Afghan Pipeline Conspiracy?

[SorianoFanHFW]

The Conspiracy That Never Was

 

 

 

It has been a couple of years since American airstrikes rocked Al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan and at first everyone but a select few Leftist were for it. We heard all of the excuses, such as "occupying countries is wrong", "it is wrong to bomb during an islamic holiday", and "oh, the whole war was to get a pipeline!"

 

The Great Pipeline War? Here's the "conspiracy." For years, America (the whole country) wanted to build a pipeline in Afghanistan because we are so damn oil hungry, but the deal fell through with the Taliban because talks were in progress before their fall. However, because we could not cut a deal with the Taliban, we used September 11th as an excuse to fulfill our greedy desires for oil pipelines.

 

Well, what really came of this? Well, the "pipeline conspiracy" is simply not true. Firstly, America did not want to build a pipeline, an American corporation did called Unocal. A gas pipeline is indeed in the works.(http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/1984459.stm). There were indeed talks with the Taliban throughout the 90s, but guess what happened? Al Qaeda held terrorist attacks throughout the 90s, culminating in 4 embassy bombings in 1998. In 1999, talks with the Taliban ended, because it looked bad to do business with a repressevie regime that supports terrorism.

 

But guess what? The Taliban regime was righteously taken out of power, and now whatever reason there was NOT to build a pipeline has flown out the window. So who gets the pipeline? Well, the same exact guys thta were ahead in the original running for it, Unocal.

 

But why are there any accusations of dirty dealing? Would we cause a 20 billion dollar war with Afghanistan for a 2 billion dollar pipeline? What kind of dirty dealing was Unocal doing with the government?

 

http://www.opensecrets.org/indivs/search.a...t1996=Y&Order=N

 

Between the years 1996 to 1998, Unocal gave $26,500 to the Democrat Party and $40,250 to the Republican party. During the years 1992 to 1994, Unocal had a total of $73,900. Unocal gave a total of ZERO dollars after their deal fell through with the Taliban, and they have not given a penny since. All of this is microscopic in comparison to other contributors and to insist a war was caused for such a small amount of contributions and furthermore, that non were made for the 2000, 2002, or 2004 election cycles shows that there is most likely no dirty dealing. The "pipeline conspiracy" is a lie, it is as simple as a corporation deciding to build a pipeline once a controversial government went out of power, but I guess that is no fun.

 

Hopefully, this clears up the cloud around the War in Afghanistan. It was NOT for a pipeline, it was because a terrorist organization attacked America, but hey we knew that already, right?

 

http//www.xanga.com/craigramblings

[FutureGM]

Honestly, I've never heard of this so-called 'pipeline conspiracy' in the first place. I also don't believe that we would ever start a war for no particular reason.

[SorianoFanHFW]

iraq?

[g8trz2003]

Bush just said, "what the hell, let's attack Iraq."

 

Cabinet asks why.

 

Bush says, "for no good reason."

 

 

DOUBT IT

[FutureGM]

iraq?

No, we had reasoning, it just wasn't good.

 

If we had attacked a country ruled by someone other than Saddam, I would be more angry. However, Saddam needed to go. He's not Hitler, but he certainly tried to be.

[SorianoFanHFW]

Iraq happened for no good reason, unlike the afghan war.

[legacyofCangelosi]

Right because a country that has built WMDs, has attacked neighboring peaceful countries, and that is ruled by a man who slaughters, tortures, and used WMDs on his own people isnt a reason.

 

There was a defintely a reason, it ended up being not as big a threat as first expected, but there was a reason. And had anyone heard of good ole Abu Nidal, World fmaous terrorist given asylum by Saddam after the he and Arafat were at odds. Lets not be blind to the fact that Iraq was a hostile nation that did have terrorism ties.

[SorianoFanHFW]

Right because a country that has built WMDs, has attacked neighboring peaceful countries, and that is ruled by a man who slaughters, tortures, and used WMDs on his own people isnt a reason.

