Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Afghanistan war is about oil and natural gas pipeline. WOT is a sideshow

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
Postman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-24-09 12:00 PM
Original message
Afghanistan war is about oil and natural gas pipeline. WOT is a sideshow
Edited on Tue Nov-24-09 12:19 PM by Postman
http://prorev.com/2009/08/why-is-afghanistan-so-important.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/23/obama-to-announce-increas_n_368447.html

The puppet regime of Karzai is being propped up by the US in order for the multinational corporate oil and gas interests to exploit that region of the worlds natural resources.

There is no legitimate "self-defense" excuse to justify the US presence in Afghanistan. The minor incidents along the Afghanistan/Pakistan border, although newsworthy, are given a heavier news priority by the MSM than stories on the historical background of the region and the connection between US military occupation and natural resource exploitation by corporate interests. In fact, by watching the MSM news programs one would never know that the region (Caspian Sea and the "Stans'") are rich in oil and natural gas because it is never reported.

Obama should not get a pass on this amping up of troops under the cover of fighting the WOT. It is not a war on terror. It is the same old story. US military force being deployed to capture natural resources for multinational corporate interests in the name of "God" and "Freedom"....



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
treestar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-24-09 12:02 PM
Response to Original message
1. Al Qaeda is there
Should we just leave them alone?

And God/Allah/FSM forbid they should manage to pull off another attack.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Buzz Clik Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-24-09 12:03 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. shhhhh! We're on a roll here!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leeroysphitz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-24-09 12:05 PM
Response to Reply #1
5. Terra! terra! terra!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
treestar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-24-09 12:08 PM
Response to Reply #5
8. Well, what if they did?
Imagine what the right would say. The MSM would have a fit of delight.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Luminous Animal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-24-09 12:05 PM
Response to Reply #1
6. 100 al Qaeda in Afghanistan.
"Although the war in Afghanistan began as a response to al-Qaeda terrorism, there are perhaps fewer than 100 members of the group left in the country, according to a senior U.S. military intelligence official in Kabul who spoke on the condition of anonymity."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/11/11/politics/washingtonpost/main5613564.shtml
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
treestar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-24-09 12:10 PM
Response to Reply #6
11. And the 300 in the tribal areas of Pakistan
Which is part of all this.

If they are that few, then why would it be impossible to "win?"

Or even capture bin Laden?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dflprincess Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-24-09 05:18 PM
Response to Reply #11
81. If it were possible to "win" you'd think we could have pulled it off in the last 8 years or so
I doubt if another 34,000 troops will be able to track down 300 or so "terra-ists" if the troops already there haven't managed to pull it off.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
abelenkpe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-24-09 12:08 PM
Response to Reply #1
9. al qaeda is also in Pakistan
and Somalia, and many other places. We should combat them in Afghanistan the same way we combat them elsewhere. It is not a job for our military.
Afghanistan will never be subdued. The west has been trying since the time of Alexander the Great. It's a waste of time, money and human life. The money we spend attempting to "win" in Afghanistan and Iraq is needed here. We are in a dire economic situation, losing fire, police, our education system cut to the bone, social services disappearing, infrastructure in desperate need of repair, jobs vanishing, families without health care. We can't afford to pursue this war further.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Postman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-24-09 12:14 PM
Response to Reply #1
13. Al Qaeda is not there NOW.
Edited on Tue Nov-24-09 12:16 PM by Postman
Marine Captain Mathew Hoh resigned in protest because of the fraudulence of the WOT. What young Mathew may not have realized is that the reason for "stabilization" efforts in Afghanistan is to bring about the pipeline deals in the works.....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Subdivisions Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-24-09 01:02 PM
Response to Reply #1
45. Al Qaeda fled Afghanistan. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
arcadian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-24-09 01:33 PM
Response to Reply #1
68. Al Qaeda = Goldstein
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Buzz Clik Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-24-09 12:03 PM
Response to Original message
2. It's Tuesday! Time to reheat the "Afghanistan is about the pipeline" bullshit.
Do I again have to say that the pipeline was already built by somebody else and that it didn't go across Afghanistan?

No?

Good.

Case closed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Luminous Animal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-24-09 12:09 PM
Response to Reply #2
10. Which pipeline would that be?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Buzz Clik Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-24-09 12:31 PM
Response to Reply #10
21. Did you look?
Google is your friend.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Luminous Animal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-24-09 12:34 PM
Response to Reply #21
23. There are several pipelines in the area.
They all have names. You said, "the pipeline was already built by somebody else". Which pipeline would that be?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Buzz Clik Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-24-09 12:35 PM
Response to Reply #23
24. Pick one. There are several. None go across Afghanistan.
What is your problem?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Junkdrawer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-24-09 12:39 PM
Response to Reply #24
28. Trans-Afghanistan_Pipeline
The Trans-Afghanistan Pipeline (TAP or TAPI) is a proposed natural gas pipeline being developed by the Asian Development Bank. The pipeline will transport Caspian Sea natural gas from Turkmenistan through Afghanistan into Pakistan and then to India. Proponents of the project see it as a modern continuation of the Silk Road. The Afghan government is expected to receive 8% of the project's revenue.

History

The original project started in March 1995 when an inaugural memorandum of understanding between the governments of Turkmenistan and Pakistan for a pipeline project was signed. In August 1996, the Central Asia Gas Pipeline, Ltd. (CentGas) consortium for construction of a pipeline, led by Unocal was formed. On 27 October 1997, CentGas was incorporated in formal signing ceremonies in Ashgabat, Turkmenistan by several international oil companies along with the Government of Turkmenistan. In January 1998, the Taliban, selecting CentGas over Argentinian competitor Bridas Corporation, signed an agreement that allowed the proposed project to proceed. In June 1998, Russian Gazprom relinquished its 10% stake in the project. Unocal withdrew from the consortium on 8 December 1998.

The new deal on the pipeline was signed on 27 December 2002 by the leaders of Turkmenistan, Afghanistan and Pakistan.<1> In 2005, the Asian Development Bank submitted the final version of a feasibility study designed by British company Penspen. Since the United States military overthrew the Taliban government, the project has essentially stalled; construction of the Turkmen part was supposed to start in 2006, but the overall feasibility is questionable since the southern part of the Afghan section runs through territory which continues to be under de facto Taliban control.

On 24 April 2008, Pakistan, India and Afghanistan signed a framework agreement to buy natural gas from Turkmenistan.

