Real reason for the war in Afghanistan, page 2
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 80 times


reply posted on 7-11-2009 @ 09:25 AM by SphinxMontreal
US planned war in Afghanistan long before September 11

www.wsws.org...

When the majority of your population consists of intellectually deficient uneducated dimwits, you can basically tell them anything and they will believe it. If you are a sucker who easily believes one blatant lie after another, you deserve to be lied to.


reply posted on 7-11-2009 @ 11:13 AM by SLAYER69
Killing and Dying in "the New Great Game"
The "New Great Game"

In February 1998, at a Congressional hearing of the Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific of the House International Relations Committee, then Congressman Doug Bereuter (R-Nebraska), chair of the subcommittee, laid out a vision, some might say a grandiose vision, for the US in Central Asia.

Opening the hearing, Congressman Bereuter said:

"One hundred years ago, Central Asia was the arena for a great game played by Czarist Russia, Colonial Britain, Napoleon's France, and the Persian and Ottoman Empires. Allegiances meant little during this struggle for empire building, where no single empire could gain the upper hand.

"One hundred years later, the collapse of the Soviet Union has unleashed a new great game, where the interests of the East Indian Trading Company have been replaced by those of Unocal (purchased by Chevron in 2005) and Total (a French oil company), and many other organizations and firms.

"Today the Subcommittee examines the interests of a new contestant in this new great game, the United States. The five countries which make up Central Asia - Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan - attained their independence in 1991, and have once again captured worldwide attention due to the phenomenal reserves of oil and natural gas located in the region ...

"Stated US policy goals regarding energy resources in this region include fostering the independence of these states and their ties to the West; breaking Russia's monopoly over oil and gas transport routes; promoting Western energy security through diversified suppliers; encouraging the construction of east-west pipelines that do not transit Iran; and denying Iran dangerous leverage over Central Asian economies.

"In addition ... the United States seeks to discourage any one country from gaining control over the region, but rather urges all responsible states to cooperate in the exploitation of region oil and other resources ...

"It is essential that US policymakers understand the stakes in Central Asia as we seek to craft a policy that serves the interests of the United States and US business."



The New Great Game


[edit on 7-11-2009 by SLAYER69]


reply posted on 7-11-2009 @ 12:31 PM by Franz
Originally posted by unicorn1
I had heard about the pipeline before but this thread makes it all pretty obvious thanks. But here's the 10 million dollar question. Would the pipeline in itself be a valid reason to fight for control? I'll bet some people might think it is!

It most certainly would be. If you don't know about Peak Oil, do a Web search on it, and read "The Party's Over" by Richard Heinberg. It is serious stuff.

Think about it: our economic model is driven by investment and credit, which require economic growth. You can't have long-term economic growth without exponentially increasing energy use (for manufacture, transport, travel, etc.). Once the energy supply levels off - pfoof! The economy collapses, because confidence in future growth - the requirement for investment - has disappeared. Don't believe that it was "just" the credit crunch or "just" the bankers that put us in our current dire predicament: the eventual collapse of the global economy was an inherent feature of capitalist economics from the start. (And before anyone attacks me, I'm not saying Communism is the solution; I don't think there really is a solution except massive depopulation.)

That's the immediate effect of Peak Oil, which we've already seen.

The follow-on effect is even worse: as we start on the downward slope of oil supply, then at some point, even in a severe recession, demand for oil exceeds supply. At this point, oil turns abruptly from being a buyer's market to a seller's. Result: those countries (and people) who can't afford oil suddenly have to make do with much less of it, or even none. That puts the Western nations in a particularly precarious position. Imagine what would happen if the oil producing nations stopped pricing oil in dollars: the inherent weakness of the American economy would be laid bare, and the cost of oil imports would skyrocket almost overnight. Ditto the UK.

SO, it is perfectly understandable that Western nations should be so desperate to gain control of all the oil they can, while they can. There is credible evidence (can't remember it off hand) that the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq were planned way before 9/11.

(Incidentally, I had read that the oil finds in the Caspian Sea area had proved far lower than anticipated - at least, that's what Michael Ruppert claims in his book "Crossing the Rubicon" - compulsory reading for 9/11 conspiracy theorists!)





[edit on 7-11-2009 by Franz]

[edit on 7-11-2009 by Franz]



reply posted on 7-11-2009 @ 12:45 PM by dodadoom
reply to post by Franz


Your post is right on!

It also explains the entire foreign and domestic policy of the western
world for the last half century!

Also explains many other things such as the suicidal denial
of climate change!
(You must not be an americant!)


