Are Bush and Harper Sincere?

Socrates the Greek

I Remember them....
Apr 15, 2006
4,968
36
48
Bring back the men and women from Afghanistan.
More than 50% of Canadians are starting to realise that this war is a stupid war with human lose that will never be justified.
The war in Afghanistan is not about protecting Afghani women and children; this war is about defending the American way of life. The big SUV that needs 3 times the amount of gas over a small economical car to move one or two or three human bodies around town. Bush is on record saying Americans are addicted to oils and we will defend our right to the use of oil which is not on our soil. If that is not a hypocritical statement I don’t know what is. Just stop for a minute and imagine what would happen if Russia would tell the US we want your oil and we will move real close to you so we can have a strategic advantage in the event we need to use force to insure steady flow of oil out of the US. For sure the US will declare a nuclear war against Russia. So who is the hypocrite, if you thing any one else than Bush you got problems.

Allan Greg, president of the Strategic Council says the growing opposition is due partly to the rising death toll of Canadian soldiers, and also to the debate over flying flags at half mast.

15 Canadian soldiers and 1 Canadian diplomat have been killed in Afganistan since 2002, when Canadian troops first arrived there.

Just Imagine Harper with a full term in office, he will for sure send more troop to fight a war that doesn’t have anything to do with Canadian life, it has to do with brown noosing to Bush nothing else.

Harper will damage his chance on a full term if he becomes stubborn in order to entice Idiot Bush and sacrifice our soldiers so he can be liked by Washington.
 
Last edited:

#juan

Hall of Fame Member
Aug 30, 2005
18,326
119
63
Socrates the Greek

What the hell asre you doing?
 

#juan

Hall of Fame Member
Aug 30, 2005
18,326
119
63
At some point I would like you to explain why you posted that topic six times.
 

BitWhys

what green dots?
Apr 5, 2006
3,157
15
38
I'm glad he did since the in the last thread like this someone said there was no oil in Afghanistan. Maybe not under the ground but by the same token judging by people's responses or lack thereof, not all the cards are on the table.


(the red thing is the $pipeline$ - guess where Kandahar is)

Unocal Corporation is the parent company of Union Oil Company of California which was incorporated in California in 1890. Virtually all operations are conducted by Union Oil Company of California (Union Oil), which does business as Unocal and its subsidiaries. On August 10, 2005, Unocal merged with Chevron Corporation and became a wholly-owned subsidiary.

Its well worth remembering our troops are on shakey ground and I'm not talking about personal security.
 

I think not

Hall of Fame Member
Apr 12, 2005
10,506
33
48
The Evil Empire
India is the largest potential buyer and the Afghan President, Hamid Karzai, said Delhi was welcome to join the project.

So all these countries in Afghanistan are fighting for India's oil thirst. At least this is a new "theory"
 

I think not

Hall of Fame Member
Apr 12, 2005
10,506
33
48
The Evil Empire
Your comments have no common sense. Twenty some odd countries are in Afghanistan to secure India's oil and gas needs? And you're throwing the straw man argument to me?
 

BitWhys

what green dots?
Apr 5, 2006
3,157
15
38
I'll take that as a no.

There's nothing theoretical about the FACT that our troops are busily securing an area needed to complete the pipeline. Who profits from it is even less my business than Harper has made our involvement. My only hope at this juncture is whether said involvement is coincidental.

Considering who he met with over the weekend again, there's plenty of reason to have doubts about his sincerity.
 

sanch

Electoral Member
Apr 8, 2005
647
0
16
The above theory ignores Baluchistan. Also the pipeline above goes through Herat, not Kandahar, and then into Baluchistan. All the international threats and subterfuge seem intended to hide cooperation of India, Iran, Russia, the USA and Israel in an attempt to destabilize Pakistan by fermenting rebellion in Baluchistan.

This is the real story. These guys are on the ground. Nothing is made up.

http://www.satribune.com/archives/200503/P1_bla.htm

Question: It is still not clear from your answer as to what do the Pentagon and Kremlin hope to achieve by stirring trouble in Balochistan?

Sasha: Americans have two long-term policy objectives in that region: First, create a safe and reliable route to take all the energy resources of Central Asia to the continental United States, and second, to contain China.

Misha: Balochistan offers the shortest distance between the Indian ocean and the Central Asia, that is to say, shortest distance outside of the Gulf. The moment the conditions are ripe, Americans would like to take all the oil and gas of Central Asia to Gwadar or Pasni and from there to the United States.

Question: If the Americans are interested in creating safe channel for shipping energy resources through Balochistan, why would they encourage trouble there?

Misha: That is for now. By inciting trouble, they would effectively discourage Trans-Afghan Pipeline or any other project that is intended for sending Central Asian resources to South Asia. They are not interested in strengthening the South Asian economies by allowing them to obtain sensibly priced oil and gas. They would be more interested in taking all they can to their own country and let everyone else starve if that is the choice.

