Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

The Pipeline in Afghanistan

2 views
Skip to first unread message

mr. smarty pants

unread,
Jun 30, 2011, 10:38:28 AM6/30/11
to
In article
<7b3e233c-0490-4995...@16g2000yqy.googlegroups.com>,
Raymond <Bluer...@aol.com> wrote:

> Why Troops to Afghanistan? Consider the Oil Pipeline ...
> Mar 29, 2009 ... Afghanistan and Middle East Oil Pipelines-Its Role in
> US Troop Deployment There..
>
> Examine this map :Compiled by Paul Thompson. Turkmenistan -
> Afghanistan - Pakistan Pipeline-Map. Map of Proposed Pipeline
> http://www.ringnebula.com/Oil/Pipeline.htm
>
> Why Invade Afghanistan
>
> December 22, 2001:�Afghani Prime Minister Hamid Karzai and his
> transitional government takes power in Afghanistan. It was revealed a
> few weeks before that he had been a paid consultant for Unocal, as
> well as Deputy Foreign Minister for the Taliban. [Le Monde, 12/13/01,
> CNN, 12/22/01] FTW
>
> Unocal connection There's been much debate over Karzai's alleged
> consultant work with Unocal (Union Oil Company of California since
> acquired by Chevron in 2005). In 2002, when Karzai became the subject
> of heavy media coverage as one of the front runners to lead
> Afghanistan, it was reported that he was a former consultant for them.
> [107][108][109] Spokesmen for both Unocal and Karzai have denied any
> such relationship, although Unocal could not speak for all companies
> involved in the consortium.[110] The original claim that Karzai worked
> for Unocal originates from a 6 December 2001 issue of the French
> newspaper Le Monde,[110] Barry Lane UNOCAL's manager for public
> relations states that, "He was never a consultant, never an employee.
> We've exhaustively searched through all our records."[111][112] Lane
> however did say that Zalmay Khalilzad, the former United States
> Ambassador to the United Nations, was a Unocal consultant in the
> mid-1990s.[113]
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamid_Karzai
>
> This pipeline will carry $3-5 trillion inoil and natural gas from the
> Caspian Sea basin via Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, and Pakistan, where
> ships docked in Arabian Sea portswill then carry that fuel to energy
> hungry Asia. This will yield enormous profits for investors,and the
> atmosphere will continue to heat from the increasing use of those
> fossil fuels.
>
> The Afghanistan oil pipeline due to be finished this year is behind
> schedule and more troops will have to remain than had been planned for
> to protect the construction workers and the line itself.
>
> Troops planning to be home for Christmas 2011 will have to wait since
> attacks on the pipeline are inevitable and the oil companies want
> their empolyees and their financial investments protected. After
> all,isn't this the reason Afghanistan was invaded ? If Americans want
> lower gasoline prices this occupation is part of the plans for getting
> the oil to the refineries.
>
> see
> CENTRAL ASIAN OIL, ENRON, AND THE AFGHANISTAN PIPELINES
> by Paul Thompson
>
> http://www.fromthewilderness.com/timeline/AAoil.html

and;
The USA and it's allies are, in fact, engaged in hostile occupations
of Iraq and Afghanistan.
After the USA and it's allies leave, for the most part, Iraq and
Afghanistan, what will be the long term strategic military and
implications of these hostile occupations?
Will the forces that opposed these occupations gain political-military
ascendancy?
The result of our hostile occupations will result in the political
radicalization of these nations against the USA and it's allies rather
than their pacification simply because the same are temporary,
hostile, aggressive, military occupations of these nations.
After the USA and it's allies leave these nations, there will be
relatively little political and social change resulting from the
hostile military occupations of these nations.This despite the
horrendus loss of life and property by the peoples of Iraq and
Afghanistan.
The same will not result in these nations allying themselves with the
political and military goals of the USA and it's allies but in
vehemently opposing the same.
Those military and political forces that opposed these hostile
military occupations represent the political, military, and social
frame work of these nations with the result that they will, again,
gain ascendancy after the occupations end.

Will some look to never end said occupations? ya know to protect the OIL.
the reason the area was invaded.
--
Karma, What a concept!

0 new messages