was governor of texas, certainly, but was he also in the senate?) it is certainly possible that he met briefly with the Taliban representatives when they arrived in Texas to meet with Unocal (state visit, formal occasion, etc etc) but as far as i'm aware, the agenda of that visit was to discuss the plans for the Central Asia Gas pipeline project between Daulatabad (Turkmenistan) and Multan (Pakistan). i mention that project in my article, and really can't see it as a reason for the United States to get involved in a war... quite the opposite actually. i should say that i feel it is very likely that the pakistan government will attempt (at some future date) to build a pipeline from the Turkmenistan gas fields to supply domestic demand. they will probably do this with the aid of Unocal's erstwhile partners; Delta Investments (about which company i could tell many a strange tale). but we're talking about a relatively minor project here, and one that i'm not sure is even technically practical - the landmines issue cannot be dismissed as easily as FourWinds thinks; mine clearance is a necessary operation before you send in the sort of heavy (and expensive) equipment required to lay a gas pipeline. and mine clearance is not cheap - you don't entrust your billion dollar investment and expensive equipment to a slip-shod security operation. all that's not 100% relevant though - with all of the major investment going into shipping Caspian oil in precisely the opposite direction, for lots of very good reasons, i just don't see them fighting a war to change all that.
|
|||
|
grufty jim 1978 posts |
Nov 07, 2001, 13:26
|
||
|
when the taliban came to power in afghanistan, i suspect that they (as a new government) were schmoozed and courted by dozens (hundreds?) of multinational corporations... that's what multinationals do. there was clearly some interest in building trans-afghan pipelines at the time, but subsequent investigation by pretty much everyone concerned (with the possible exception of the pakistan government who lost hefty potential transit-fees) indicated that the project was not viable and went and started building elsewhere. that's what's happening now. huge wodges of cash are being invested in export pipelines going in the opposite direction. that evidence alone (and it's not the only evidence) is a damn good indicator i'd say.
|
|||
|
stray 2057 posts |
Nov 07, 2001, 13:29
|
||
|
My mistake, yep he was Governor (doh!). I c where you're coming from. Reports I heard was he met on numerous occasions with representatives of the Taliban. Under what role he was acting though, I've no idea. Also, that the meetings were to do with oil rights issues. Whose oil and whose rights though I have no idea. Think yr more than likely right in your analysis. But another thought occurs to me. Considering the vast reserves that have been found in the neighbouring countries of Afghanistan, wouldn't ownership/stewardship of Afghanistan to 'keep-an-eye-on' these relatively new oil states seem like a good plan. A bit like the role that Israel plays for the US in the middle east. Or am I just going oil conspiracy mad ?
|
|||
|
FourWinds 10943 posts |
Nov 07, 2001, 13:41
|
||
|
I was forgetting about the possibility of having expensive machinery blow up. Plant and assets are not expendable like the workforce. I think one of your points speaks against itself though. A lot of money is going into shipping oil in the other direction. That means that a huge market is not being directly catered for directly and to serve that market currently must impose great shipping costs. I know those shipping costs aren't as big as the initial expense of laying a pipeline but the pipeline is an asset on the companies books, using shipping lanes isn't. Also owning a huge money generating/labour providing asset in a third world country gives you a lot of power.
|
|||
|
grufty jim 1978 posts |
Nov 07, 2001, 13:43
|
||
|
actually no, i don't think a person needs to be oil conspiracy mad to wonder about the possible motives of the US government in central asia. after all, afghanistan is quite close to the Caspian - and the US has had a history of taking drastic action to protect it's oil supplies. it seems even stranger to imagine that there isn't some sort of hidden agenda. i mean, that's unprecedented! but, after a long cold look, i really can't see oil figuring in all this in any great way. i honestly do think we are witnessing the instant reflex of an american government that thinks the best way to avoid future attacks is to demonstrate that anyone who tries it will find themselves on the end of violent and massive retribution. we've heard a lot about the pakistan/taliban relationship, and the taliban/al-qaida relationship. there would seem to be a direct route from nuke-ownership to the guys who hijacked those planes, and that must freak out the US (it kind of freaks me out to be frank - though i kind of think bombing afghanistan is likely to accelerate nuclear-terrorism which is only one of the dreadful ironies in these events). as i say elsewhere, the spectre of nuclear terrorism no longer seems so distant when viewed from within a campaign of bio-terrorism. imagine if those planes had nukes on them? seriously, just think about it... THAT's what everyone is so concerned about, and THAT's why this 'war' is happening. dumb, but i think true. g.jim.
|
|||
|
FourWinds 10943 posts |
Nov 07, 2001, 13:44
|
||
|
Are you saying that this pipeline will never be built in your opinion? And if it does get built, will it then be a possible reason of the war or just a happy coincidence and side effect?
|
|||
cancer boy 977 posts |
Nov 07, 2001, 13:48
|
||
|
>doesn't it make you sick you live in these times? >when napalm isn't considered murderous enough... Too right, although maybe if they'd come up with a catchy name like "cookie cutter" for napalm the media would have had a collective orgasm over it in the Vietnam era rather than rightly castigating them. Anyone for an excoriation with some "barbecue browner"? The idea of putting cameras on bombs and then broadcasting the results on TV, as seen in the gulf war... seems a bit hypocritical to pillory the Taliban for staging public executions in a stadium if we're all supposed to drink our cocoa watching that. It's a sick, sad world and no mistake.
|
| Pages: 8 – [ Previous | 1 2 3 4 5 6 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| U-Know! Forum Index | |