...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Afghanistan_Pipeline
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Buzz Clik Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-24-09 12:40 PM
Response to Reply #28
30. It doesn't exist. Just proposed. Try again. This time, try one that exists. There are several.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Junkdrawer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-24-09 12:41 PM
Response to Reply #30
31. The point is that it won't exist UNTIL stability (at the cost of more US troops?)...
is brought to Afghanistan.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Buzz Clik Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-24-09 12:54 PM
Response to Reply #31
38. Pipelines have been built. Past tense. They exist today.
Get. A. Clue.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-24-09 12:57 PM
Response to Reply #38
40. And once we're gone, they'll get blowed up.
Blowed up real good.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Postman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-24-09 02:36 PM
Response to Reply #38
78. Try reading an article before spouting your BS
Edited on Tue Nov-24-09 02:40 PM by Postman
"pipelines exist" --- no shit Sherlock. But they aren't owned or controlled by US based multinationals. The whole point of US exploitation of pipelines is to avoid and isolate Iran. Get a clue yourself.

Oil fields and drilling companies existed in Iraq before the US occupation. That doesn't mean the US doesn't want to take advantage for their own corporate interests...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Postman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-24-09 02:39 PM
Response to Reply #31
79. Glad to see someone understands this. Apparantly Buzz Clik doesn't get it.
Edited on Tue Nov-24-09 02:39 PM by Postman
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Luminous Animal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-24-09 12:44 PM
Response to Reply #30
33. Which one of those achieves the strategic objectives
of the proposed Afghan pipeline?

If the proposed pipeline is unnecessary, then why create a consortium to build it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Subdivisions Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-24-09 01:06 PM
Response to Reply #30
50. DUH!!! Teh stupid, it burns. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Buzz Clik Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-24-09 01:08 PM
Response to Reply #50
53. And your point?
Do you think that another pipeline to existing oil fields will magically increase production?

You're right. Stupid that deep burns.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Subdivisions Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-24-09 01:30 PM
Response to Reply #53
65. Bwaahahahahahah! You JUST proved me right!! HA! 'Existing oil fields...'??? LOL!`
Once again: Teh stupid, it burns!!!


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Luminous Animal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-24-09 12:42 PM
Response to Reply #28
32. Geez! If the pipeline has already been built,
then why build another?

Buzz Clik seems to be able to do little but squeeze out tiny little poops of propaganda.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Junkdrawer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-24-09 12:46 PM
Original message
Lots of barking, though...
Edited on Tue Nov-24-09 12:47 PM by Junkdrawer
Buzz Click has declared victory on several threads without offering one shred of proof.

Yap Yap Yap...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
arcadian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-24-09 01:43 PM
Response to Reply #32
70. Hilarious.
And BC doesn't want to back up his claims.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Luminous Animal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-24-09 12:39 PM
Response to Reply #24
29. It's your problem.
You made the statement. Now you back it up.

Which one of those pipelines satisfies the objectives of the proposed Afghan pipeline?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Buzz Clik Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-24-09 12:52 PM
Response to Reply #29
36. Are we really that lazy?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Luminous Animal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-24-09 01:02 PM
Response to Reply #36
44. I already googled it.
The results support the OP. Apparently, you are too lazy to follow through on your own research.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Buzz Clik Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-24-09 01:06 PM
Response to Reply #44
51. Bullshit. If you googled it, then you're an obnoxious dweeb for demanding that I do it.
I have no doubt that the baseless claims of the OP will be repeated endlessly, and you'll be there to blindly support those empty claims.

I'll be there, too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Luminous Animal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-24-09 01:11 PM
Response to Reply #51
54. If you are going to make an assertion that is contrary to the OP
then you should be expected to back it up.

I did my own search (and not for the first time), because you seemed to have some "special" knowledge which would belie the OP and my google search. I asked you to back it up. Unfortunately for you, your search backed up the OP and not your baseless comments.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Buzz Clik Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-24-09 01:16 PM
Response to Reply #54
56. 1.4 million hits on Central Asia Pipelines.
1,400,000.

Sorry, but you bring nothing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Postman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-24-09 12:17 PM
Response to Reply #2
15. Right. And Iraq was about Hussein having WMD..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Buzz Clik Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-24-09 12:30 PM
Response to Reply #15
20. did you bother to research this subject, or are you simply repeating what you've been told?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Subdivisions Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-24-09 01:03 PM
Response to Reply #20
47. I've been researching it for several years and I can say without
Edited on Tue Nov-24-09 01:04 PM by Subdivisions
a doubt, and having read the rest of your posts in this thread, that you are full of shit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Buzz Clik Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-24-09 01:24 PM
Response to Reply #47
60. Please be specific. You think your graphic somehow demonstrates ... what?
That we're in Afghanistan for a single pipeline that has been proposed for more than 15 years but will never be built? That other pipelines in the area have not been built, completely eliminating the need for a pipeline across Afghanistan?

I never once suggested that stability in Afghanistan was unrelated to a stable supply of energy, but then that wasn't the claim of the OP, was it?

You have not shown that anyone is full of shit. Though blasts of hot air, such as yours, are often precursors to a lot of shit coming.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Subdivisions Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-24-09 01:28 PM
Response to Reply #60
64. My graphic sig has nothing to do with this conversation. YOU said the
pipeline and energy motive was "bullshit". Then you were challenged to prove your assertion and you FAILED. If you don't know what's really going on in Afghanistan, that's YOUR problem and I'm not about to spend my time attempting to school you as it will do no good.

I stick to what I said and you remain full of shit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Buzz Clik Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-24-09 01:48 PM
Response to Reply #64
71. "My graphic sig has nothing to do with this conversation." Ok. See ya..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Subdivisions Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-24-09 01:57 PM
Response to Reply #71
72. You said: 'You think your graphic somehow demonstrates ... what?'
How do you suppose a graphic illustrating oil production/price has anything to do with a conversation about why we are in Afghanistan? That graphic is my sig and I didn't post it as part of this conversation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Caliman73 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-24-09 01:17 PM
Response to Reply #20
57. The link you provided shows PROPOSED pipelines not built ones
From the article.

5. The American oil company Unocal has proposed the construction of oil and gas pipelines from Turkmenistan through Afghanistan to Pakistan and later to India. Afghanistan's long war has prevented this project from moving forward. If some degree of stability returns to Afghanistan, the project may be resurrected.