 

There was a defintely a reason, it ended up being not as big a threat as first expected, but there was a reason. And had anyone heard of good ole Abu Nidal, World fmaous terrorist given asylum by Saddam after the he and Arafat were at odds. Lets not be blind to the fact that Iraq was a hostile nation that did have terrorism ties.

Not Al Qaeda and there weren't any WMDS since we occupied Iraq.

 

Just so you don't bask (sp) in your ignorance, Bush has admitted there are no weapons or al qaeda connections. So no reason for war...

 

So no reason.

[legacyofCangelosi]

The War on Terror is against terrorism not just Al Qaeda. Which includes Hamas, Hizbollah, the red army faction or anyone else that uses terrorist tactics. And Iraq did have connections with terroist organizations. (Go back to my Abu nidal example)And if you know anything about terrorism, is that terrorist organizations are decentralized, so independent cells can cause damage and not be directly affiliated to al qaeda which if translated means 'the base' So just so u dont bask in your ignorance, there are many many more terrorist organizations in the World that pose a threat to naitonal security than just Al Qaeda. Defintely a reason for war. Defintely.

[SorianoFanHFW]

The War on Terror is against terrorism not just Al Qaeda. Which includes Hamas, Hizbollah, the red army faction or anyone else that uses terrorist tactics. And Iraq did have connections with terroist organizations. (Go back to my Abu nidal example)And if you know anything about terrorism, is that terrorist organizations are decentralized, so independent cells can cause damage and not be directly affiliated to al qaeda which if translated means 'the base' So just so u dont bask in your ignorance, there are many many more terrorist organizations in the World that pose a threat to naitonal security than just Al Qaeda. Defintely a reason for war. Defintely.

No that's where you are wrong. you know damn well bush flipflopped the hamas issue and I don't see us bombing saudia arabia, palestine, and Iran.

 

There was definitely no reason for war in iraq if bush is no longer stating there was a terrorist threat.

 

Furthermore, there are cheaper ways to spend 100s of billions of dollars to fight terror and protect american lives. face it oh ignorant one. Iraq was an expensive blunder that will cause more terrorism thus cause more harm than good. so unlees you are pro harm and expense, you can't be for the iraq war.

[legacyofCangelosi]

That other countries also support terrorism is not a reason why we shouldnt have attacked Iraq. And what the hell do u mean flipflopped the hamas issue? Iraq sponsored terrorism FACT. The world is a safer place with Hussein out of power FACT. And i may disagree with you but I am far from ignorant. I have a Bachelors in political science, I have worked on several campaigns in Florida, presidential, gubernatorial, state house, mayoral, and so forth.When it comes to politics i am far from ignorant. My opinion being different to yours does not make me ignorant, because everything I have said is based on fact. And if yo ucare so much abiut spending why dont we talk about reforming welfare, education, and the prison system to name a few. I concede that there was an error in judgement when Iraq was primarily attacke, but the result of the attack is not negative, bringing democracy to an oppressed country and throwing out a ruthless dictator is very positive. And instead of whining and complaining about how horrible Bush is for going to war, why dont we focus our resources on solving problems rather than attacking what could have beens. I state my opinions respectfully let us discuss this as civilized adults not middle schoolers. Abu Nidal by the way was never in Hamas, he did some projects with black September and fled to Iraq after problems with Arafat. Nidal was found dead in Iraq after committing 'suicide' with 4 bullets lodged in his brain.

[SorianoFanHFW]

That other countries also support terrorism is not a reason why we shouldnt have attacked Iraq. And what the hell do u mean flipflopped the hamas issue? Iraq sponsored terrorism FACT. The world is a safer place with Hussein out of power FACT. And i may disagree with you but I am far from ignorant. I have a Bachelors in political science, I have worked on several campaigns in Florida, presidential, gubernatorial, state house, mayoral, and so forth.When it comes to politics i am far from ignorant. My opinion being different to yours does not make me ignorant, because everything I have said is based on fact. And if yo ucare so much abiut spending why dont we talk about reforming welfare, education, and the prison system to name a few. I concede that there was an error in judgement when Iraq was primarily attacke, but the result of the attack is not negative, bringing democracy to an oppressed country and throwing out a ruthless dictator is very positive. And instead of whining and complaining about how horrible Bush is for going to war, why dont we focus our resources on solving problems rather than attacking what could have beens. I state my opinions respectfully let us discuss this as civilized adults not middle schoolers. Abu Nidal by the way was never in Hamas, he did some projects with black September and fled to Iraq after problems with Arafat. Nidal was found dead in Iraq after committing 'suicide' with 4 bullets lodged in his brain.

