Pipeline in Afganistan

[Makalakumu]

If you're going to accuse someone of making these deals just to make money, well, bring forth the financials! Who's making the pipeline?

Elliott Abrams
Gary Bauer
William J. Bennett
Jeb Bush
Dick Cheney
Eliot A. Cohen
Midge Decter
Paula Dobriansky
Steve Forbes
Aaron Friedberg
Francis Fukuyama
Frank Gaffney
Fred C. Ikle
Donald Kagan
Zalmay Khalilzad
I. Lewis Libby
Norman Podhoretz
Dan Quayle
Peter W. Rodman
Stephen P. Rosen
Henry S. Rowen
Donald Rumsfeld
Vin Weber
George Weigel
Paul Wolfowitz

This is all the list you will need. ALL of these people are involved in some way or another. They are all tied to Unocal, Haliburton, Enron (now defunct), or Occidental. For more info, read the article that addresses this point.

upnorthkyosa

 

[Makalakumu]

Looks like Unocal again. This makes a lot of sense since Hamid Karzai has such strong ties to the company.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/1984459.stm

Here is a step by step history of this deal.

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=afghanistan_pipeline

Here is an article that details the Enron-Cheney-Taliban connection.

http://www.alternet.org/story/12525

Here is an article that offers some legitimate research regarding this matter.

http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forum/forumnew41.php

For the Bush Administration, Profits are the Priority in the War on Terror. These policies are going to get people killed. Innocent people. We need to stop this kind of thing before the terrorists can come at us again.

upnorthkyosa

 

[deadhand31]

Let's take a look at what was in one of your articles, shall we?

"Unocal is not involved in any projects (including pipelines) in Afghanistan, nor do we have any plans to become involved, nor are we discussing any such projects," a spokesman told BBC News Online.

And what else is there? Hmmm, talks about a natural gas pipeline, but who is funding it? Oh wait! There it is!

The Asian Development Bank (ADB) has been surveying routes for transferring local gas from northern Afghan areas to Kabul, and to iron ore mines at the Haji Gak pass further west.

"ADB will announce its conclusion soon," Mr Razim said.

The pipeline is expected to be built with funds from donor countries for the reconstruction of Afghanistan as well as ADB loans, he said.

Donor countries, and ADB loans. Umm...... where's Unocal in this? Don't take me the wrong way.... are you a troll? Is somebody putting you up to this? Are you illiterate? When you went to school, were you in the class with the arsonists and kids who had mittens safety-pinned to their jackets year-round?

Your "Timeline", has a reference stating that Bush met with Taliban to negotiate an oil deal. The article that they link to doesn't even have the word "oil" in it!!! The timeline also has a link stating that there were "secret meetings" between the Taliban and Bush in a last dish effort to get the pipeline. However, the link goes to an essay of a conspiracy theorist. These guys come up with things like "Deodorant is a tool of capitalism!", and "There was no Boeing at the pentagon on 9/11!" The author makes blatant accusations, with NO SOURCES AT ALL to back him up. It also states that 9/11 was a valiant effort of Bin Laden to protect Afghanistan.

The last article you posted is an editorial essay that also lacks solid sources, and, it seems, objectivity.

Upnorth, you asked in another thread why this doesn't turn people away from Bush. Well, here's why....

In order to believe in this conspiracy, and to see a conspiracy in the sources that you have given, they would have to ignore alot of the articles' content. A person who would do this, would have to be a drooling, grunting, self-diddling, pants soiling retard!

 

[hardheadjarhead]

People read and see what they want to see.

Rather, "People read only that which confirms what they believe."

People do not read broadly. They shirk from contradiction and challenges to their accepted paradigms. Uncertainty leaves them shaken rather than curious.


Regards,


Steve

 

[Makalakumu]

Let's take a look at what was in one of your articles, shall we?

"Unocal is not involved in any projects (including pipelines) in Afghanistan, nor do we have any plans to become involved, nor are we discussing any such projects," a spokesman told BBC News Online.

And what else is there? Hmmm, talks about a natural gas pipeline, but who is funding it? Oh wait! There it is!

The Asian Development Bank (ADB) has been surveying routes for transferring local gas from northern Afghan areas to Kabul, and to iron ore mines at the Haji Gak pass further west.

"ADB will announce its conclusion soon," Mr Razim said.

The pipeline is expected to be built with funds from donor countries for the reconstruction of Afghanistan as well as ADB loans, he said.

Donor countries, and ADB loans. Umm...... where's Unocal in this? Don't take me the wrong way.... are you a troll? Is somebody putting you up to this? Are you illiterate? When you went to school, were you in the class with the arsonists and kids who had mittens safety-pinned to their jackets year-round?