Re-read the article on the link that you provided to prove your point and if you come up with different valid information then post it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Buzz Clik Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-24-09 01:25 PM
Response to Reply #57
62. Both proposed and existing. The reading problem is not mine.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Caliman73 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-24-09 02:10 PM
Response to Reply #62
77. yes it is...
The existing lines are only capable of bringing a small portion of the available supply to market. That was said in the main article and several of the links.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Junkdrawer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-24-09 12:36 PM
Response to Reply #2
25. Bluffing again?
Call.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TrogL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-24-09 02:06 PM
Response to Reply #2
75. Wrong pipeline
Edited on Tue Nov-24-09 02:08 PM by TrogL
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leeroysphitz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-24-09 12:04 PM
Response to Original message
4. Clinton had to play the same game in the Balkans. The powers that be aren't going to give Obama
"a pass" either. The pipes are going to laid no matter who sits in the Whitehouse.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Buzz Clik Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-24-09 12:31 PM
Response to Reply #4
22. Past tense. Been laid.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mari333 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-24-09 12:06 PM
Response to Original message
7. be careful..the armchair warmongers are on full alert status
you dont want to upset their bowl of cheetos and have them yelling at the screen and wake up their moms.

or , god forbid, have them enlist. which they wont. believe me.

knr
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stray cat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-24-09 12:13 PM
Response to Original message
12. I don't think we would have invaded in the absence of 9-11
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Luminous Animal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-24-09 12:23 PM
Response to Reply #12
19. The evidence says otherwise.
By Jim Miklaszewski and Alex Johnson
msnbc.com and NBC News
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4587368/

"WASHINGTON, May 16, 2002 - President Bush was expected to sign detailed plans for a worldwide war against al-Qaida two days before Sept. 11 but did not have the chance before the terrorist attacks in New York and Washington, U.S. and foreign sources told NBC News.

...

The plan dealt with all aspects of a war against al-Qaida, ranging from diplomatic initiatives to military operations in Afghanistan, the sources said on condition of anonymity."


By the BBC's George Arney
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/1550366.stm

"A former Pakistani diplomat has told the BBC that the US was planning military action against Osama Bin Laden and the Taleban even before last week's attacks.

Niaz Naik, a former Pakistani Foreign Secretary, was told by senior American officials in mid-July that military action against Afghanistan would go ahead by the middle of October."

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
conscious evolution Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-24-09 12:15 PM
Response to Original message
14. I wish the ignorati here
would google PNAC sometime.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Raster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-24-09 12:46 PM
Response to Reply #14
35. "....nothing to see (t)here. Move along."
Edited on Tue Nov-24-09 01:15 PM by Raster
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Junkdrawer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-24-09 12:18 PM
Response to Original message
16. Engdahl: "The Geopolitics behind the phoney US war in Afghanistan"
One of the most remarkable aspects of the Obama Presidential agenda is how little anyone has questioned in the media or elsewhere why at all the United States Pentagon is committed to a military occupation of Afghanistan. There are two basic reasons, neither one of which can be admitted openly to the public at large.

...

The US military is in Afghanistan for two reasons. First to restore and control the world’s largest supply of opium for the world heroin markets and to use the drugs as a geopolitical weapon against opponents, especially Russia. That control of the Afghan drug market is essential for the liquidity of the bankrupt and corrupt Wall Street financial mafia.

...

The second reason the US military remains in Afghanistan long after the world has forgotten even who the mysterious Osama bin Laden and his alleged Al Qaeda terrorist organization is or even if they exist, is as a pretext to build a permanent US military strike force with a series of permanent US airbases across Afghanistan. The aim of those bases is not to eradicate any Al Qaeda cells that may have survived in the caves of Tora Bora, or to eradicate a mythical “Taliban” which at this point according to eyewitness reports is made up overwhelmingly of local ordinary Afghanis fighting to rid their land once more of occupier armies as they did in the 11980’s against the Russians.

The aim of the US bases in Afghanistan is to target and be able to strike at the two nations which today represent the only combined threat in the world today to an American global imperium, to America’s Full Spectrum Dominance as the Pentagon terms it.

...

http://www.engdahl.oilgeopolitics.net/Geopolitics___Eurasia/Afghanistan/afghanistan.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Raster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-24-09 12:38 PM
Response to Reply #16
27. Yes!
Edited on Tue Nov-24-09 12:45 PM by Raster
Musings on opium:
Those that do not learn from history... When Britain could find no other chink (no pun or racial slight indended) in China's armor in the 19th century, they turned to opium to destroy China from within.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_Wars
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wilms Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-24-09 12:22 PM
Response to Original message
17. .

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Turbineguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-24-09 12:22 PM
Response to Original message
18. Actually... it's about
orange juice. The details however are too complex to go into on this forum. Just trust me.

I may see if I can find a link somewhere.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Raster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-24-09 12:36 PM
Response to Original message
26. It is virtually *impossible* for Al-Whatever to pull off another 9/11.
Edited on Tue Nov-24-09 12:53 PM by Raster
(1) They can't expect the same "inside support" as the first time. That "perfect storm" of national defense "failures" that allowed relatively low-grade rent-a-fanatics their golden opportunities, could not be duplicated. cheney* isn't in the White House, Rumsferatu isn't in the Pentagon. All of the neoCON faithful have scurried out of government, or buried themselves very deep.
(2) cheney*/bush* aren't in any position to stage manage the entire affair, INCLUDING all media commutations. Most people do not realize just how manipulated the American MSM and citizens were by Smirk*-n-Snarl*.
(3) While it is highly probable that some of the same intelligence players are still on the inside, there is no way MULTIPLE WARNINGS from MULTIPLE PARTIES could be ignored and marginalized as much as possible as they were on 9/11.
(4) The window of opportunity for this type of "Pearl Harbor event" has closed. Not even the most devious of the far-right "think" tanks and P.R. firms could sell another catastrophic event on American soil. Almost 10 years later, the "suspend logic" quotient is a bit on the strained side.

Al-Whatever is the boogie man du jour. We are in the Middle East because of oil and gas. And we are specifically in Afghanistan to ensure that pipelines carrying fuel to our New Best Friend For Life India are constructed and maintained.

The next generation of super powers is emerging. India is the counterweight in Asia to China.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dover Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-24-09 12:46 PM
Response to Original message
34. Read up on the Silk Road Policy that has been in effect for many years
Edited on Tue Nov-24-09 12:49 PM by Dover
and you'll see that our presense in the 'Stans' is not circumstantial, or a newly minted concept and policy (and certainly not a result of Al Queda or any of the other mainstream excuses given). Would anyone in the corporate-owned media ask about the Silk Road Policy relative to Afghanistan? Of course not.

