Anyone else still think the Afghan War is about a pipeline?

[donheld]

That's what I'm thinking more and more.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

1. Cheney likes oil and gas and he is happy to promote war

The underlying problem is that we still have the warmongers and oil syphons at large. Sure there's pipelines.

[WilliamPitt]

2. The pipeline is built

This is about a lot of things...and about two wars paying a lot of money to a few people you'll never meet.

[eleny]

4. Pipelines always need maintaining

You think you can leave a pipeline in Afghanistan unguarded and without maintenance?

[donheld]

6. You know if the pipeline isn't guarded the terrorists might get it.

[donheld]

5. You mean our owners

[patrice]

10. They're built but the Afghani section is not secure.

And problems there cause problems with the Pakistani section too.

And China wants that oil on the market.

And President Obama just returned from China with . . . ?

[lxlxlxl]

3. no

[nadinbrzezinski]

7. I wish it was just about the pipeline

read a few books on the Silk Road

:-)

But the pipeline is just one part of this puzzle

[Sebastian Doyle]

8. The only confirmation you need for that is the name of Hamid Karzai's previous employer.

[bridgit]

9. The pipeline was always just a part of it

[patrice]

11. Remove Oil from the formula and what do you get?

[Hippo_Tron]

12. Why would Obama risk his second term on a fucking pipeline?

[TwixVoy]

13. Are you fucking clueless?

In case you didn't notice this country is BROKE. We are in massive debt.

We still depend a great deal on FOREIGN ENERGY. (i.e. OIL) If we can make sure we get a cheap constant supply that helps us out greatly. If we were in a position to pay whatever the asking price was we could quickly be screwed over.

Not only does having control at the source give us a deep discount you also have to take in to account the safety of the pipe. If we didn't have a military force in place any one could go set up some explosives and the next thing you know the oil supply is disrupted. (which means extremely high dollar gas the pump back home... and we all remember how screwed we were at just a $2/gal increase)

[tex-wyo-dem]

18. You pretty much nailed it...

The only thing holding up our fragile economy at all is our access to cheap energy, the price very muchd dependant on our access to the vast reserves of the ME and Asia. That's why Congess and every president since I can remember has basically given the Pentagon the keys to the city, because our military might is what gives us leverage to those all important resouces to keep the US economy going.

the use of the military and intelligence has always been a key component in the overall concept of globalization. Greenspan and the rest knew very well that the loss of jobs and massive borrowing that would be an effect of globilization would need to be offset by the US having the lowest energy costs in the world. This explains our many military excusions through the last several decades.

[Subdivisions]

21. $75 per barrell oil is NOT cheap. The era of cheap oil is over forever. Oil

production has been declining since late 2004. In an environment of declining oil production and high prices, economic growth is IMPOSSIBLE.

[blindpig]

48. Economic growth is a requisite for Capitalism.

It is a condition impossible to maintain in a finite world, another reason to chuck it.

[Hippo_Tron]

24. Our military might is only effective in that regard through threats and deterrence

As powerful as our military is we don't have the strength to just invade country after country for its resources. We secure our access to cheap energy by placing certain countries under our defense umbrella and threaten to attack anybody who threatens them. This was demonstrated pretty clearly in the first Gulf War.

Politicians are concerned primarily with the next election and any long term benefits that come from access to energy resources cannot possibly outweigh the short term political costs of fighting a war with serious casualties.

I'm sure the pipeline is thought of as a nice possible future benefit for this policy. But there is no way that it is the primary reason the President is sending more troops.

[LooseWilly]

46. I tend to think that it is a primary driving force behind a lot of the advice...

that the President is getting, however.

A politician might think of these things in terms of elections... and the people... but what if the advisors can't divorce themselves from the "thought frames" of corporate interests?... If all the "expert advice" that a President gets is "corporate framed", then most likely the final decision reached will be... decided in terms of corporate frames...

And then there is the media via whom the politician has to sell the final policy factoids... and Jeebus knows that the media "filters" inevitably add yet another "corporatist frame" to whatever story a politician tries to sell... if for no other reason... simply because everyone in the business, from editor/producer to talking head is... living within a corporate frame of reference...