Your "Timeline", has a reference stating that Bush met with Taliban to negotiate an oil deal. The article that they link to doesn't even have the word "oil" in it!!! The timeline also has a link stating that there were "secret meetings" between the Taliban and Bush in a last dish effort to get the pipeline. However, the link goes to an essay of a conspiracy theorist. These guys come up with things like "Deodorant is a tool of capitalism!", and "There was no Boeing at the pentagon on 9/11!" The author makes blatant accusations, with NO SOURCES AT ALL to back him up. It also states that 9/11 was a valiant effort of Bin Laden to protect Afghanistan.

The last article you posted is an editorial essay that also lacks solid sources, and, it seems, objectivity.

Upnorth, you asked in another thread why this doesn't turn people away from Bush. Well, here's why....

In order to believe in this conspiracy, and to see a conspiracy in the sources that you have given, they would have to ignore alot of the articles' content. A person who would do this, would have to be a drooling, grunting, self-diddling, pants soiling retard!

Your post is weak in rebuttle and strong in personal attack. I'm not the enemy. This evidence is clear and this is happening. The companies, the financing, and the people behind it all line up and you have absolutely NOTHING to challenge that. You don't want to see this and choose to ignore it...what a pity. :idunno:

 

[Flatlander]

Don't take me the wrong way.... are you a troll? Is somebody putting you up to this? Are you illiterate? When you went to school, were you in the class with the arsonists and kids who had mittens safety-pinned to their jackets year-round?...<SNIP>....
A person who would do this, would have to be a drooling, grunting, self-diddling, pants soiling retard!

If this is the top level at which you are capable of debate, you're in the wrong place, son. You need to do better.

Please don't cause me to read this type of tripe again. I really don't have time for it.

 

[deadhand31]

Weak in rebuttal? I'm using YOUR sources? When you pointed to an article that YOU said confirmed Unocal's presence in Afghanistan, I read the article. In it, the only thing that was said about Unocal was that they did not have a presence, and that they have no plans to do so. Anyone who wants to read your articles can see this. They should also take a look at the sources cited by your timeline. Yes, I made personal attacks, because I stand by them. It is because I am unable to comprehend how someone can read the articles you presented, and come to your conclusion.

I mean, how does "We are not involved" become "We're making plans right now."?

How does a source that doesn't even mention the oil pipeline at all become proof that Bush is planning a pipeline?

How does an EDITORIAL with NO SOURCES become "legitimate research"?

I will give you the bleeding truth, which is actually supported by some of YOUR sources:

WESTERN COMPANIES ARE NOT CURRENTLY INVOLVED IN AN AFGHANI OIL PIPELINE. THEY USED TO BE, BUT PULLED OUT IN 1998. THEY ARE NOT COMING BACK TO IT.

Tell you what, Upnorth. You give me a valid, concrete explanation on how the following source states that Unocal is CURRENTLY involved in the Afghani pipeline:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/1984459.stm

and I will personally vote for John Kerry this election. This is YOUR source, which you said is PROOF of current Unocal involvement, which I say is not.

I also invite you to meet my challenge on equal terms, though I'm not forcing you to do so.

 

[Makalakumu]

Weak in rebuttal?

Yes, weak in rebuttal. You are picking a few things here and there, relying on logical fallacies, and ranting about my intelligence. I humbly accept your challenge though.

http://www.export.gov/afghanistan/pdf/oil_gas_1-sheberghankabul_pipeline.pdf

Here is a description of the current deal, who is involved, and when. June 2003. As I stated above, Hamid Karzai, already signed a deal which was backed by the same people who backed the above to extend this pipeline through Pakistan.

I disagree with your assessment of my sources. Perhaps you should go back and read them again and then read the link I posted. Then you will see that they have been pointing arrows at this the entire time. Enjoy :asian:

upnorthkyosa

PS - If you go back and take a look at all that has been posted and all that has transpired, not once, have I disparaged you in any way. I don't deserve your personal attacks and as MAists we should have a higher level of respect for each other. Would we bow to each other as peers in the dojo and speak to each other like this?

 

[Makalakumu]

Stabilizing Afghanistan is the only hitch in this deal. Getting rid of the Taliban and installing Hamid Karzai is the first step toward getting the oil and gas. All of this is detailed in PNAC which was written by the people who run the companies in question. Unocal, Halliburton, and Enron have all bid on this in the past and they are now waiting in the wings until the Bush Administration uses are tax money lay the groundwork and cleans out the bugs.