Sasha: The Americans would also like to discourage China from entering into more development projects in Balochistan than it already has. By developing the port and roads in Balochistan, China is ultimately helping itself by creating a convenient conduit for commerce that would connect China concurrently with Central Asia, South Asia, and all-weather Balochistan ports. The space is limited – where China gains, America loses, and where America gains, China loses.

Questions: OK. This sounds plausible. But what interest could Russia have in helping Pentagon in this trouble-Balochistan project?

Sasha: Russia has its own policy goals and as far as the present phase of creating trouble in Balochistan is concerned, American and Russian goals are not in conflict with each other. Russia wants to maintain its monopoly over all the energy resources of Central Asia. At present, the Central Asian countries are dependent entirely on Russia for export of their gas project succeeds, it would open the floodgates of exodus. Central Asian countries would understandably rush to the market that pays 100% in cash and pays better price than Russia. It is therefore very clear that by keeping Balochistan red hot, Russia can hope to discourage Trans-Afghan pipeline or any other similar projects. Russian economy in its present form is based on the monopoly of Gazprom and if Gazprom goes under, so will the Russian economy at some stage.

Question: So far, there is some in sense what you have said but how would explain Indian involvement in the Balochistan revolt?

Sasha: India has its own perceived or real objectives. For instance, India would go to great lengths to prevent Pakistan from developing a direct trade and transportation route with Central Asia because it would undermine the North-South corridor that goes through Iran. Also, while the acute shortage of energy may have compelled India to extend limited cooperation to Pakistan, the preferable project from Indian point of view still remains the Iran-Pakistan-India gas pipeline.

Misha: Moreover, you cannot ignore the fact that India is preparing to use Afghanistan as its main artery system to connect with Central Asia and it would not allow Pakistan to share this sphere if it can.

Question: What about Iran? Why should Iran be a party to it?

Misha: Iran has incurred great expenses to develop Chah Bahar, the port that is supposed to be the Iranian answer to Pakistani ports of Gwadar and Pasni. Iran has also done lot of work to create excellent road link between Herat and Chah Bahar. All this would go to waste if Pakistani route comes on line because it is shorter and offers quick commuting possibilities between Central Asia and Indian Ocean.
 

BitWhys

what green dots?
Apr 5, 2006
3,157
15
38
Herat in the north



we're securing the south. the pipeline will never get to Baluchistan in Pakistan if the south of Afghanistan is not under control.

and I'll repeat. the pipeline is NOT a theory. granted, any conclusions about motives are of course speculative. but that cuts both ways, and I have NOT made any such speculation.

the pipeline is well worth knowing about. that's all.

heh

Baluchistan in Pakistan. has a ring to it.
 

sanch

Electoral Member
Apr 8, 2005
647
0
16
If you overlay the last map you posted on top of the first map you will see Kandahar is more to the east. To fit your theory the pipleline would have to run diagonally through Afghanistan. You have it running north/south.

The Iranians are also working on a pipeline which would provide the advantage of security as Iran has access to both the Caspian Sea and Indian Ocean. Perhaps this would explain why the US is so interested in Iran. Of course if we adopt this theory then we cannot explain why the US and Canada are in Afghanistan as there would be no oil there to protect.
 

BitWhys

what green dots?
Apr 5, 2006
3,157
15
38
sanch said:
If you overlay the last map you posted on top of the first map you will see Kandahar is more to the east. To fit your theory the pipleline would have to run diagonally through Afghanistan. You have it running north/south.

The Iranians are also working on a pipeline which would provide the advantage of security as Iran has access to both the Caspian Sea and Indian Ocean. Perhaps this would explain why the US is so interested in Iran. Of course if we adopt this theory then we cannot explain why the US and Canada are in Afghanistan as there would be no oil there to protect.

We've been told our troops are there to secure the South and the East. Considering Kandahar is more central that East and is not particularly South (I would have expected its location to be described as South Central) one may well wonder as I do where this particular campaign is headed. How big of an area are they trying to secure? We've not been told. go figure.

It will have to happen sooner or later. Whether we do it or we're just a step along the way it'll be a bitch to realize later on our troops were used as pawns for Big Oil.

Iran is Chevron's competition, don'tcha know. :wink:

anyways, my point is that oil IS involved contrary to what has been argued on this forum previously. the extent is a matter of debate for which there is not enough information publically available to draw reasonable conclusions. I make no such conclusions.
 

Socrates the Greek

I Remember them....
Apr 15, 2006
4,968
36
48
#juan said:
At some point I would like you to explain why you posted that topic six times.

