These Wars Are About Oil, Not Democracy

canada-man

Well-known member
Jun 16, 2007
32,723
3,003
113
Toronto, Ontario
canadianmale.wordpress.com
These Wars Are About Oil, Not Democracy
by Eric Margolis
The ugly truth behind the Iraq and Afghanistan wars finally has emerged.

Four major western oil companies, Exxon Mobil, Shell, BP and Total are about to sign U.S.-brokered no-bid contracts to begin exploiting Iraq’s oil fields. Saddam Hussein had kicked these firms out three decades ago when he nationalized Iraq’s oil industry. The U.S.-installed Baghdad regime is welcoming them back.

Iraq is getting back the same oil companies that used to exploit it when it was a British colony.

As former fed chairman Alan Greenspan recently admitted, the Iraq war was all about oil. The invasion was about SUV’s, not democracy.

Afghanistan just signed a major deal to launch a long-planned, 1,680-km pipeline project expected to cost $8 billion. If completed, the Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India pipeline (TAPI) will export gas and later oil from the Caspian basin to Pakistan’s coast where tankers will transport it to the West.

The Caspian basin located under the Central Asian states of Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Kazakkstan, holds an estimated 300 trillion cubic feet of gas and 100-200 billion barrels of oil. Securing the world’s last remaining known energy El Dorado is a strategic priority for the western powers.

But there are only two practical ways to get gas and oil out of land-locked Central Asia to the sea: Through Iran, or through Afghanistan to Pakistan. Iran is taboo for Washington. That leaves Pakistan, but to get there, the planned pipeline must cross western Afghanistan, including the cities of Herat and Kandahar.

PIPELINE DEAL

In 1998, the Afghan anti-Communist movement Taliban and a western oil consortium led by the U.S. firm Unocal signed a major pipeline deal. Unocal lavished money and attention on the Taliban, flew a senior delegation to Texas, and hired a minor Afghan official, Hamid Karzai.

Enter Osama bin Laden. He advised the unworldly Taliban leaders to reject the U.S. deal and got them to accept a better offer from an Argentine consortium. Washington was furious and, according to some accounts, threatened the Taliban with war.

In early 2001, six or seven months before 9/11, Washington made the decision to invade Afghanistan, overthrow the Taliban, and install a client regime that would build the energy pipelines. But Washington still kept sending money to the Taliban until four months before 9/11 in an effort to keep it “on side” for possible use in a war against China.

The 9/11 attacks, about which the Taliban knew nothing, supplied the pretext to invade Afghanistan. The initial U.S. operation had the legitimate objective of wiping out Osama bin Laden’s al-Qaida. But after its 300 members fled to Pakistan, the U.S. stayed on, built bases — which just happened to be adjacent to the planned pipeline route — and installed former Unocal “consultant” Hamid Karzai as leader.

Washington disguised its energy geopolitics by claiming the Afghan occupation was to fight “Islamic terrorism,” liberate women, build schools and promote democracy. Ironically, the Soviets made exactly the same claims when they occupied Afghanistan from 1979-1989. The Iraq cover story was weapons of mass destruction and democracy.

Work will begin on the TAPI once Taliban forces are cleared from the pipeline route by U.S., Canadian and NATO forces. As American analyst Kevin Phillips writes, the U.S. military and its allies have become an “energy protection force.”



http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/06/22/9805/




CTV news website recently prove that this afghan war is for an oile pipeline dea

Afghanistan and three other countries agreed in April to build a US$7.6-billion natural gas pipeline starting in 2010 that would deliver gas from energy-rich Turkmenistan to energy-hungry Pakistan and India.

The Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India (TAPI) pipeline is strongly supported by the U.S. because it would block a competing pipeline from Iran that would bring oil to India and Pakistan. It would also reduce Russia's dominance of the energy sector in Central Asia.

A U.S-backed pipeline -- more than 500 kilometres of it -- in Afghanistan would be an inviting target for Taliban and al Qaeda operatives there. It would be very difficult to defend.