Lots discussed about this on DU.
Just let google do the walking... http://www.democraticunderground.com/searchresults.html?q=silk+road+policy&sitesearch=democraticunderground.com&sa=Search&domains=democraticunderground.com&client=pub-7805397860504090&forid=1&ie=ISO-8859-1&oe=ISO-8859-1&cof=GALT%3A%23008000%3BGL%3A1%3BDIV%3A%23336699%3BVLC%3A663399%3BAH%3Acenter%3BBGC%3AFFFFFF%3BLBGC%3A336699%3BALC%3A0000FF%3BLC%3A0000FF%3BT%3A000000%3BGFNT%3A0000FF%3BGIMP%3A0000FF%3BFORID%3A11&hl=en

The Plan
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=115&topic_id=171417
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lyonspotter Donating Member (751 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-24-09 12:53 PM
Response to Original message
37. Dont forget the poppies!
We have no intention of 'winning.'

We'll leave when we are darn right ready.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Naturyl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-24-09 12:56 PM
Response to Original message
39. Terra! Sept 11! Sept 11! Terra! Sept 11! Al-Qaeda!
If anybody whispers "UNOCAL" in the background, edit it out...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Buzz Clik Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-24-09 12:57 PM
Response to Original message
41. Here are the pipelines in the area TODAY!


The pipeline proposed to cross Afghanistan was a big deal 10 years ago. Now, not so much because others have been built.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TomCADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-24-09 01:00 PM
Response to Reply #41
42. So, You Are Saying That The Pipelines Avoided The Morass of Afganistan?
I can't imagine any business that would count on a pipeline through Afganistan. Apparenlty, none did, and they just built around it if your graphic is correct.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Buzz Clik Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-24-09 01:04 PM
Response to Reply #42
48. My graphic is correct, and there are literally hundreds more like it.
Only a fool would build a pipeline through Afghanistan unless they had the Taliban on board. Ask Cheney how that turned out.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Luminous Animal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-24-09 01:07 PM
Response to Reply #42
52. The map includes both proposed and built pipelines
But there is this:

"The existing pipelines are only capable of getting a small fraction of the area's oil and gas wealth to market. Central Asian republics are anxious to sell more oil. Americans, Europeans, and Russians are anxious to buy more, especially from countries that do not belong to OPEC. Investors from Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates are also anxious to begin transporting more oil out of Central Asia. Only secure pipelines are lacking. The most promising routes have been identified:

<<>>

5. The American oil company Unocal has proposed the construction of oil and gas pipelines from Turkmenistan through Afghanistan to Pakistan and later to India. Afghanistan's long war has prevented this project from moving forward. If some degree of stability returns to Afghanistan, the project may be resurrected."

http://www.worldpress.org/specials/pp/pipelines.htm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dover Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-24-09 01:02 PM
Response to Reply #41
46. Lots more about Pipelines and interesting to note Iran's pipeline plans as well...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Buzz Clik Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-24-09 01:05 PM
Response to Reply #46
49. Great thread. One notices how the pipelines avoid Afghanistan.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dover Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-24-09 01:15 PM
Response to Reply #49
55. Why Afghanistan Matters

Most recently...

Pipelineistan Goes Af-Pak
Blue Gold, Turkmen Bashes, and Asian Grids
Pipelineistan in conflict
by Pepe Escobar

excerpt:

The Real Afghan War

In the ever-shifting New Great Game in Eurasia, a key question – why Afghanistan matters – is simply not part of the discussion in the United States. (Hint: It has nothing to do with the liberation of Afghan women.) In part, this is because the idea that energy and Afghanistan might have anything in common is verboten.

And yet, rest assured, nothing of significance takes place in Eurasia without an energy angle. In the case of Afghanistan, keep in mind that Central and South Asia have been considered by American strategists crucial places to plant the flag; and once the Soviet Union collapsed, control of the energy-rich former Soviet republics in the region was quickly seen as essential to future U.S. global power. It would be there, as they imagined it, that the U.S. Empire of Bases would intersect crucially with Pipelineistan in a way that would leave both Russia and China on the defensive.

Think of Afghanistan, then, as an overlooked subplot in the ongoing Liquid War. After all, an overarching goal of U.S. foreign policy since Richard Nixon’s era in the early 1970s has been to split Russia and China. The leadership of the SCO has been focused on this since the U.S. Congress passed the Silk Road Strategy Act five days before beginning the bombing of Serbia in March 1999. That act clearly identified American geo-strategic interests from the Black Sea to western China with building a mosaic of American protectorates in Central Asia and militarizing the Eurasian energy corridor.

Afghanistan, as it happens, sits conveniently at the crossroads of any new Silk Road linking the Caucasus to western China, and four nuclear powers (China, Russia, Pakistan, and India) lurk in the vicinity. “Losing” Afghanistan and its key network of U.S. military bases would, from the Pentagon’s point of view, be a disaster, and though it may be a secondary matter in the New Great Game of the moment, it’s worth remembering that the country itself is a lot more than the towering mountains of the Hindu Kush and immense deserts: it’s believed to be rich in unexplored deposits of natural gas, petroleum, coal, copper, chrome, talc, barites, sulfur, lead, zinc, and iron ore, as well as precious and semiprecious stones. ...cont'd


http://original.antiwar.com/engelhardt/2009/05/12/pipelineistan-goes-af-pak

------------

What The Recent Pipeline Deal Between Iran and Pakistan means:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x198164

------------

Liquid War
Postcard from Pipelineistan
By Pepe Escobar

What happens on the immense battlefield for the control of Eurasia will provide the ultimate plot line in the tumultuous rush towards a new, polycentric world order, also known as the New Great Game.

Our good ol' friend the nonsensical "Global War on Terror," which the Pentagon has slyly rebranded "the Long War," sports a far more important, if half-hidden, twin -- a global energy war. I like to think of it as the Liquid War, because its bloodstream is the pipelines that crisscross the potential imperial battlefields of the planet. Put another way, if its crucial embattled frontier these days is the Caspian Basin, the whole of Eurasia is its chessboard. Think of it, geographically, as Pipelineistan.

All geopolitical junkies need a fix. Since the second half of the 1990s, I've been hooked on pipelines. I've crossed the Caspian in an Azeri cargo ship just to follow the $4 billion Baku-Tblisi-Ceyhan pipeline, better known in this chess game by its acronym, BTC, through the Caucasus. (Oh, by the way, the map of Pipelineistan is chicken-scratched with acronyms, so get used to them!)

I've also trekked various of the overlapping modern Silk Roads, or perhaps Silk Pipelines, of possible future energy flows from Shanghai to Istanbul, annotating my own DIY routes for LNG (liquefied natural gas). I used to avidly follow the adventures of that once-but-not-future Sun-King of Central Asia, the now deceased Turkmenbashi or "leader of the Turkmen," Saparmurat Niyazov, head of the immensely gas-rich Republic of Turkmenistan, as if he were a Conradian hero.