Here are a few more sources for purusal

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_28-11-2002_pg1_8

This is a current description for the financing of the deal. The money will come from ABD. Oil companies are welcome to bid when the region is stabilized.

http://www.adb.org/Documents/Articles/AFG/afg_2003001.asp

This source talks about the deal in detail and illustrates the interest of US companies.

http://www.kisi.kz/English/Economy/09-09-03narbaev.pdf

And finally...

U.S. presence in Afghanistan renews hopes of oil, gas investors

By Sudarsan Raghavan

Knight Ridder Newspapers

TASHKENT, Uzbekistan - Afghanistan in the midst of a grinding war may not look like an investor's paradise. Yet oilman Joseph Naemi sees the conflict - and America's involvement - as a potential opportunity for vast riches.

The 39-year-old executive plans to invest hundred of millions of dollars over the next five to seven years developing oil and natural gas fields in neighboring Uzbekistan, in hope eventually of selling oil and gas to and through Afghanistan by pipeline.

"If the United States' presence continues in the region, (Sept. 11) is probably the best thing that could have happened here for the Central Asian republics," said Naemi, managing director of Chase Energy, a small oil company based in Amsterdam, Netherlands.

America's efforts to replace the puritanical Taliban and bring stability to Afghanistan are resurrecting hopes for a controversial proposal for trans-Afghanistan oil and natural gas pipelines, once strongly backed by the United States. And wildcatters such as Naemi are lining up to capitalize on what may be the most valuable, inaccessible stretch of land in Central Asia.

"This region in terms of oil economics is the frontier for this century," said Naemi. "And Afghanistan is part and parcel of this."

In 1998, the Taliban signed a $2 billion agreement for a proposed 890-mile natural gas pipeline that would start in Turkmenistan's Dauletabad fields, snake through Taliban-controlled areas in Herat and Kandahar, Afghanistan, and end in Quetta, Pakistan. A $2.5 billion oil pipeline stretching 1,000 miles through Afghanistan also was considered.

The pipelines would provide the most direct route from Central Asia's oil and gas fields to Arabian Sea ports such as the Pakistani city of Karachi. They would link oil and gas fields in land-locked Central Asia to lucrative markets in Asia and Australia, and could free up more Middle East oil to flow to the United States and Europe. They also could reduce U.S. dependence on oil from OPEC nations, which have dictated oil prices for decades.

The proposal has been seriously batted around in corporate boardrooms from Texas to Saudi Arabia since the mid-1990s. But given Afghanistan's 22 years of war, there were serious doubts that the pipelines would be built. Now, with the United States vowing to uproot the Taliban, the project seems more possible.

"The oil companies have never stopped thinking about the Afghan pipeline, but they all lowered it on the list of priorities," said a U.S. Embassy commercial officer in Almaty, Kazakhstan, who has close contacts with American energy firms there. "But now they are re-evaluating it with the possible political change happening in Afghanistan." The officer spoke on condition of anonymity.

In recent weeks, the English-language newspaper Baku Sun in oil-rich Azerbaijan has published stories discussing the hopes for proposed Afghan pipelines. Last week, Turkmenistan's president, Saparamurad Niyazov, asked the United Nations to help revive the project, saying it would be "advantageous for all the neighboring countries, and primarily Afghanistan," according to Turkmenistan's official news agency.

Some Central Asian oil consultants are publicly lobbying for the pipeline to be a key part of any post-Taliban "Marshall plan" for the United States to help rebuild Afghanistan.

"It should be an absolute must for the U.S. to pursue this option," said Rob Sobhani, president of Washington-based Caspian Energy Consulting and a former consultant in Central Asia for Amoco, which is now part of British Petroleum. Sobhani has pushed the pipeline on various U.S. television programs.

The Afghan pipelines would make it cheaper and faster for Naemi and Chase Energy to get their oil and natural gas to Asian markets. Currently, they are planning to use railroads along long, circuitous routes via the Caspian Sea region and Turkey.

At war since the Soviets invaded in 1979, Afghanistan has never been able to fully tap its significant deposits of natural gas, oil and coal. Conflict after conflict has shattered its infrastructure, eroded its economy and spawned one of the world's largest refugee populations.

All that seemed to be forgotten when the Taliban grabbed power in 1996, bringing stability to much of the country. By then, an international consortium of oil companies led by Houston-based Unocal Corp. was wooing the hard-line Islamic regime to sign the pipeline deal.

The group included companies from Saudi Arabia, Russia, South Korea, Japan and Pakistan. The Argentine firm Bridas also was competing for the rights to build a pipeline through Afghanistan.