Hey Juan I appreciate your question, the reason is, this topic is not about to go away anytime soon. Also there are more than 6 people that visit daily on this forum site, and on top I don’t believe talking about something with out the consistent push for change from wrong to right. Sorry pall but this war is a reality which more and more people realise particularly after Bush making such public statement that "America is addicted to oil and we are prepared to defend that need anywhere on this planet while we preserve our own. Juan that is a hypocritical statement which makes Bush and Harper look like a pair of monkey’s fighting for food and the food in this case here is oil. :lol: :wink:
 

BitWhys

what green dots?
Apr 5, 2006
3,157
15
38
btw, even if we aren't in Helmand or Nimruz these days they'll be tough to stay out of when Enduring Freedom gets handed off.
 

darkbeaver

the universe is electric
Jan 26, 2006
41,035
201
63
RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia
RE: Are Bush and Harper S

03-14) 14:29 PST WASHINGTON, (AP) --

Two geological basins in northern Afghanistan hold 18 times the oil and triple the natural gas resources previously thought, scientists said Tuesday as part of a U.S. assessment aimed at enticing energy development in the war-torn country.

Nearly 1.6 billion barrels of oil, mostly in the Afghan-Tajik Basin, and about 15.7 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, mainly in the Amu Darya Basin, could be tapped, said the U.S. Geological Survey and Afghanistan's Ministry of Mines and Industry.

Afghan President Hamid Karzai described the estimates as "very positive findings," particularly since the country now imports most of its energy, including electricity.

"Knowing more about our country's petroleum resources will enable us to take steps to develop our energy potential, which is crucial for our country's growth," said Karzai, whose government was created after the U.S.-led invasion in 2001 and later won national elections.

The $2 million assessment, paid for by the independent U.S. Trade and Development Agency, was nearly four years in the making, said Daniel Stein, the agency's regional director for Europe and Eurasia. The total area assessed was only about one-sixth of the two basins' 200,000 square miles that lie within Afghanistan.

Interior Secretary Gale Norton, whose agency includes the U.S. Geological Survey, said the assessment would help Afghanistan better understand and manage its natural resources.

Afghanistan's petroleum reserves were previously thought to hold 88 million barrels of oil and 5 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, based on Afghan and Soviet estimates for 15 oil and gas fields opened between 1957 and 1984. But just three of those have operated recently.

"There is a significant amount of undiscovered oil in northern Afghanistan," said Patrick Leahy, the U.S. Geological Survey's acting director. He said the other oil fields were abandoned, or the equipment there is damaged and rocks have filled the wells.

More work remains to assess petroleum reserves, conduct seismic exploration and rehabilitate wells, say government and industry officials.

Companies could drill relatively quickly, potentially bringing in billions of dollars in revenue to the transitional government, said H.E. Said Tayeb Jawad, Afghanistan's ambassador to the United States.

"Within two to three years, the prospects are there for companies to start exploring oil and gas. The legal infrastructure is in place for the companies to come in," Jawad said in an interview.

"As far as security, they may have to take some additional precautions. But the country is much safer than what's perceived in the media," he said. "But of course we are fighting terrorism, it's a phenomenon, it's a danger, but it's not limited to one country."

The danger comes with the territory, said Barry Gale, a private energy consultant and former director of the Energy Department's international science and technology office.

"This is a pretty risky investment," he said. "But there's ferocious competition out there among multinationals just to get a foot in the door, even if it's a scary door."

Karzai is struggling to deal with an upsurge in violence and suicide bombings in recent months, though Bush administration officials have praised the progress Afghanistan has made since a U.S.-led coalition toppled the hard-line Taliban regime in 2001. The United States plans to give $1.1 billion in aid next year to the nation where Osama bin Laden once trained terrorists and plotted the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

___

On the Net:

USGS:

pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2006/3031
 

sanch

Electoral Member
Apr 8, 2005
647
0
16
The $2 million assessment, paid for by the independent U.S. Trade and Development Agency, was nearly four years in the making, said Daniel Stein, the agency's regional director for Europe and Eurasia. The total area assessed was only about one-sixth of the two basins' 200,000 square miles that lie within Afghanistan.

Interior Secretary Gale Norton, whose agency includes the U.S. Geological Survey, said the assessment would help Afghanistan better understand and manage its natural resources.

I don’t understand how this discovery compromises the Canadian mission in Afghanistan.

I have posted this a number of times but it seems necessary to repeat it occasionally to highlight the precarious situation Afghanistan was in prior to the invasion. There were almost a million internal refugees in camps outside of Herat facing almost certain death. There were more than 4 million refugees living in camps in Pakistan and more than 2 million have returned home in the last few years. Of course the extent of the UD needs to be investigated and this and mine clearing should determine resettlement patterns. But human lives have been saved in Afghanistan. Is this not important?


Compare this with what the Soviets did in Afghanistan. They killed 2 ½ million people. That is genocide. There have been no war trials. Why? Is there a conspiracy here as well?

Yes there may be oil there but publicly the US has said the resources belong to the Afghanis. Nothing has come up that refutes this.