I genuinely think Obama is sending more troops because he sees no better option. I'm not sure how the slants of the perspectives presented to him (not to mention the slants of perspective inevitable in anyone who ... becomes President) bear on this... perspective. I suppose, though, that it would be silly to think of a President ever considering an "outsider" perspective seriously... though I'll dare to daydream...

[Subdivisions]

20. Two words:

Peak Oil.

[Hippo_Tron]

23. The pipeline doesn't exist yet which means we won't see the benefits by 2012

Its also a natural gas pipeline not an oil pipeline. Additionally, I don't think you have an appreciation for the political cost of troops coming home in body bags. John Kerry got 49% of the vote in an election that he otherwise would've lost in a landslide for that reason.

[dysfunctional press]

32. it's a long-term project.

the route has to be secured first.

but it's taking a little longer than they probably expected.
or not.

[Hippo_Tron]

35. Right "long term"

As in no measurable benefit by 2012. First term Presidents are primarily concerned with becoming two term Presidents. Sending young men and women to die for something at great political cost for something which has no benefits that will be realized by 2012 makes no political sense.

Yes the American military is used to secure energy resources. It's used in the way Poppy used it in Desert Storm and Desert Shield and the way our troops remained in Saudi Arabia until Saddam was overthrown. It's done in a manner where troops don't come home in body bags every day thus making the President extremely unpopular with the American people. Sending troops into a long term conflict that will rake up a massive casualty count merely to pillage energy resources is a political loser. No rational President would ever commit troops like that for that reason alone.

[dysfunctional press]

38. "No rational President would ever commit troops like that for that reason alone."

and yet, he is.

a big chunk of troops are already there, and they can't come home until the job is done- it's extremely expensive to pull out now, only to go back later.

[Hippo_Tron]

39. Or a better explanation is...

That there is another reason he is committing the troops that doesn't have jack shit to do with a pipeline.

I don't believe political explanations that are predicated on irrationality unless there is strong evidence that the actor is irrational. Thus I don't believe Obama is staying in Afghanistan to secure a pipeline anymore than I believe that Iran wants a nuclear bomb so that they can wipe Israel off the map.

[dysfunctional press]

47. it's your prerogative to believe whatever you want...

drink up...

[Hippo_Tron]

54. You can't refute my argument thus you resort to personal attacks...

[dysfunctional press]

59. there's nothing to refute- you're not making an argument for anything...

:shrug:

if you think that you are- could you please define what it is? (i.e.- what the reason is that you feel were going there for- and what substantial benefits will it show by 2012?)

[quaker bill]

76. sorry

it is far easier and cheaper to produce the natural gas we have here. We have known reserves that would last 100 years and the technology to produce it. 30 billion dollars would bring quite a bit of it on-line, and you don't need to ship it, or secure the pipeline from terrorists with high explosives. Further, developing the resource would create jobs here. There is simply nothing about this that makes any sense once one thinks any deeper than George W. Bush.

[donheld]

15. Barack is obeying big banks, why would he not obey

Exxon/Mobil, Chevron, Conoco...

[ShamelessHussy]

27. ever hear of resource wars? well, OIL is the life blood of modern civilization, he who controls it,

RULES

Not a difficult concept to grasp, but it obviously collides with the official narrative which will cause massive cognitive dissonance in the uninformed.

[Hippo_Tron]

31. It's a natural gas pipeline...

And it isn't even built yet. Thus the benefits could not possibly be realized by 2012. Of course I'm sure you have some absolutely wonderful explanation as to why Obama is not like every other President and really really only wants to serve one term.

[dysfunctional press]

34. it doesn't matter if the benefits won't be realized until well past 2012..

the commitment was made a long time ago.

personally- i don't think that it will EVER be built. at least not thru afghanistan- it would have to be one long military base along both sides of it's entire length, or it would be heavily 'vandalized' on a fairly regular basis.

[ShamelessHussy]

36. gas, and oil are the targets in that region

not to mention to incircle our enemies.

Bush won a 2nd term, why would Obama be concerned?