In Almaty, the former capital of Kazakhstan (before it was moved to Astana, in the middle of the middle of nowhere) the locals were puzzled when I expressed an overwhelming urge to drive to that country's oil boomtown Aktau. ("Why? There's nothing there.") Entering the Space Odyssey-style map room at the Russian energy giant Gazprom's headquarters in Moscow -- which digitally details every single pipeline in Eurasia -- or the National Iranian Oil Company (NIOC)'s corporate HQ in Tehran, with its neat rows of female experts in full chador, was my equivalent of entering Aladdin's cave. And never reading the words "Afghanistan" and "oil" in the same sentence is still a source of endless amusement for me.

Last year, oil cost a king's ransom. This year, it's relatively cheap. But don't be fooled. Price isn't the point here. Like it or not, energy is still what everyone who's anyone wants to get their hands on. So consider this dispatch just the first installment in a long, long tale of some of the moves that have been, or will be, made in the maddeningly complex New Great Game, which goes on unceasingly, no matter what else muscles into the headlines this week.

Forget the mainstream media's obsession with al-Qaeda, Osama "dead or alive" bin Laden, the Taliban -- neo, light or classic -- or that "war on terror," whatever name it goes by. These are diversions compared to the high-stakes, hardcore geopolitical game that follows what flows along the pipelines of the planet.

Who said Pipelineistan couldn't be fun? ...cont'd

http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/175050






More Pipeline stories:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=103&topic_id=376945



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Buzz Clik Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-24-09 01:18 PM
Response to Reply #55
58. It's a rehashing of discussing why stability in the Middle East is important.
It's reality, but the basis for our troops in Afghanistan is not a proposed pipeline that will never be built.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dover Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-24-09 01:22 PM
Response to Reply #58
59. Your thoughts on the Silk Road Policy and its 2006 update? Here's the text:
Edited on Tue Nov-24-09 01:31 PM by Dover
1999 Version:
http://webu2.upmf-grenoble.fr/espace-europe/publication/ares/50/Vassort.pdf

109th CONGRESS

2d Session



S. 2749



To update the Silk Road Strategy Act of 1999 to modify targeting of assistance in order to support the economic and political independence of the countries of Central Asia and the South Caucasus in recognition of political and economic changes in these regions since enactment of the original legislation.


IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES


May 4, 2006
Mr. BROWNBACK (for himself, Mr. KYL, and Mrs. HUTCHISON) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations



http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s109-2749


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------


A BILL

To update the Silk Road Strategy Act of 1999 to modify targeting of assistance in order to support the economic and political independence of the countries of Central Asia and the South Caucasus in recognition of political and economic changes in these regions since enactment of the original legislation.


Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

(a) Short Title- This Act may be cited as the `Silk Road Strategy Act of 2006'.

(b) Table of Contents- The table of contents for this Act is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.

Sec. 2. Definitions.

TITLE I--UNITED STATES POLICY TOWARD COUNTRIES IN CENTRAL ASIA AND THE SOUTH CAUCASUS

Sec. 101. Relationship between the United States and the countries of Central Asia and the South Caucasus.

Sec. 102. Protecting United States business abroad.

TITLE II--PROTECTION AND PROMOTION OF UNITED STATES INTERESTS IN CENTRAL ASIA AND THE SOUTH CAUCASUS

Sec. 201. Relationships between the United States and the countries of Central Asia and the South Caucasus since passage of the Silk Road Strategy Act of 1999.

Sec. 202. United States interests in the countries of Central Asia and the South Caucasus.

Sec. 203. Sense of Congress on safeguarding of United States interests in the countries of Central Asia and the South Caucasus.

SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

In this Act:

(1) CENTRAL ASIA AND THE SOUTH CAUCASUS- The term `Central Asia and the South Caucasus' means the area including the countries of Afghanistan, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan.

TITLE I--UNITED STATES POLICY TOWARD COUNTRIES IN CENTRAL ASIA AND THE SOUTH CAUCASUS

SEC. 101. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND THE COUNTRIES OF CENTRAL ASIA AND THE SOUTH CAUCASUS.

(a) In General- The United States has significant long-term interests in the countries of Central Asia and the South Caucasus. These interests concern security, economic development, energy, and human rights. Accordingly, it is the policy of the United States to seek political and economic stability in the social development of, and cooperative relationships with, the countries of Central Asia and the South Caucasus, including by providing assistance in accordance with the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2151 et seq.).

(b) Democracy, Tolerance, and the Development of Civil Society- It is the policy of the United States to promote independent, democratic government and the protection of human rights, tolerance, and pluralism in Central Asia and the South Caucasus within the overall framework of United States national interests, including the global war on terrorism, counterproliferation efforts, the fight against extremism and ethnic and religious fanaticism, and energy security.

(c) Conflict Resolution- It is the policy of the United States to aid in the resolution of ethnic, religious, interstate, and intraregional conflicts and to support political, economic, and security cooperation in Central Asia and the South Caucasus in the interest of fostering regional stability, development of the rule of law, cooperation based on free markets supported by strong institutions, and economic interdependence.

(d) Economic Assistance- It is the policy of the United States to reduce poverty in Central Asia and the South Caucasus through economic growth, promoting sustainable development through private investment in all economic sectors, including agriculture, education, private sector development, and capacity-building.

(e) Development of Infrastructure- It is the policy of the United States to aid in the development of infrastructure in Central Asia and the South Caucasus for energy and energy transit, communications, transportation, and health and human services.

(f) Defense and Border Control Assistance- It is the policy of the United States to assist the countries of Central Asia and the South Caucasus in developing indigenous defense capabilities, securing borders, and implementing effective controls to prevent the proliferation of materials related to weapons of mass destruction and trafficking in conventional weapons, persons, and narcotics.

SEC. 102. PROTECTING UNITED STATES BUSINESS ABROAD.

Consistent with the purposes of the Overseas Private Investment Corporation, it is the policy of the United States to promote and protect the interests of United States businesses and investments in Central Asia and the South Caucasus.

TITLE II--PROTECTION AND PROMOTION OF UNITED STATES INTERESTS IN CENTRAL ASIA AND THE SOUTH CAUCASUS

SEC. 201. RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND THE COUNTRIES OF CENTRAL ASIA AND THE SOUTH CAUCASUS SINCE PASSAGE OF THE SILK ROAD STRATEGY ACT OF 1999.

(a) In General- Since the enactment of the Silk Road Strategy Act of 1999 (22 U.S.C. 2296 et seq.), significant changes have occurred to the political, economic, and security conditions in Central Asia and the South Caucasus, requiring modifications to United States policy toward the countries in the region in order to protect and promote United States interests.