-Bush several times changed his stance on Israel's right to protect itself.

 

-Yes, I being right and you wrong makes your opinion ignorant

 

-Bring democracy is awesome, but I don't care enough about iraqis to spend hundreds of billions to do that and you know damn well inside you don't either. We can bring democracy to africa or south america for much less.

 

-You brought up Hamas

 

-The money for the Iraq war and the fact we killed so many men (Iraqi) simply makes the war unjustifiable when the resources could of easily went towards far better things and inspections were up and running in the country.

 

You cannot simply say it was worth the price when FOR LESS MONEY we could of helped MORE PEOPLE.

 

case closed.

[legacyofCangelosi]

I mentioned hamas as a terrorist organization aside from al qaeda, i was asking what YOU meant about bush flipflopping the issue. I am not wrong and definetely not ignorant. Helping more people for less money like you say is not based on fact, but on speculation. And i definetely do care deep down about democracy, and you do not have the numbers to back up the fact that doing it in africa is cheaper AND Iraq IS a naitonal security matter because Hussein DID sponsor terrorism. Attacking when we did is quesitonable but that somethng did need to be done. And killing does not make war unjustifiable because people die in every war in history. Bush should have given inspectors more time in Iraq. But the quesiton now is, we went to war, justifiable or not, and whats our next move? What will trigger more terrorism is pulling the troops out of Iraq now, itll dishearten the Iraqi people who want democracy and will give a victory to terrorist groups fighting in the region. So reopen your case and discuss solutions. And please use fact to substantiate your claims, especially the financial ones

[SorianoFanHFW]

I mentioned hamas as a terrorist organization aside from al qaeda, i was asking what YOU meant about bush flipflopping the issue.

I already answered this. He changed his stance several times concerning israel's right to protect itself.

 

Helping more people for less money like you say is not based on fact, but on speculation.

 

I really don't think it is so speculatory (if that's even a word!) It is rather simple, many millions more lives can be helped by not spending 100s of billions for war purposes (especially when such a war might just spawn more "terror.)

 

Bill Gates vaccinated millions in africa with 20 billion dollars. I'm sure that improved the quality of life a hell of a lot more for a lot less for more people than bombing some country for reasons not dealing with defense.

 

And i definetely do care deep down about democracy, and you do not have the numbers to back up the fact that doing it in africa is cheaper AND Iraq IS a naitonal security matter because Hussein DID sponsor terrorism.

Simple, Gates did it for less, there were no wMDs so no national security matter, and hussein did not sponsor al qaeda. All very simple.

 

Attacking when we did is quesitonable but that somethng did need to be done.

No, Iraq was no threat. A lot of coutnries might have small as programs, some countries flat out have weapons. Iraq therefore was not threatening.

 

And killing does not make war unjustifiable because people die in every war in history.

As long as more lives are saved than lost, a war is fine. Iraq does not fulfill this requirement. Afghanistan does.

 

Bush should have given inspectors more time in Iraq. But the quesiton now is, we went to war, justifiable or not, and whats our next move? What will trigger more terrorism is pulling the troops out of Iraq now, itll dishearten the Iraqi people who want democracy and will give a victory to terrorist groups fighting in the region. So reopen your case and discuss solutions. And please use fact to substantiate your claims, especially the financial ones

We cannot pull out now, we have to bite our lips and do our best job at nation building. Giving inspectors an infinite amount of time would not found anything. Personally, I would like to watch the Bush administration make china and korea higher priorities.

[legacyofCangelosi]

Well it looks like we agree on something, I dont think we should pull out either and korea in particular should be amde a higher priority. However, Iraq was a threat because hussein sponsored terrorism. The US is on a war on terror not a war against al qaeda only. And by the way I said speculation, I never used the word speculatory.