[Hippo_Tron]

37. Bush barely won a second term for precisely that reason

Had the Iraq War not been a complete fucking disaster, John Kerry wouldn't have stood a chance. Instead Bush went from a 90%+ approval rating after 9/11 to barely winning re-election with 51% of the vote

[ShamelessHussy]

40. but he still won, which is my point. so they probably calculate a lot of margin for error

without too much fear of losing.

chimpy has show what is possible even in the midst of disaster and i am sure all current and future leaders are well aware of it.

[Hippo_Tron]

42. It doesn't work like that

They can't say "well if this war goes bad we are guaranteed to still win with 51% of the vote". It's more like "okay if this war goes bad then we will be extremely vulnerable and by pulling out all of the stops and getting lucky we might possibly win with 51% of the vote". Yes chimpy showed future Presidents that it is possible to win under those conditions. He also showed them that a much better political strategy is to not get into that sort of mess in the first place.

We're talking about people who consult their political advisors before they decide where to go on vacation. Winning re-election is number one to them and everything else is a distant second.

[ShamelessHussy]

43. of course there are no guarantees, but i think it would be pretty difficult to fail greater than *

Besides, we are already in a mess, and it looks like they calculated that we can stand it for a few more years, at least.

we'll see.

[smalll]

45. Ding, ding, ding, we have a winner.

A pipline to bring natural gas from Central Asia -- to India, no less!

Oh sure! Obama's gonna risk his legacy to get natural gas to India! And make a measly couple billions for some random pipeline-building corporation. Yeah, that's the ticket! :eyes:

[donheld]

51. Ding, ding, ding, we have a loser.

two of them it looks like.

[quaker bill]

75. No, that was Bush

and the gas pipeline was to shore up the investments of his buddy, Ken Lay.

You are correct, Obama has no dog in this hunt.

[New Dawn]

14. K&R

[Postman]

16. Is the Pope Catholic?

[donheld]

19. I coulda swore he was Wiccan

:D

[shadowknows69]

17. +1

[backscatter712]

22. Fork over hundreds of billions over a pipeline?

The force required to secure the pipeline would cost more than the revenue achieved from using the pipeline.

Bush was stupid enough to not figure that out, but Obama isn't.

[tiny elvis]

29. yes

an energy company will have ten billion of your dollars spent to make one billion for itself
that is our system
it is capitalism supreme
sometimes called neoliberalism or neoconservatism
you are right to think it is outrageous

[HuckleB]

25. Not really, no.

It wouldn't make sense fiscally.

[Nikki Stone1]

26. Pipeline and surrounding Russia

Karen Finney is a tool.

[Bolo Boffin]

28. Well, that and nukes in Pakistan getting into the hands of terrorists.

You know, the things Obama actually said?

[dysfunctional press]

30. that's the entirety of why we're there.

it's no coincidence that a corrupt unocal guy is kinda running the country, either.

ever since raygun shit-canned carter's post-embargo plan to make us energy independent, it's been the job of the american military to lay down their lives to keep the black gold flowing into the oil refineries, and the gold gold into the coffers of the oil companies.

[Raine]

33. Absolutely

along with all the private contractors who'll make big huge bucks off of equipment and rebuilding a country that we damage.

[Amonester]

41. I do.

As (a fricking big majority of) the rest of the world does.

Bring the boys 'n girls back home. (Someone)

[Turborama]

44. Isn't this troofer material?

It usually goes like this...

9/11 was conceived by Cheney to create a "Pearl Harbor" excuse for a war that would enable his buddies to go into Afghanistan and build a pipeline.

A pipeline that, by the way, would provide gas to India and pass through Pakistan. Yeah, like Pakistan is just going to let a pipeline go through their country so their mortal enemy India can have natural gas. Or is it going to go through Iran. Yeah, that would make sense.

[SpartanDem]

52. Yeah the tin foil hat crowd eats this BS up

Hell it's not even an oil pipeline, it's not meant to supply us, but we're going to war over it to " sustain our empire".