(b) Findings- Congress makes the following findings:

(1) Since September 11, 2001, the need for mutually beneficial security cooperation between the United States and the countries of Central Asia and the South Caucasus has grown, while the United States has come to view democratization of the countries in the region as essential to enhanced security.

(2) Such development features popular sovereignty, institutional checks and balances, and a vibrant civil society. These in turn require a civil administration that is competent, honest, respectful of citizens' rights, and sensitive to the needs of a market economy.

(3) The liberation of Afghanistan from Taliban misrule and the new course in Afghanistan toward political and economic openness make possible the country's reintegration into Central Asia.

(4) The ouster of the Taliban from Afghanistan has diminished threats to that country's neighbors in Central Asia, allowing for accelerated progress toward democracy, open economies, and the rule of law across the region. Afghanistan's embrace of popular sovereignty and political pluralism demonstrates the universal applicability of these values.

(5) The Governments of Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan, which have contributed to United States military deployments in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Kosovo, are key United States partners in diversification of energy sources and transportation routes, enhancing and contributing to United States energy and security interests.

(6) In recognition of global and regional threats to stability, prosperity, and democracy in Afghanistan, including terrorism, political-religious extremism, and production and trafficking of narcotics, and in recognition of Afghanistan's geographic location and cultural and historical identity, Afghanistan should be considered to be among the countries of Central Asia, and not separate from them.

(7) In recognition of security cooperation from the Government of Kazakhstan, including deployment of the Kazakhstan contingent in Iraq, progress toward a market economy, United States business participation in energy and infrastructure development in Kazakhstan, and an ongoing Government of Kazakhstan policy of ethnic and religious tolerance, a relationship with Kazakhstan is of high importance to the United States.

(8) The 2003 Rose Revolution in Georgia, the 2004 Orange Revolution in Ukraine, and the 2005 Tulip Revolution in Kyrgyzstan demonstrate the essentialness of steady progress toward democracy and the rule of law. While these revolutions resulted in the ouster of corrupt and ineffective regimes by largely peaceful protest movements, the long-term interests of security, stability, good governance, and economic growth are better served by evolutionary democratization.

(9) Relations between the United States and the Republic of Kyrgyzstan are of great importance, in particular in view of the democratic developments in that country and in light of the location of a United States military base at the Manas Airport near Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan.

(10) The President of Turkmenistan, Saparmurat Niyazov, engages in persistent gross violations of human rights, including the suppression of democratic and religious freedoms, brutality, and leads a government that lacks accountability and rejects the rule of law.

(11) There has been a deterioration of democratic freedoms, rule of law, norms of democracy, and human rights in Uzbekistan, as well as a deterioration of relations between the Governments of the United States and Uzbekistan.

(12) The President of Uzbekistan, Islam Karimov, engages in continued gross violations of human rights, including the killing of hundreds of protestors at a rally in Andijan in 2005.

(13) The pressing need for diversification of energy resources makes access to Central Asian and Caspian Sea oil and gas resources a high energy security priority of the United States.

(14) The dangerous and destabilizing policy statements of the President of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and actions by the Islamic Republic of Iran in the area of nuclear power, including uranium enrichment, threaten international security in general and regional security in Europe and Asia in particular.

SEC. 202. UNITED STATES INTERESTS IN THE COUNTRIES OF CENTRAL ASIA AND THE SOUTH CAUCASUS.

Congress makes the following findings:

(1) The economic and political stability of the countries of Central Asia and the South Caucasus has a direct impact on United States interests.

(2) Stability, democratic development, protection of property rights, including mineral rights, and rule of law in countries with valuable energy resources and infrastructure, including Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan, and Turkmenistan, are important to safeguard United States energy security.

(3) Preventing any other country from establishing a monopoly on energy resources or energy transport infrastructure in the countries of Central Asia and the South Caucasus that may restrict United States access to energy resources is important to the energy security of the United States and other consumers of energy in the developed and developing world.

(4) Extensive trade relations with the energy-producing and energy-transporting states of Central Asia and the South Caucasus will enhance United States access to diversified energy resources, thereby strengthening United States energy security, as well as that of energy consumers in developed and developing countries.

(5) Stability in the countries of Central Asia and the South Caucasus is important to the security interests of the United States.

(6) In order for the United States to maintain bases for its troops in the proximity of the military conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq, the United States should seek to maintain good relations with the countries of Central Asia and the South Caucasus.

(7) It is in the interest of the United States and the global war on terror for the United States to maintain friendly relations with Muslim states in Central Asia and the South Caucasus that promote democracy, open economies, and the rule of law in the region.

(8) It is in the interest of the United States to make any and all efforts to prevent the proliferation of materials for weapons of mass destruction and the trafficking in narcotics and persons, much of which can be attributed to porous borders and insufficient security between the countries of Central Asia and the South Caucasus.

SEC. 203. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON SAFEGUARDING OF UNITED STATES INTERESTS IN THE COUNTRIES OF CENTRAL ASIA AND THE SOUTH CAUCASUS.

(a) Promotion of Democracy, Tolerance, and the Development of Civil Society- It is the sense of Congress that political legitimacy is founded upon popular sovereignty and is critical to stability, that key components of political legitimacy are regular elections, and that the United States Government should engage in the following programs and activities designed to promote democracy, tolerance, and the development of civil society in Central Asia and the South Caucasus:

(1) Support for free and fair elections, including the formation of election bodies that are broadly representative of the political spectrum and the maintenance of equal conditions for candidates and parties.

(2) Instruct the United States delegation to the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) and to other international bodies to resist efforts by some member states to undercut the role of OSCE election monitoring conducted by the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) and to aggressively promote the role of independent and local election monitors.

(3) Support for the development of independent media outlets, including print, radio, television, and Internet, and the provision of authoritative news and a broader range of media options than is currently available.

(4) Support for satellite television broadcasting into Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, and Iran in the native languages of these countries through Radio Freedom/Radio Liberty, Radio Farda, Al Alam, and independent radio and television broadcasters in the United States and Europe, including in the languages of Azerbaijani, Pashtun, Persian, Uzbek, and Turkmen, specifically to inform the populations in those countries of the ideas and values of freedom, democracy, and human rights and development issues relating to their diasporas in the United States.

(5) Assistance in the establishment of regional academic programs to train civil servants in modern systems and principles of good governance, including the rule of law, transparency, conduct of elections, respect for citizens' rights, and the needs of a market economy.

(6) Support for the establishment of reputable think tanks, independent public policy research organizations, and centers for strategic and economic studies in the countries of Central Asia and the South Caucasus.

