# Afghanistan conspiracy theory



## Bigmac (14 Oct 2006)

Ah yes folks, yet another book written about the US apparant desire to control Arab oil. I believe this was already covered by director Michael Moore in his movie about Bush. Take a read of the editorial and authors review of the book "Gas War". Is it conspiracy theory or is there some truth. Personally I think it is just some guys attempt to spin world events to make money on a book. What are your thoughts??



> Book Description
> At first glance, the United States invasion of Afghanistan seemed like an obvious response to the horrifying attacks of September 11th, 2001. Now, as America remains threatened by Al Qaeda and Afghanistan has disintegrated into the bloodshed of renewed civil war, the occupation looks like a disaster. But fighting terrorism wasnÂ’t the real goal of the Afghan war. Picking up where his groundbreaking travelogue To Afghanistan and Back left off, Ted RallÂ’s extensive research reveals the truth behind the spin and the new dangers we face as a result.
> 
> From the Author
> ...


----------



## Mike Baker (14 Oct 2006)

: Not another one of these! This is just plane BS. If it happened, well, thats a different story.


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (14 Oct 2006)

The "whole story"?  Heh...  I'm sure that, judging by the synopsis, that Rall will abandon his traditional political political bias to undertake a comprehensive study of Afghan issues.

For instance, one wonders if he will include the portion where the pipeline was canceled in the late 90s and is only resurrected now as a _study_.  

What a joke.  A war over a pipeline route?  Give me a break...   :


----------



## dglad (14 Oct 2006)

So the 9/11 hadn't happened, would that mean the U.S. would have just taken a pass on the Khazakstani oil?  9/11 was just a "convenient excuse" to attack Afghanistan?  Very handy.

Or...why not extend the conspiracy theory to its (il)logical conclusion--that the 9/11 attacks were engineered by the U.S. themselves (and/or the oil industry?), to create the "convenient excuse" needed to get the ball rolling?

Sheesh.  Some people need to get themselves an Occham's Razor.


----------



## Brad Sallows (14 Oct 2006)

>Is it conspiracy theory or is there some truth.

The author is Ted Rall?  There's your answer.  Yes, I'm making an ad hominem judgement, but eventually a person's credibility has to stand on his record.


----------



## tlg (14 Oct 2006)

Everything is about the oil. What I want to know is when the media is going to try and claim that the use of di-hydrogen monoxide is the number one cause of oil consumption in the world.

 :blotto:


----------



## MarkOttawa (14 Oct 2006)

See this recent comment of mine:
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/51018/post-456283.html#msg456283

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## 1feral1 (14 Oct 2006)

What shyte!


Wes


----------



## pbi (15 Oct 2006)

This doesn't even make sense. Considering that the route to the 'stans lies through the North, which has always been relatively secure since NATO got there and set up its PRTs, why hasn't any work started up there? But, more importantly, why hasn't it been maintained as the US main effort? I never saw any signs of such an intent. On the other hand, while the North has relatively secure, AFAIK, there were never, ever, enough US troops in the central, southern and eastern parts of the country to physically control enough of it to build and secure such a pipleline from north to southeast, especially not in the border areas. There certainly aren't enough now.

Why build such a vital link through such an unstable, hostile and difficult chunk of terrain, if you can go through relatively more friendly and secure places like Turkey? 

I'm sure it will sell well amongst the "we told you so" crowd.

Cheers


----------



## 3rd Herd (17 Oct 2006)

A little bit dated but,


Central Asia pipeline deal signed  
  
By Ian McWilliam 
BBC correspondent in Kabul 
Friday, 27 December, 2002, 11:23 GMT  

An agreement has been signed in the Turkmen capital, Ashgabat, paving the way for construction of a gas pipeline from the Central Asian republic through Afghanistan to Pakistan. 

The project has been around for some years 
The building of the trans-Afghanistan pipeline has been under discussion for some years but plans have been held up by Afghanistan's unstable political situation. 

This follows a summit meeting bringing together the presidents of the three countries last May when the project received formal go-ahead. 

The pipeline would represent the first major foreign investment in Afghanistan in many years. 

Alternate route  

With improved regional security after the fall of the Taleban about a year ago, Afghanistan, Turkmenistan and Pakistan have decided to push ahead with plans for the ambitious 1,500-kilometre-long gas pipeline. 

Pakistan will be the terminus for the pipeline 
The leaders of the three countries have now signed a framework agreement defining the legal aspects of setting up a consortium to build and operate the pipeline. 

The trans-Afghanistan pipeline would export Turkmen gas via Afghanistan to Pakistani ports, from where it could reach world markets. 

India is the largest potential buyer and the Afghan President, Hamid Karzai, said Delhi was welcome to join the project. 

Turkmenistan has some of the world's greatest reserves of natural gas, but still relies on tightly controlled Russian pipelines to export it. 

Ashgabat has long been desperate to find an alternative export route. 

Wary investors  

Afghanistan would profit by receiving millions of dollars in transit fees and construction of the pipeline would provide thousands of desperately needed jobs. 

It is also hoped such a project would boost regional economic ties and pave the way for further foreign investment. 

The chief difficulty will be actually finding the money to build the pipeline. 

The Asian Development Bank is carrying out a study for the project. 

But investors will be very cautious about putting serious money into Afghanistan when the central government in Kabul still has only limited influence in the regions the pipeline would cross. 

Reproduced with the usual cavets.