God help us. We surely won't.


reply posted on 7-11-2009 @ 10:26 PM by picrat
reply to post by PrisonerOfSociety



THIS HAS ALWAYS BEEN ABOUT OIL ,SO I WAS WONDERING HOW MUCH OF THIS OIL COMPANY IS OWNED BY GOOD OL g.w. bushes oil company that was bought for him by the Saudi royal family [bin ladans clan.] its amassing that all of the worlds nations have ganged up on Afghanistan ,i guess they tried to relearn the lesson that mother Russia learned along time age when the Afghanistan people handed their great millitay a sounding defeat .
don't tell me that the great us cant win against 1 little tiny nation that has no real military -oh whoa is them.
rocket launchers vs. migs loser
auto weapons and the best trained against rifles and shot guns losers

and the real game is MONEY
and nothing else matters


reply posted on 8-11-2009 @ 09:37 AM by DARKJEDIG
reply to post by Full_Vision



I know what you mean Full_Vision LOL! I have read into this and watched the "Bohemian Grove" footage for example. There does seem to be a lot of evidence to back this up however talking to people about this just draws blank looks.
My mother thought I was crazy when I said the elite's worship owls. It all does sound ridiculous though doesn't it.


reply posted on 8-11-2009 @ 11:23 AM by SLAYER69
Originally posted by middleclasssoldier
is this pipeline in place of the Caspian sea pipeline?


I would ask myself what was the real reason for the Russian/Georgian conflict. The Caspian line will go right through the region.

Georgia's oil pipeline is key to U.S. support
The breakaway province of South Ossetia is claimed by Georgia, a former Soviet republic that cast its lot with the United States and the West to the eternal irritation of Moscow. But South Ossetia has resisted Georgia's rule and has been under Russia's sway for years.

Georgia sits in a tough neighborhood, shoulder to shoulder with huge Russia, not far from Iran, and astride one of the most important crossroads for the emerging wealth of the rich Caspian Sea region. A U.S.-backed oil pipeline runs through Georgia, allowing the West to reduce its reliance on Middle Eastern oil while bypassing Russia and Iran.




EU nervous as Russia eyes new energy markets
"But we are going to enlarge and diversify our export possibilities for these products which are so essential to the global economy," said Putin, who on the same day reportedly called for the speedier completion of a new pipeline that will carry gas from Siberia to Asian markets.

The comments are fuelling speculation that Moscow will increasingly leverage Europe's dependence on Russia's vast oil and gas reserves for geopolitical purposes, particularly if EU leaders today decide to impose sanctions on Russia for its actions in Georgia.

Russia is trying to downplay these fears. "We have worked for many years to gain not just the image, but the status of a reliable energy supplier to Europe and we would never let it suffer, even in this political situation," Russian Energy Minister Sergei Shmatko said on 29 August.

Despite these assurances, recent cutbacks in supplies to the Czech Republic (EurActiv 31/07/08) as well as cuts in deliveries to Ukraine and Belarus, which left several European countries without supply (EurActiv 11/01/07), remain fresh in EU leaders minds, making them nervous about the bloc's dependence on Russian oil and gas.

UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown told the Guardian newspaper on Sunday that "no nation can be allowed to exert an energy stranglehold over Europe". Brown wants to see a greater diversification of fuel suppliers to the EU, which currently depends on Russia for 30% of its oil and 50% of its gas imports, according to the Commission.



reply posted on 8-11-2009 @ 11:56 AM by SLAYER69
Originally posted by PrisonerOfSociety
I can't dispute those figures Slayer, other than going round myself with a dipstick and collating numbers. Just sounds like BS and if those numbers are true, then that negates the purpose of this thread - the war in Afghanistan.



It's never been the case of lack of reserves. Think more outside the box...

Cheap oil is always good for the global economy. It's more of having an influence on who gets oil and from where. Russia would like to have a major stake in where the EU gets most of it's fuel. Why? Because Russia is desperate for those fuel Euros.

Some have speculated that the only real reason for Russia's support for Iran is simply becuase they don't want the situation to change. If there was a regime change or an Iranian policy change the sanctions on Iran go away and Iran would be able to sell it's fuel to the EU. With present sanctions in place this is not the case.

Russia likes the idea of Iran having sanctions in place. This is actually a good thing for Russia. It mean less competition for fuel sales to the EU. The Caspian pipeline is one outlet for Central Asian oil, but if you look at the above map. Russia is way too close for comfort if there were ever a future conflict between East and West. That's why the Caspian line would go part way through Georgia then dips south into Turkey {NATO} member instead of straight on through to a port.

Even though it's a safe route now there is no telling how potentially a weak link in the EU's fuel source it could become in the future. A second secure line away from Russian influence makes for a more reliable route.




[edit on 8-11-2009 by SLAYER69]
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4  >>    ^^TOP^^



Did Carl Sagan know something?
  Posted 18 days ago with 276 member flags
Earthly coincidences...or not.
  Posted 14 days ago with 122 member flags
Was this the real reason why Megaupload was closed down?
  Posted 19 days ago with 96 member flags
The Mysterious Death of Marilyn Monroe
  Posted 17 days ago with 85 member flags
Denver Airport Allows Camera Crew in Underground Facility
  Posted 16 days ago with 83 member flags