[SorianoFanHFW]

However, Iraq was a threat because hussein sponsored terrorism. The US is on a war on terror not a war against al qaeda only. And by the way I said speculation, I never used the word speculatory.

How recent are such sponsor allegations? Are such organizations he was connected with worthy of confronting in multibillion dollar wars? I would believe assets can be used more effectively, efficiently, and less deadly manners.

 

The war on iraq was a massive waste of money if it was just for "liberation" purposes. Furthermore, pissing of the world and mounting a giant budget deficit in the long run might have worse humanitarian effects than any such gains that have not yet occurred in Iraq.

[legacyofCangelosi]

Germany just said they wanted to put the war behind them so they can have good relations with the U.S. In fact the majority of countries where either neutral in this matter or they supported the coalition in Iraq. France did not because hussein owed them millions of dollars, and his overthrow causes them to lose money, same with Russia. And we waste money on plenty of other things and a lot more money. There are also geographic reasons for this war. We overthrew an enemy country because this will allow a US friendly govt in the middle east that will be essential in fighting the war against terrorism in the middle east. And because of Iraq, Khadaffi (sp) and the Iranian leader as well have decided to halt nuclear weapons programs and other WMD programs. So the effect is far beyond Iraq. Was it expensive, not in comparison to many other wars previously fought, was it useful definetely yes. Was there good reason to go in, not that good but the ends justifies the means. Even though there were valid reasons (terrorism, WMD programs were there)

[SorianoFanHFW]

Germany just said they wanted to put the war behind them so they can have good relations with the U.S. In fact the majority of countries where either neutral in this matter or they supported the coalition in Iraq. France did not because hussein owed them millions of dollars, and his overthrow causes them to lose money, same with Russia. And we waste money on plenty of other things and a lot more money. There are also geographic reasons for this war. We overthrew an enemy country because this will allow a US friendly govt in the middle east that will be essential in fighting the war against terrorism in the middle east.

There are very few things we spend more money on than an overly massive military and iraq occupation.

 

1. Germany might say they're cool with us and other countries' official stances "are neutral", but "friendly and neutral" are in the sense that the rest of the world isn't bombing us. Their people overwhelming think we're big douche bags than ever, try talking to typical europeans.

 

European nations and the world were against us attacking afghanistan in self defense- what is an unjustified war going to make these people think? It is a matter of common sense.

 

2. France, Russia, and China had 40 billion dollars of oil investments in Iraq, not mere millions

 

3. A "US friendly government" is really not yet existant, and if you want to come out and say you are pro-imperialism, come out and say it. Stop beating around the bush with the "humanitarian" and "people really don't care" lies. I'm against imerpialism, and from what you said above it would be a lie to say YOU'RE opposed to it.

 

And because of Iraq, Khadaffi (sp) and the Iranian leader as well have decided to halt nuclear weapons programs and other WMD programs. So the effect is far beyond Iraq. Was it expensive, not in comparison to many other wars previously fought, was it useful definetely yes. Was there good reason to go in, not that good but the ends justifies the means. Even though there were valid reasons (terrorism, WMD programs were there)

Iran is continuing to build a nuclear reactor from a Russian contract and you know as well as I do that these moves are merely political shows of friendliness. Libya's programs were never really threatening to begin with (some uranium centrifuges) and Iran had weapons inspections BEFORE the war started.

 

So in response, no the effect ISN't far beyond Iraq, the war WAS expensive and isn't preventing future wars. In fact, it can only provoke more.

 

Again you reiterate that the end justifies the means. It does, but what end did we achieve? Iraq wasn't actively sponsoring terror that was hurting America to a large degree, unlike Saudi Arabia and probably Iran. Weapons programs WERE NOT the reason we went it, the programs were highly inadequate anyway.

 

You are justifying imperialism. Face it, the war was a sham, we didn't accomplish anything that good, it is going to NOT save us money in the long run, and it was highly unethical.