See also:
Caspian Sea Region: Natural Gas Export Options
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/caspgase.html


----------



## George Wallace (17 Oct 2006)

Perhaps with this dated post, you can dig up some more recent articles and give us all a clearer picture of what is going on, as opposed to the faulty propaganda put forth by the CPA.  You are only perpetuating the lies that they are spewing, if you don't follow up on your research.  Or then again, you could be a covert operative here on Army.ca for the Canadian Peace Alliance..


----------



## QM (18 Oct 2006)

Additional commentary provided here:

http://www.ericmargolis.com/archives/2001/11/did_the_us_go_t.php

and by the same author, here:

http://www.ericmargolis.com/archives/2004/08/the_sun_will_ne.php


One never knows.


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (18 Oct 2006)

I hear "Eric Margolis" and I switch off...


----------



## KevinB (18 Oct 2006)

Teddy Ruxpin said:
			
		

> I hear "Eric Margolis" and I switch off...



+1 
-- the guy is a self imposed "defence and security expert"
My left big toe knows more about Afghanistan than him...


----------



## midget-boyd91 (18 Oct 2006)

Gas? Oil? whatever reasons these people come up with can't even compare to the 3 000 lives that are the REAL reason why the invasion happened.


----------



## MarkOttawa (18 Oct 2006)

QM: Here is the actual text of my comment mentioned above on another thread.  See if Margolis stands up.

On the oil pipeline conspiracy theory:

Pipe Dreams: The origin of the "bombing-Afghanistan-for-oil-pipelines" theory.
http://www.slate.com/?id=2059487

There is no need for an oil pipeline through Afstan now that the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline is open:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan_pipeline



> The government of Kazakhstan announced that it would seek to build a trans-Caspian oil pipeline from the Kazakhstani port of Aktau to Baku in Azerbaijan, connecting with the BTC pipeline, to transport oil from the major Kazakhstani oilfield at Kashagan as well as points further afield in central Asia.



The Great Energy Game
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/biztech/articles/060903/11game_2.htm



> ...the $4 billion Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline, which opened with much fanfare in July and links Azerbaijan, Georgia, and Turkey. At the ribbon-cutting, the 1,109-mile pipeline was hailed as "the Silk Road of the 21st century," bypassing Russia to bring oil from the world's third-largest reserves in the Caspian to a Turkish port on the Mediterranean, where it can be loaded onto tankers to supply global markets.
> 
> Kazakhstan, the largest country in central Asia, has three of the world's richest hydrocarbon fields. One of them, Kashagan, was discovered in the Caspian five years ago. It is believed to rank among the five largest fields on Earth and is expected to start producing in the next few years. Kazakhstan produced 1.2 million barrels a day last year, but it is expected to pump 3 million barrels a day by 2015-almost as much as Iran. Chevron is spending over $5 billion to expand production there, its largest project anywhere. "There are very few places in the world that have still untapped reserves and the openness in the business environment," says Roman Vassilenko, a Kazakh government spokesman. He says 70 percent of Kazakh oil production is owned by foreign companies...
> 
> But still, as more oil is pumped out, Kazakhstan must choose between exporting it north through Russia, east through China, or west through an expanded BTC pipeline. The United States is gearing up to make its pitch. Later this month, Nazarbayev will come to the United States for the first time since 2001, visiting the White House and the Bush family compound in Maine. Energy, obviously, will top the agenda...



There is however a long-standing plan for a natural gas pipeline from Turkmenistan through Aftan to Pakistan and (maybe) India.  But that is hardly a vital US national security or capitalist interest.

Turkmenistan: A Pipeline Long In The Pipeline
http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2006/02/b8cadc86-b102-44ea-bce5-6d68c87b6ec9.html

And not likely to be built for a while.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## tlg (18 Oct 2006)

tlg said:
			
		

> Everything is about the oil. What I want to know is when the media is going to try and claim that the use of di-hydrogen monoxide is the number one cause of oil consumption in the world.
> 
> :blotto:



I take it no got my di-hydrogen monoxide joke?


----------



## KevinB (19 Oct 2006)

H2O

Got it - but trying to ignore the thread so I dont become consumed with rage about morons on/in the media


----------



## rmacqueen (19 Oct 2006)

Hmmm, Margolis, the guy who wrote the article about how wonderful Afghanistan was under the Taliban because there was hardly any crime?

I have attacked this argument a couple of times in my blog, it is always fun to get the conspiracy theorist worked up ;D

Here is the link to an interesting article written about how ridiculous the whole idea actually is.  http://www.prospect.org/print/V13/14/silverstein-k.html

Another good site is www.911myths.com which has a section on Afghanistan


----------



## jonoxford (19 Oct 2006)

War is a Racket by Major Gen. Smedley Butler

http://lexrex.com/enlightened/articles/warisaracket.htm


----------



## rmacqueen (20 Oct 2006)

jonoxford said:
			
		

> War is a Racket by Major Gen. Smedley Butler
> 
> http://lexrex.com/enlightened/articles/warisaracket.htm


The problem with Butler's arguments is that he fails to address aggression by others.  Given the time period it is not surprising as it was written between WWI and WWII when American isolationism was running high.  Just read the section where he rails against Naval spending for the Pacific fleet and his sarcastic attitude over the need for defence of the US Pacific coast then weigh that against the attack on Pearl Harbour a few years later.  Turns out the Admirals were right and Butler was wrong.


----------



## Jason E (20 Oct 2006)

One of the major reasons that Pakistan created and supported the Taliban in the 1990's was to unify the country so that a pipeline could be built.  The reason for Pakistan's interest was that it would run through southern Pakistan and they would be able to tax the oil.  I don't have a clue about this guys idea that the American invasion was to get this pipeline built, but I do know that it had quite a large impact on the thinking in the region during the 1990's.


----------