But Ottawa and the military have been quiet about what could be one of the biggest changes to the operational paradigm in Kandahar, despite plans for such a pipeline going back a decade.


this is what our boys are dying for


http://news.sympatico.msn.cbc.ca/Ca...line=True&subtitle=&detect=&abc=abc&date=True
 

landscaper

New member
Feb 28, 2007
5,752
0
0
Sombody has to pay for the time and effort involved overthere. If the oil getts the countries back on there feet so much the better.

I believe that was an Eric Margolis article, and the anti American (republican ) slant to it was obvious.

The countries don't really have anything to sell but oil and if thats what it takes to get the economies moving thats what it takes.

Terrorism falls off remakable when the population invloved are happy with jobs education and income.
 

Aardvark154

New member
Jan 19, 2006
53,749
3
0
canada-man said:
Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India pipeline (TAPI)

Afghanistan and three other countries agreed in April to build a US$7.6-billion natural gas pipeline starting in 2010 that would deliver gas from energy-rich Turkmenistan to energy-hungry Pakistan and India.
That the principal beneficiary of the pipeline will be India - would seemingly undercut much of Mr. Margolis argument as regards Afghanistan.
 

WoodPeckr

Protuberant Member
May 29, 2002
46,949
5,779
113
North America
thewoodpecker.net
Aardvark154 said:
That the principal beneficiary of the pipeline will be India - would seemingly undercut much of Mr. Margolis argument as regards Afghanistan.
Not really.
Did you read the article above?
Afghanistan is a necessary conduit for OIL & natural gas.
it's all about both OIL & nat gas.
 

assoholic

New member
Aug 30, 2004
1,625
0
0
..most of the right wingers here already know all the answers.
Them bad, we good. Facts just get in the way.
 

ig-88

New member
Oct 28, 2006
4,729
4
0
It's also about establishing a permanent garrison to protect the oil.

Who thought it was about democracy?

But now that we've taken the oil by force - why do we keep paying more at the pump? :confused:
 

TQM

Guest
Feb 1, 2006
2,651
0
0
ummmmmm......

I suppose if it had been a French oil company, you'd all feel differently? No? hmmmm... I thought not.

Anyone not see the principal beneficiary of this not being Iraq? (It's not like these companies get the oil for free.....)

Anyone who thinks Afghanistan shouldn't be allowed to have pipelines go through it? Perhaps someone could explain why? Does it ruin the poppy fields?

Funny, the one track Margolis is stuck on.
 

BottomsUp

New member
Aug 30, 2004
1,815
0
0
How many times do we need to read to this shit? You guys using the expression 'its all about oil' remind me of a bunch of old women in a knitting circle. You never come up with anything original.
 

assoholic

New member
Aug 30, 2004
1,625
0
0
..ya the truth, how dare he.
The principal beneficiary will the the Foreign oil companies.
In both countries.
Only a moron would think otherwise.
 

assoholic

New member
Aug 30, 2004
1,625
0
0
BottomsUp said:
How many times do we need to read to this shit? You guys using the expression 'its all about oil' remind me of a bunch of old women in a knitting circle. You never come up with anything original.
...point proved.
 

rockl

New member
Jun 4, 2007
235
0
0
ig-88 said:
But now that we've taken the oil by force - why do we keep paying more at the pump? :confused:
Because profit is what this whole thing is all about. The plan all along was for you to pay more.

and hi folks
 

basketcase

Well-known member
Dec 29, 2005
62,598
7,052
113
Strangely, I agree with Saudi's king in that the oil prices are nuts because of speculators. That being the case, the US doesn't need to secure foreign supplies for their own use because those in the business will profit from fear of an even shorter supply. That being said, I doubt that Abdullah is doing anything but laughing either way though.
 

canada-man

Well-known member
Jun 16, 2007
32,723
3,003
113
Toronto, Ontario
canadianmale.wordpress.com
landscaper said:
Sombody has to pay for the time and effort involved overthere. If the oil getts the countries back on there feet so much the better.

I believe that was an Eric Margolis article, and the anti American (republican ) slant to it was obvious.

The countries don't really have anything to sell but oil and if thats what it takes to get the economies moving thats what it takes.