[mmonk]

49. Yes, it has been pipelines and a policy of world dominance,

first as a struggle against the USSR and now opportunism on the idea no one can stop us. It's petrol dollars and the our taxing ability of other nations by having the oil trade done through dollars. The problem is it is heading to an end of being a house of cards because the economic benefits to other countries has waned and American debt undesirable.

[shadowknows69]

58. I've still got money on historians, if there are any, calling it "The Resource Wars"

[mmonk]

61. There are.

[xiamiam]

50. pipeline and more...i dont exactly understand why the neocons support this

but it has something to do with iran and israel and their pnac...

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

53. Isn't that 9-11 twoofer stuff?

The idea being, George Bush committed 9-11 so that we could invade Afghanistan and build a pipeline, so that his cronies could get rich off of various fees collected by operating such a pipeline. All the while Osama bin Laden was getting kidney dialysis on a U.S. Army base somewhere in northern Africa.

Doesn't make much sense to me. Because Bush had 8 years to secure Afghanistan to build that pipeline, but he was never interested in doing so.

And Obama isn't going to get troops killed to build a pipeline to make Bush's cronies rich.

[OneGrassRoot]

64. I hope someone responds to this.

Thanks. :hi:

[Turborama]

65. Me too, and post #44

Cheers :hi:

[OneGrassRoot]

66. Yep, yep....

I'm open to all possibilities because I admittedly don't KNOW much of anything. ;)

But the points you both raise are valid, IMHO. I'd like to see the rebuttal.

Thanks! :hi:

[Octafish]

55. Afghanistan also has oil.

USGS reported so in 2006.

[Echo In Light]

56. Some links: Afghan Pipeline & Military Unveils Huge New Prison in Afghanistan

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=7125995&mesg_id=7125995

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=7118604&mesg_id=7118604

[shadowknows69]

57. Error you have already recommended this thread.

[Hansel]

60. No. It's about a increasingly destablized Pakistan. nt

[mmonk]

62. That's a by product. If it is about Pakistan, you deal with those

issues directly. You threaten to cut off aid to the military (where most of our tax dollars go in Pakistan).

[madokie]

63. It's all about the oil and gas

and you can take that to the bank. War is simply the vehicle to get there in.

[bdamomma]

67. yes, check this out.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Afghanistan_Pipeline

[Echo In Light]

68. Bump

[moondust]

69. No.

It has been essentially a non-issue for about 8 years now. Like WMD in Iraq, elephants don't suddenly just appear in a room right before your very eyes.

[27inCali]

70. yeah

I think that's the ultimate reason why Al Qaeda was allowed to attack NY and the Pentagon, it was because of they wanted the pipeline and couldn't get it without taking over Afghanistan and installing a puppet government, to me it has the fingerprints of Pappa Bush and the CIA all over it.

Knowing this makes me hope that the central government will be weakened and more control given to provincial leaders, it would leave those carlyle group assholes in a pretty mess.

[treestar]

71. I recall that Gulf War I was blatantly about oil

Saddam invaded Kuwait, and we couldn't have that maniac with control over a large oil supply. I recall Americans being pretty up front about it. There was like 80% support for that war. Everyone cheered it. There was barely any protest.

So why the PNAC thought it needed a new Pearl Harbor I don't know. If they thought the flow of oil was affected and could paint the Taliban as bad as Saddam, they could have used that as justification for the invasion.

911 made it much easier, of course.

[lib2DaBone]

72. It is about oil.. alsways has been. Also, today I read where there are 110K contractors in Afghan...

Blackwater (Xe) , Haliburton... big bucks at stake here... I think that is another reason why so many in Washington are pushing this fraudulent war.

[cali]

73. Nope.

[quaker bill]

74. Precisely not

we could buy a large amount of oil for this money.

It is about one thing only, a baggie full of Bin Laden bits. President Obama is not leaving there with Osama or Ayman alive and kicking. Truth be told, he has given the generals what they say they need (behind closed doors) to bring him his Bin Laden bits and roughly a year to do it.

Regardless of the outcome, the troops will be coming home starting in June 2011, combat operations will be done, and most of them will be back well before November 2012. Take this to the bank.

What is a baggie of Bin Laden bits worth? Roughly 30 billion dollars.