Unocal pulled out of the pipeline consortium in December 1998, after the U.S. Embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania and the subsequent American military strikes on Osama bin Laden's training camps in Afghanistan. The civil war in Afghanistan, low oil prices and pressure at home from U.S. women's groups protesting the Taliban's subjugation of women also played roles.

The State Department was helping Unocal, despite the Taliban's brutal human-rights record and its harboring of bin Laden. U.S. officials said they hoped the Taliban would moderate their policies and the pipeline would boost Afghanistan's crippled economy.

According to the Washington-based Heritage Foundation, a conservative public policy organization, the American diplomatic dance with the Taliban was partly an attempt to prevent the construction of a pipeline through Iran and to reduce Russian leverage over Turkmenistan and Kazakhstan.

U.S. ties with the oil-producing former Soviet republics are closer after the Sept.11 terrorist attacks. Uzbekistan's government, which hopes that a stable Afghanistan will open direct routes for its oil and natural gas, and its neighbors have supported the American-led anti-terrorism coalition.

Although the United States is talking about buying oil from Russia, it also is supporting the proposed construction of a pipeline from Baku, Azerbaijan, to the Turkish seaport of Ceyhan, which would allow the Caspian Sea nations to lessen their reliance on Moscow.

While modern-day wildcatters such as Naemi are betting on the Afghan pipelines, larger oil companies aren't jumping in so soon. A Unocal spokeswoman said the company had no plans to invest anywhere in Central Asia in the near future.

"The prospects are there, the potential is there," said Abdul Raheem Yaseer, the assistant director of the Center for Afghanistan Studies at the University of Nebraska in Omaha. "But first the Taliban have to be removed, then the terrorists have to be removed. Then the Afghans have to be helped to form their own government, and then they'll need a lot of money for reconstructing their country. Then they will talk about oil projects."

End of Article

upnorthkyosa

 

[Makalakumu]

Unocal is kind of a red herring in this case. This company is not the focus of my argument, even though they have expressed interest in the building of the actual pipeline. For clarification purposes, my point has always been the Bush Administrations insistance that they balance what is best for the oil industry with what is best for the War on Terror. Profits should not be a priority in my opinion.

 

[deadhand31]

OMG. Where to begin on this one.... First off, this source:
http://www.export.gov/afghanistan/p...ul_pipeline.pdf

This is not the proposed oil pipeline in question. This is a project that would supply natural gas to various areas in the country, among them, Kabul, and several ore mining sites. This article also states that former members of the consortium from 1998 may end up bidding. However, Unocal has already stated that they do not plan on making any bids in Afghanistan. This is also the pipeline that is refferred to by your source here:

http://www.adb.org/Documents/Articles/AFG/afg_2003001.asp.

This is not the pipeline that was proposed which would take Caspian oil like you say it is. This is a natural gas pipeline that would be used for Afghanistan's current infrastructure, as well as export.

Your final source, which can be found here:

http://www.kisi.kz/English/Economy/09-09-03narbaev.pdf

Puts nothing new on the table. It pretty much sums up what has already been said, minus the views of the conspiracy theorists. It even states that at this time, US companies are not looking to invest in an oil pipeline.

I really can't say that these are irrellevant, however, you really did not understand what my challenge was. I will reiterate:


You had stated the following source:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/1984459.stm

had implicated that Unocal had a CURRENT plan on creating an oil pipeline in Afghanistan. My challenge to you was to back up this statement on this source. Let me repost the body of the challenge:

Tell you what, Upnorth. You give me a valid, concrete explanation on how the following source states that Unocal is CURRENTLY involved in the Afghani pipeline:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/1984459.stm

and I will personally vote for John Kerry this election. This is YOUR source, which you said is PROOF of current Unocal involvement, which I say is not.

As for if we would talk like this in the dojang, well, of course not. Politics and world affairs have no place in the dojang. Outside, it's a much different story. One of my major pet peeves is people who don't read what they are using to back up. If you look at the previous source, that is the case. I also really despise those who use conspiracy editorials that lack proof as fact. Micheal Moore is another such idiot. You have to admit, you have yet to bring forth a source that says that western companies currently have plans on becoming involved with the oil pipeline. So far, you have not, and you accuse the Bush administration of plotting a war to make this pipeline, which, if anything, has discouraged the involvement of western oil companies. Now, I have answered what you have said, but you still need to meet my challenge.