Terrorism falls off remakable when the population invloved are happy with jobs education and income.

why should our soldiers die to get other people employed when people at home are losing thier jobs?
 

canada-man

Well-known member
Jun 16, 2007
32,723
3,003
113
Toronto, Ontario
canadianmale.wordpress.com
Aardvark154 said:
That the principal beneficiary of the pipeline will be India - would seemingly undercut much of Mr. Margolis argument as regards Afghanistan.

then let india send their boys to protect the pipeline. we are canadians fighting for India?
 

xdog

New member
Feb 28, 2006
1,444
0
0
toronto
landscaper said:
Sombody has to pay for the time and effort involved overthere. If the oil getts the countries back on there feet so much the better.

I believe that was an Eric Margolis article, and the anti American (republican ) slant to it was obvious.

The countries don't really have anything to sell but oil and if thats what it takes to get the economies moving thats what it takes.

Terrorism falls off remakable when the population invloved are happy with jobs education and income.

Then why the bombings in Saudi arabia? Are you saying that we need to protect foreign oil supplies so their citizens don't blow us up?

Why should Canada waste countless dollars and lives so that corporations can get more wealthy?

x
 

BottomsUp

New member
Aug 30, 2004
1,815
0
0
xdog said:
Then why the bombings in Saudi arabia? Are you saying that we need to protect foreign oil supplies so their citizens don't blow us up?

Why should Canada waste countless dollars and lives so that corporations can get more wealthy?

x
Why do so many people worry themselves about the oil companies getting rich? What they make is peanuts compared to what the major oil producing countries are making. Anybody noticed whats happening in Dubai lately? I wonder where they get their money from? hmm...oil possibly. Wonder how Russia got so rich in the last few years? Who cares if Exxon is getting rich. Everyone in the oil loop is getting rich. Deep water drillers like RIG are getting $500k+ day rates for their deep water drill ships. Why don't people boycott Citgo, since its owned by the Venezuelan oil company? Never hear anybody complain about their profits. Priorities in all the wrong places.
 

Aardvark154

New member
Jan 19, 2006
53,749
3
0
canada-man said:
then let india send their boys to protect the pipeline. we are canadians fighting for India?
If that’s why you think NATO is in Afghanistan. . . It's just a waste of time for me to argue the point.
 

1955pont

New member
Oct 8, 2004
28
0
1
Why do so many people worry themselves about the oil companies getting rich

BottomsUp said:
Why do so many people worry themselves about the oil companies getting rich? What they make is peanuts compared to what the major oil producing countries are making. Anybody noticed whats happening in Dubai lately? I wonder where they get their money from? hmm...oil possibly. Wonder how Russia got so rich in the last few years? Who cares if Exxon is getting rich. Everyone in the oil loop is getting rich. Deep water drillers like RIG are getting $500k+ day rates for their deep water drill ships. Why don't people boycott Citgo, since its owned by the Venezuelan oil company? Never hear anybody complain about their profits. Priorities in all the wrong places.
Because big oil is all owned by GWB and his 4 friends and they take all our money and put it in Warehouses in texas .
 

1955pont

New member
Oct 8, 2004
28
0
1
DonQuixote said:
You totally miss his point.

I previously posted 80% of the oil revenues coming out of
the ground are reaped by the countries that have nationalized
their oil fields.

As Bottomsup stated, its the Saudis, Russians, etc who are
reaping the profits and our dollars are going into their treasury
and not the gross receipts of a corporation.

Two-thirds of what we pay goes to them and the rest is
divided up among the refineries, shippers, retailers, etc.
Did I forget the taxes paid?
I do agree with what you and BU are saying......I was pointing more towards the people who blame big oil for all our problems.;)

BTW I believe that our oil fields are partialy nationalized via federal transfer payments.
 

DirtyDave

Banned
Jul 7, 2006
241
0
16
canada-man said:
These Wars Are About Oil, Not Democracy
by Eric Margolis
The ugly truth behind the Iraq and Afghanistan wars finally has emerged.