[legacyofCangelosi]

Of course the war was beyond Iraq and what you said doesnt prove that it wasnt. France will be anti-american regardless of anything we do b/c they have historical reasons. We spent much more money in 2003 on many social programs many of which are useless than the money we spent in Iraq. The fact that germany, france, and russia owed that much money proves my point further that it was greed that caused them to be against the US not any other reason. The world is a safer place, Iraq did sponsor terrorism, which was a threat to the US and our allies. And again the fact that Iran and saudi Arabia also sponsor terrorism is not a reason why we shouldnt attack Iraq if anything all that it means is that we also have to handle these terrorist issues in those other countries. Khadaffi's programs were a threat and he has been a threat since the late 80s. Iran actually has seized its uranium enrichment program, at least the part of the program that would produce waste that can be used in weapons. And finally the UN cannot function w/o US funding, so even if France and some other countries fear the power that the US wields, they know that in order for a true world organization to funciton they need the US, b/c we have the largest GDP of any country inthe World and we are the largest contributor of the UN and UN-related programs like the IMF .

[catchoftheday]

I agree with Soriano (oddly enough ive been agreeying with this guy a lot lately) but yeah, besides the fact that it was highly unethical for the US to invade iraq, in which they went as an unilateral power and ended up spending more than $300 billion in the whole operation.(might be wrong on that but you get the point) And why did we go for? ... we went looking for WMD and Al-Qaeda ties, and what did we find? .... nothing, not even anything remote to ties Al-Qaeda. So in conclution this war was a hoax, a way for the US to have more power in the Middle East and get more oil.... nothing more, nothing less.

[SorianoFanHFW]

Of course the war was beyond Iraq and what you said doesnt prove that it wasnt. France will be anti-american regardless of anything we do b/c they have historical reasons.

France isn't the only country on earth pissed off and that we're hurting relations with terribly.

 

We spent much more money in 2003 on many social programs many of which are useless than the money we spent in Iraq.

 

Social programs suck, but they did a little something compared to a war that did completely nothing. All government bureaucracy sucks, including the military bureaucracy.

 

The fact that germany, france, and russia owed that much money proves my point further that it was greed that caused them to be against the US not any other reason.

Greed, and we're not? The point is that we still pissed everyone off and for a lot of money too.

 

The world is a safer place, Iraq did sponsor terrorism, which was a threat to the US and our allies.

 

No weapons, more people mad, distancing ourselves from allies...the world is NOT safer.

 

And again the fact that Iran and saudi Arabia also sponsor terrorism is not a reason why we shouldnt attack Iraq if anything all that it means is that we also have to handle these terrorist issues in those other countries.

No, but Iraq's "sponsoring" was minute in it's affect on americans- NOT WORTH A MULTI BILLION DOLLAR INVESTMENT.

 

Khadaffi's programs were a threat and he has been a threat since the late 80s. Iran actually has seized its uranium enrichment program, at least the part of the program that would produce waste that can be used in weapons. And finally the UN cannot function w/o US funding, so even if France and some other countries fear the power that the US wields, they know that in order for a true world organization to funciton they need the US, b/c we have the largest GDP of any country inthe World and we are the largest contributor of the UN and UN-related programs like the IMF .

Fine, that doesn't give us the license to blow people up for no reason.

 

 

It is simple economics if the cost is less than the benefit, do it. The benefit wasn't bigger than the cost...that means the war was a bad move.

[catchoftheday]

oh lets see.

 

 

the supposed trucks in which WMD were made turned out to be nothing more than little labs with absolutly no purpose.

 

the documents that Iraq had gotten uranium from Niger (african country) turned out to be false and outdated.

 

The US had a massive search of Iraq and its ties with Al-Qaeda i believe in 1998, and found nothing, not even with sept 11th. so why was there a need of another one.

 

 

why fight terrorism when your the biggest terrorist.

[catchoftheday]

and i agree the world isnt a better place ... not even close

 

as Desmond Tutu stated

 

"An immoral war was, thus, waged and the world is a great deal less safe place than before"

[SorianoFanHFW]

thank you