 

[deadhand31]

I should also state that in the future, when I read posts like the ones that have been strewn about, I'm going to listen to Weird Al Yankovich. If I have to have a 100% serious mindset when dealing with such missapplied information, I will suffer a cerebral explosion. In otherwords, my head will burst.

 

[Tgace]

Conspiracy Theory hit list........

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=13978
http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=13669
http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=13573
http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=11911
http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=11909
http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=11887

Guess i can add this one now.

 

[Tgace]

What I STILL dont understand is, if the Bush administration is so skilled in conspiracy , why they didnt airdrop some WMD's into Iraq and make a convenient discovery.....

 

[Makalakumu]

Unocal is not the point but...

Mr Razim said US energy company Unocal was the "lead company" among those that would build the pipeline, which would bring 30bn cubic meters of Turkmen gas to market annually.

This indicates that they are waiting for Unocal to bid.

http://www.export.gov/afghanistan/pdf/oil_gas_1-sheberghankabul_pipeline.pdf

This indicates that Unocal would like to see Afghanistan in a more peaceful state before they (or any other US company) would even consider it. This statement is backed up by the following...

Unocal - which led a consortium of companies from Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Turkmenistan, Japan and South Korea - has maintained the project is both economically and technically feasible once Afghan stability was secured.

"Unocal is not involved in any projects (including pipelines) in Afghanistan, nor do we have any plans to become involved, nor are we discussing any such projects," a spokesman told BBC News Online.

This site again...which you have already indicated...

http://www.export.gov/afghanistan/p...ul_pipeline.pdf...

Says that a pipeline is being consider to provide natural gas for Afghani infrastructure and for EXPORT. Unocal is interested in bidding, but will not at this time because Afghanistan is to unstable.

In comes Hamid Karzai, former Unocal spokesperson. The Taliban is cleaned out and Al-qaeda is being chased into Pakistan. He signed a deal with Pakistan to build the very pipeline suggested by Unocal. This pipeline is an addition to the pipeline that will be run to Kabul.

THIS SITE INDICATES THE PLANS OF WESTERN COMPANIES TO BUILD A PIPELINE IN AFGHANISTAN.

http://www.export.gov/afghanistan/p...ul_pipeline.pdf...

I seriously don't know how much clearer it can be. Take a look at the bottom of each page. Where did this study occur? Who performed this study? Who funded it? The answer to all of those questions is the USA.

upnorthkyosa

ps - a lot of people shout about "proof" and haven't a clue what they are talking about. What do you think is proof? Have you set a criteria? Do you even need to because you refuse to admit the possability?

 

[Makalakumu]

I should also state that in the future, when I read posts like the ones that have been strewn about, I'm going to listen to Weird Al Yankovich. If I have to have a 100% serious mindset when dealing with such missapplied information, I will suffer a cerebral explosion. In otherwords, my head will burst.

You still are ignoring major points in every source and in every post. Meanwhile, interspersed in your prose is personal attack after personal attack. Is this how conservatives win arguments? Do you need to drive people away who challenge your beliefs?

 

[Makalakumu]

What I STILL dont understand is, if the Bush administration is so skilled in conspiracy , why they didnt airdrop some WMD's into Iraq and make a convenient discovery.....

So, umm, nothing constructive to add?

 

[Tgace]

You still are ignoring major points in every source and in every post. Meanwhile, interspersed in your prose is personal attack after personal attack. Is this how conservatives win arguments? Do you need to drive people away who challenge your beliefs?

Ive only seen deadhand31 on this thread but what makes you believe he is a "conservative"? Because he disagrees with you on this thread??

 

[Tgace]

So, umm, nothing constructive to add?

No yet another convoluted conspiracy theory.....nope thats about it.

 

[deadhand31]

What do you mean ignoring major points? Look who's talking.


Unocal - which led a consortium of companies from Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Turkmenistan, Japan and South Korea - has maintained the project is both economically and technically feasible once Afghan stability was secured.

"Unocal is not involved in any projects (including pipelines) in Afghanistan, nor do we have any plans to become involved, nor are we discussing any such projects," a spokesman told BBC News Online.

Well guess what? I think the project is feasible too. I don't have plans to become involved either. By your logic, I'M PLANNING ON BUILDING A PIPELINE! Do you think it's feasible? Are you planning on becoming involved? If your answers are yes and no, respectively, THEN YOU'RE PLANNING ON BUILDING THE PIPELINE!

You site a source that you claim states western interest, while in fact it states that western companies don't want to touch the place. Are you really wondering why I put your intelligence in question? It's called "reading comprehension". That means you read words, and understand what they mean. Emulating Michael Moore does not make something mean what you want it to.