(7) Support for the development of separation of powers, specifically the emergence of independent legislative and judicial branches of government.

(b) Conflict Resolution- It is the sense of Congress that the United States Government should engage in the following programs and activities designed to promote conflict resolution in Central Asia and the South Caucasus:

(1) Active assistance in the resolution of regional conflicts and the removal of impediments to cross-border commerce.

(2) Recognizing that China and Russia are neighbors and regional powers of Central Asia and, in the case of Russia, of the South Caucasus, and that those countries have in the past taken steps at odds with United States security interests, such as in the case of curbing the United States military presence in Uzbekistan, the continuation and expansion of a strategic dialogue with Russia and China, including United States participation as an observer in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) for the purpose of promoting stability and security in the region.

(3) Acknowledgment of the importance of maintaining peace in the Caspian region for the prosperity and long-term stability of the countries in greater Central Asia, including calling on the Caspian littoral nations, including Iran, to step up maritime border delineation and demilitarization efforts, making the Caspian Sea a zone characterized by peace and cooperation.

(4) Encouragement of conflict settlement in the South Caucasus to further increase trade, specifically by supporting the restoration, expansion, and usage of the railroad through the Georgian region of Abkhazia, the highway through the Georgian region of South Ossetia, and the `Road of Peace' through the Azerbaijani region of Nagorno-Karabakh.

(5) Calling on the Governments of Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan to resolve the outstanding debt issue, which is hindering cross-border cooperation and development, and to jointly develop the Kyapaz (Serdar) disputed offshore oil field, which would contribute to the peace and stability of the Caspian region.

(6) Calling on the governments of the five littoral states of the Caspian Sea, Russia, Azerbaijan, Iran, Turkmenistan, and Kazakhstan, to establish a legal order demarcating the seabed and its resources based on a national sector regime, one that goes beyond the Iranian-Soviet treaties of 1921 and 1940, which defined rules for shipping and fishing, but not for oil and gas exploration and development.

(7) Assistance in the removal of legal and institutional barriers to continental and regional trade and harmonization of border and tariff regimes, including improved mechanisms for transit through Pakistan to Afghanistan and other countries in Central Asia, and the recognition of Turkey as a crucial energy transit and consumer country, vital for the successful development of large-scale energy infrastructure and cross-border projects.

(c) Economic Cooperation and International Trade- It is the sense of Congress that the United States Government should engage in the following programs and activities designed to promote economic cooperation and international trade with countries in Central Asia and the South Caucasus:

(1) Assistance in accelerating the broad and equitable privatization of state enterprises in a manner that does not promote oligarchical rule and the deregulation of national economies in a manner that allows equal access to nonresident companies to privatization procedures.

(2) Expansion of activity under the Trade and Investment Framework Agreement (TIFA), including reducing barriers to trade and investment, protection of workers' and property rights, fostering an environment of transparency and predictability, encouraging private sector growth and foreign and domestic investment, and removing impediments to increased intraregional trade and investment, particularly with respect to Afghanistan.

(3) Support for the completion of the review process of the Export-Import Bank of the eligibility of countries in the region for financing under the Export-Import Bank Act of 1945 (12 U.S.C. 635 et seq.).

(4) The facilitation of greater access for Afghanistan and other countries of the South Caucasus and Central Asia to loans from the Export-Import Bank.

(d) Economic Reform- It is the sense of Congress that the United States Government should engage in the following programs and activities designed to promote economic reform in Central Asia and the South Caucasus:

(1) Promotion of structural reforms in financial and banking institutions that increase transparency and efficiency and enhance macroeconomic stability.

(2) Promotion of the development of the Trans-Caspian Oil and Gas Pipelines (TCOP/TCGP), while encouraging the Governments of Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, and particularly Turkmenistan to improve their business climate and investor confidence by fully disclosing their internationally audited hydrocarbon reserves.

(3) In light of greatly increased revenues from energy exports and the related dangers of macroeconomic instability and economic overheating, the establishment of a bank, the Caspian Bank of Reconstruction and Development (CBRD), where excess revenues can be funneled to infrastructure development projects in the region, and the tasking of the Export-Import Bank and the Overseas Private Investment Corporation with assisting in setting up and operating the bank.

(4) Support for countries in the region seeking qualification for Millennium Challenge Account (MCA) funds, including assistance in achieving necessary further reforms, recognizing that while Armenia and Georgia have qualified and signed compacts with the Millennium Challenge Corporation, other advanced economies of the region, such as Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, and Kyrgyzstan, should be aided with more rapid improvement of their rankings to become first `threshold' and then `candidate' countries for purposes of such assistance.

(5) Support for countries in the region seeking accession to the World Trade Organization (WTO), furnishing assistance to facilitate economic reform for countries in the region, and extension of unconditional and permanent nondiscriminatory treatment (permanent normal trade relations treatment) to countries in the region, especially to Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan.

(6) Encouraging governments of countries in Central Asia and the South Caucasus and United States businesses operating in the region to adhere to the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI), and in recognition that Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, and Kyrgyzstan have joined the EITI initiative, encouraging other countries of the region to follow suit.

(7) In conjunction with increasing transparency of energy-related payments and revenues by the governments of, and companies in, the Central Asia and South Caucasus region, encouraging geological data on all energy resources and assets in the region to be made available to better understand remaining reserves, which would stabilize the global energy markets.

(8) Promotion of antimonopoly initiatives, particularly to diversify transportation routes for hydrocarbon and electric energy, and promotion of competition in these sectors.

(e) Infrastructure Development- It is the sense of Congress that the United States Government should engage in the following programs and activities designed to promote infrastructure development in Central Asia and the South Caucasus:

(1) Assistance in the development of the infrastructure necessary for communications, transportation, education, health, and energy and trade on an east-west axis in order to build strong international relations and commerce between the countries in the South Caucasus and Central Asia region and the Euro-Atlantic community.

(2) Support for activities that promote the participation of United States businesses and investors in the planning, financing, and construction of infrastructure for communications, transportation, and trade, including aviation, highways, railroads, port facilities, shipping, banking, insurance, telecommunications networks, and gas and oil pipelines.

(3) Support for the development of physical infrastructure for continental and regional trade, including the completion of the crucial core road system in Afghanistan, the linking of other regional roads with the road system, and working with other donors to complete east-west and north-south transport corridors in the region.

(4) Support for the addition of a crucial rail link in Kazakhstan from Almaty to the port city of Aktau, which would allow tankers and cargo ships to transport crude oil and other goods across the Caspian to Baku, and from there to Europe through Georgia and Turkey; this east-west corridor, which is already partially financially supported by the European Union within the Transport Corridor Europe-Caucasus-Asia (TRACECA) initiative, would greatly increase and accelerate cargo and container traffic across the Caspian Sea and from the greater Central Asian region.