Four major western oil companies, Exxon Mobil, Shell, BP and Total are about to sign U.S.-brokered no-bid contracts to begin exploiting Iraq’s oil fields. Saddam Hussein had kicked these firms out three decades ago when he nationalized Iraq’s oil industry. The U.S.-installed Baghdad regime is welcoming them back.

Iraq is getting back the same oil companies that used to exploit it when it was a British colony.

As former fed chairman Alan Greenspan recently admitted, the Iraq war was all about oil. The invasion was about SUV’s, not democracy.

Afghanistan just signed a major deal to launch a long-planned, 1,680-km pipeline project expected to cost $8 billion. If completed, the Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India pipeline (TAPI) will export gas and later oil from the Caspian basin to Pakistan’s coast where tankers will transport it to the West.

The Caspian basin located under the Central Asian states of Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Kazakkstan, holds an estimated 300 trillion cubic feet of gas and 100-200 billion barrels of oil. Securing the world’s last remaining known energy El Dorado is a strategic priority for the western powers.

But there are only two practical ways to get gas and oil out of land-locked Central Asia to the sea: Through Iran, or through Afghanistan to Pakistan. Iran is taboo for Washington. That leaves Pakistan, but to get there, the planned pipeline must cross western Afghanistan, including the cities of Herat and Kandahar.

PIPELINE DEAL

In 1998, the Afghan anti-Communist movement Taliban and a western oil consortium led by the U.S. firm Unocal signed a major pipeline deal. Unocal lavished money and attention on the Taliban, flew a senior delegation to Texas, and hired a minor Afghan official, Hamid Karzai.

Enter Osama bin Laden. He advised the unworldly Taliban leaders to reject the U.S. deal and got them to accept a better offer from an Argentine consortium. Washington was furious and, according to some accounts, threatened the Taliban with war.

In early 2001, six or seven months before 9/11, Washington made the decision to invade Afghanistan, overthrow the Taliban, and install a client regime that would build the energy pipelines. But Washington still kept sending money to the Taliban until four months before 9/11 in an effort to keep it “on side” for possible use in a war against China.

The 9/11 attacks, about which the Taliban knew nothing, supplied the pretext to invade Afghanistan. The initial U.S. operation had the legitimate objective of wiping out Osama bin Laden’s al-Qaida. But after its 300 members fled to Pakistan, the U.S. stayed on, built bases — which just happened to be adjacent to the planned pipeline route — and installed former Unocal “consultant” Hamid Karzai as leader.

Washington disguised its energy geopolitics by claiming the Afghan occupation was to fight “Islamic terrorism,” liberate women, build schools and promote democracy. Ironically, the Soviets made exactly the same claims when they occupied Afghanistan from 1979-1989. The Iraq cover story was weapons of mass destruction and democracy.

Work will begin on the TAPI once Taliban forces are cleared from the pipeline route by U.S., Canadian and NATO forces. As American analyst Kevin Phillips writes, the U.S. military and its allies have become an “energy protection force.”



http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/06/22/9805/




CTV news website recently prove that this afghan war is for an oile pipeline dea

Afghanistan and three other countries agreed in April to build a US$7.6-billion natural gas pipeline starting in 2010 that would deliver gas from energy-rich Turkmenistan to energy-hungry Pakistan and India.

The Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India (TAPI) pipeline is strongly supported by the U.S. because it would block a competing pipeline from Iran that would bring oil to India and Pakistan. It would also reduce Russia's dominance of the energy sector in Central Asia.

A U.S-backed pipeline -- more than 500 kilometres of it -- in Afghanistan would be an inviting target for Taliban and al Qaeda operatives there. It would be very difficult to defend.

But Ottawa and the military have been quiet about what could be one of the biggest changes to the operational paradigm in Kandahar, despite plans for such a pipeline going back a decade.


this is what our boys are dying for


http://news.sympatico.msn.cbc.ca/Ca...line=True&subtitle=&detect=&abc=abc&date=True
Are you ever fucking slow....This was well documented in 2002...The real issue is weather it is prudent that the goverment uses its military to protect its financial interests...
 
Toronto Escorts