(5) Support for the construction of energy transit infrastructure, including the Trans-Caspian Oil Pipeline (TCOP) in Kazakhstan, from Aktau to Baku, which would carry oil from the Karachaganak field, and the Trans-Caspian Gas Pipeline (TCGP), from Turkmenistan or neighboring areas of Kazakhstan to Baku, which would carry natural gas.

(f) Defense and Border Control Assistance- It is the sense of Congress that the United States Government should support regionwide initiatives in Central Asia and the South Caucasus to train and coordinate border control, law enforcement, and security forces between contiguous countries.

(g) Additional Mechanisms for Implementation of This Act and Achievement of Its Objectives- It is the sense of Congress that the United States Government should, for the purpose of further implementing, and achieving the objectives of, this Act, promote and support establishment of one or more of the following:

(1) A Silk Road Advisory Board, which would include experts with the necessary contacts and expertise in the region in sectors such as sustainable agricultural development, oil and gas extraction, energy transportation infrastructure planning and construction, democratic development, banking, finance, and legal reform.

(2) A specialized private sector energy consultancy, tasked with coordinating business community projects and promoting investment opportunities in trade as well as infrastructure for the production, transportation, and refining of energy and petrochemicals.

(3) An annual conference of the sponsors and beneficiaries of assistance provided pursuant to this Act to be held in conjunction with the annual United Nations Economic Council of Europe (UNECE) Energy Security Forum, which seeks to promote the security of energy supplies for all members of the Economic Council of Europe through well-balanced networks of energy transportation infrastructure, improvements in sustainable energy technology and efficiency, and through the integration of legal standards for transparent energy extraction, transportation, and pricing.
END
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Raster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-24-09 01:24 PM
Response to Reply #58
61. The pipeline will be built. The American Petroleum Mafia has decreed it.
Edited on Tue Nov-24-09 01:42 PM by Raster
5. The American oil company Unocal has proposed the construction of oil and gas pipelines from Turkmenistan through Afghanistan to Pakistan and later to India. Afghanistan's long war has prevented this project from moving forward. If some degree of stability returns to Afghanistan, the project may be resurrected.

In the emerging BRIC landscape, India is the counterbalance to China. To stoke India's emerging economy, vast amount of energy are required. Even though China holds vast amounts of American debt, it is India that the US plutocracy sees as the Asian Ace-in-the-hole.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Buzz Clik Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-24-09 01:26 PM
Response to Reply #61
63. That pipeline was in the works 10 years ago. All the players were on board.
They bailed prior to 9/11.

I'm not at all convinced that a single mile of pipe will ever be seen in Afghanistan.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TomCADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-24-09 01:31 PM
Response to Reply #63
66. How Does China's Growth Change Things? Should Oil Now Go East?
It seems like a lot of pipelines move the oil to be transported to the West (U.S.A and Europe). Shouldn't future pipelines head toward the East or to the South for transport to the East?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Raster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-24-09 01:31 PM
Response to Reply #63
67. It's not so much as who gets the resources, as who doesn't.
Edited on Tue Nov-24-09 01:36 PM by Raster
The United States will do its part to stabilize the area so that new pipeline infrastructure can be built to service the Indian subcontinent. India is the key. Forget the pipelines that exist. It is now about what is to be built. We-the United States-are in the Middle East to control who gets AND DOES NOT GET the petro-resources.

on edit: Like it or not, the United States is a "has been." We are not part of the emerging New World Order. Our importance in the world is on the decline. If China is the 900 lb. elephant in the room, India is the 900 lb. tiger.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Raster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-24-09 01:39 PM
Response to Reply #67
69. Obama's first state dinner
http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/obamas-state-dinner-honor-prime-minister-india/story?id=9160203

When the Obamas host their first official state dinner for the Indian prime minister tonight at the White House, the evening will be soaked deep in history and tradition but will include a little Obama flavor, aides to the president said.

The Obamas kicked off the long day this morning by welcoming Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and his wife, Gursharan Kaur, to the White House for the official visit.

In a tampered down arrival ceremony, moved from the South Lawn to the East Room because of rain, President Obama told the prime minister today that "it is fitting that you and India be so recognized.

"This visit reflects the high esteem in which I and the American people hold your wise leadership," Obama said. "It reflects the abiding bonds of respect and friendship between our people, including our friends in the Indian-American community who join us here today."

As the two nations work toward better futures, the president said, "India is indispensable," adding that the two leaders can unite to strengthen the economy, promote trade, combat climate change end extreme poverty, stop terrorism and prevent the spread of nuclear weapons.

<snip, more>
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mullard12ax7 Donating Member (500 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-24-09 01:01 PM
Response to Original message
43. Ever hear of "Heroin"?
It's a lot more profitable than oil.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
phasma ex machina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-24-09 02:05 PM
Response to Reply #43
74. +1 nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dover Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-24-09 02:04 PM
Response to Original message
73. Another Think Tank: Central Asia-Caucasus Institute & Silk Road Studies Program
Edited on Tue Nov-24-09 02:26 PM by Dover
Central Asia-Caucasus Institute & Silk Road Studies Program

http://www.silkroadstudies.org/new/

Also, of interest is an article in this publication titled:

The Militarization of The Caspian Sea. "Great Games" and "Small Games" Over the Caspian Fleet

http://www.chinaeurasia.org/images/stories/isdp-cefq/CEFQ200905/CEFQ200905.pdf
(Scroll down the page to find the article)


And this publication:
http://www.silkroadeconomy.com/


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Echo In Light Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-24-09 02:07 PM
Response to Original message
76. K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JohnyCanuck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-24-09 02:52 PM
Response to Original message
80. Ex-UK ambassador to Uzbekistan says Afghan invasion was about a pipeline
and gaining access to energy resources.

Here is a Youtube video of a recent speech:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0MQoG5wfx5g&feature=related
(Start listening at about the 4 minute mark)

The above is Part 2 of the speech, for those who might be interested Part 1 is at:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GNYES8KOIqY&feature=related


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
chill_wind Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-24-09 07:18 PM
Response to Original message
82. Didn't see this DU thread linked, so I'll add it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dysfunctional press Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-24-09 07:33 PM
Response to Original message
83. well...how would YOU get the oil/gas from turkmenistan to the port in karachi?
hmmmm?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
amborin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-24-09 07:37 PM
Response to Original message
84. yep; US & Europe need another Nat Gas route to Bypass Russia's lock on it; n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat Apr 20th 2024, 10:26 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC