War with Iran

[blackcat]

Si,

I think you owe me an apology.

http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com...-light-on-early-taliban-offers-pakistan-role/

http://www.salon.com/2002/06/05/memo_11/

you smear me, and you have demonstrated one of either ignorance or propaganda on the factual history.

I am still willing to engage with you on this thread. But would appreciate if you extend a good faith from hereon please.

but, for godsake (sic ) this is BF SRP. Is it not time for a Hird v Buckley v Voss in the coaches box thread?

 

[OldBlueFan]

a) The word "probably" was used simply because I don't have access to Colin Powell's filofax, and the guy was Secretary of State at the time... and contrary to popular opinion, he's actually not a complete a-hole. The 2003 invasion is inextricably linked to the US decision for better or worse to stick to the UN mandate in 1991 and not act arbitrarily then. It's a complex issue that I don't have all the information for. Thus, "probably" is the best I can do for you.

Paul Wolfowitz
Vanity Fair interview
May 28, 2003
"For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction (as justification for invading Iraq) because it was the one reason everyone could agree on."

I heard the same rant about Powell from friends of mine when I was arguing that they should join me on the anti-war march that took place in Melbourne that year. "oh no, but Colin Powell wouldn't be saying this if it wasn't true!".

The lead up to the Iraq war was nothing short of a marketing campaign, and CP was the poster boy. He was either an a-hole or a gullible fool and by the time the neocons were done with him, he was left with not a shred of integrity.

b) Only when I want to piss off a Carlton supporter. No, that's not a serious answer, but really, wtf did you expect?

c) See 'a'. I'd actually like to believe that being occasionally open to being convinced by other points of view lends credibility, not detracts from it.

d) Wow. Only one post and you've already identified me as a heartless monster who has no regard for humanity... I'm impressed! I have to hand it to you champ, most people here usually take two or even three posts to make the connection. But not you, you're good.

Seriously though, and granted this is a tangent, but can you tell me how you apportion blame so readily using human loss as a sole qualifier? If I was to say that the invasion of Europe to defeat Nazi Germany was justified and necessary, would I be a monster? Would I have no regards for human life? Germany lost more than 8.5 million people dead in that war. Are they worth more or less than the 23.5 million the Soviet Union lost? What about the Japanese? Was unleashing six different types of hell on the Japanese people worth it? Are the 3 million Japanese dead worth more or less than say, the ten to twenty million Chinese dead?

Could you have missed the point by any wider a margin?

In any case, your assumption that life (yes, even yours) means nothing to me based upon your disproportionate and to be honest unreasonable interpretation of a single word is drawing a bit of a long bow don't you think? Take a bex.

Oh and by the by I've done plenty in the last ten years of my existence to preserve human life. You may or may not believe that... It's none of my business whether you do or don't, and no offence but I won't lose sleep if you don't. I originally posted a statement that was a bit rude and implied somewhat of a challenge... I've removed it since doing so was childish on my part, and beneath both of us.

I talk about the deaths of over a million people, the displacement of several times that number and destruction of infrastructure so complete that it will ensure the survivors live in misery for decades, and all you can do is smirk.

Are you deliberately trying to prove my point?

 

[Si Botak]

I heard the same rant about Powell from friends of mine when I was arguing that they should join me on the anti-war march that took place in Melbourne that year. "oh no, but Colin Powell wouldn't be saying this if it wasn't true!".

Rant? There's only one of us posting in an aggressive tone here friend, and it's not me.

The lead up to the Iraq war was nothing short of a marketing campaign, and CP was the poster boy. He was either an a-hole or a gullible fool and by the time the neocons were done with him, he was left with not a shred of integrity.

I think he was definitely made a fool of, and was gullible in that he had too much faith in the neo-cons around him. Doesn't mean that it's not somewhat possible he had access to information or other mitigating intel which would've altered his overall judgement, hence my use of the qualifier. If you think that people are evil or morally corrupt simply because they get played, then I pity you.

Could you have missed the point by any wider a margin?

Not at all, although I fear you may have missed mine. I wasn't suggesting that we shouldn't consider the toll in human suffering in Iraq a tragedy and a disgrace. I was in that paragraph posing an only semi-related hypothetical (which I identified as a tangent just btw) regarding how your moral compass operates in relation to other 20th century conflicts. Are you more interested in a contest or a verbal stoush than an actual discussion?

No offence but you're coming off as a contrary and argumentative for the sake of it.

I talk about the deaths of over a million people, the displacement of several times that number and destruction of infrastructure so complete that it will ensure the survivors live in misery for decades, and all you can do is smirk.

Are you deliberately trying to prove my point?

Smirking? Really?

*Sigh*

Well that's a shame. Here I was to this point posting in a polite (although forthright tone) to someone who is beginning to appear to have no intent of being anything other than presumptive, contrary and obnoxious whilst piling prejudicial assumptions and ad-hominem one upon another like a game of 'Jenga; Teenage Angst Edition(TM)'.

Prove your point? The only thing being proven here is that you see only what you want to see, in the colour, tone and shade that you choose to see it.

I think I'll give it one more try before I tell you to EAD and add you to my ignore list. Now pay attention because this is probably the key take-away...

You've completely misunderstood the use of one word, and have needlessly gone to DEFCON 2 in an attempt to brutally stamp out some moral opposition to your values which doesn't exist. In doing so, you're being belligerent, argumentative and unnecessarily adversarial and personally I'd appreciate it if you stopped for a second, and acted like a normal reasonable sociable person.

You need to chill and take a deep breath.

You're either a genuinely sociable reasonable and otherwise quite nice person fired up over a perceived slight to your moral code which doesn't exist or you're just a contrary c**t looking for a fight that I can't be stuffed giving to you, because to be honest, it's beneath me.

If it's the latter, let me know now so I can add you to my ignore list - there are plenty of other reasonable people here to chew the fat with, and dignifying behaviour like this with responses really isn't a worthwhile use of my time.

 

[OldBlueFan]

Rant? There's only one of us posting in an aggressive tone here friend, and it's not me.

Wow, an awful lot of projection going on in your post dude, perhaps it is you who should take a Bex and then look back at the "aggressiveness" of our various posts.

For example:

You're either a genuinely sociable reasonable and otherwise quite nice person fired up over a perceived slight to your moral code which doesn't exist or you're just a contrary c**t looking for a fight that I can't be stuffed giving to you, because to be honest, it's beneath me.

By making the statement that the Iraq war was only "probably" not justified, you infer that it "possibly" was justified. You claim to be interested in honest debate, so why not elaborate on what makes you believe that it was "possibly" justified, rather than introducing completely irrelevant comparisons with WWII?

The point that you missed from my post was the real reason for the Iraq war and the resulting carnage that ensued in light of that, not the numbers in and of themselves.

Personally, I had no doubt whatsoever that the Iraq war was not justified BEFORE it even took place (hence my participation in the anti-war rally) and everything I've read since has only reinforced that view. If there was any real justice in the world, the neocons - and Colin Powell - would have got the Nuremberg treatment by now.

And I think the ambivalence and vacillation of people like your good self, as demonstrated by the qualification to which I originally took exception, becomes an enabler of future atrocities, such as the subject of this thread.

 

[blackcat]

Si, you gotta handle on those pipeline negotations yet? Batshit crazy? Read the sources I provided.

This is why I fail to consume the stuff that Gordon Junger Ricks put out. It is supposed to be lapped up by an American PBS centre left. Funny that, centre left is further right than the Norwegian Brevek and the right wing in Scandanavia.

But they did look at Afghanistan as a key plank in their resource strategy, the pipelines from central asia, and so they could move central asia in a different direction than Russia. Zbig Brzezinski 101

 

[Si Botak]

Wow, an awful lot of projection going on in your post dude, perhaps it is you who should take a Bex and then look back at the "aggressiveness" of our various posts.

Erm, well let's see... so far I've played the ball, not the man. I'm yet to question your sense of human decency, as an example which is more courtesy than you gave to me - although another aggressive post where your entire response was based around implying I'm a heartless jackass who smirks at slaughter would've had me questioning yours.

By making the statement that the Iraq war was only "probably" not justified, you infer that it "possibly" was justified. You claim to be interested in honest debate, so why not elaborate on what makes you believe that it was "possibly" justified,

Correct, and I thought I already had? I can explain again if that'll help; As a relative layman to someone deep inside the circle of Bush Administration, I don't have access to the same level of information.... now that's not to say I can't form opinions based on what we as lay-people do know.

On the strength of that information that is available, I'm of the opinion that it wasn't a justifiable military action - my use of the word "probably" was simply a qualifier indicating that if someone else was joining the conversation with more or better information than I'd had access to, I was and am prepared to give that contribution due consideration on it's merits (or lack thereof). This is where I think you've gotten the wrong idea or maybe I communicated badly? Either way, there's an argument created where really no disagreement exists.

rather than introducing completely irrelevant comparisons with WWII?

Dude. This is the third time I'm saying it - it was a tangental question. A "BTW what do you think of this?" put to you so that I can gauge your value system and understand where you're coming from as I talk to you. Again, I thought that was made pretty clear?

The point that you missed from my post was the real reason for the Iraq war and the resulting carnage that ensued in light of that, not the numbers in and of themselves.

Personally, I had no doubt whatsoever that the Iraq war was not justified BEFORE it even took place (hence my participation in the anti-war rally) and everything I've read since has only reinforced that view. If there was any real justice in the world, the neocons - and Colin Powell - would have got the Nuremberg treatment by now.

Oh no, I get it alright. High margin transport and logistics contracts for the old boys, infrastructure projects tendered at whatever bid price the US chooses, one-sided terms of trade, a strategic shift to get one more major nation "on our side", as well as a greater level of oil supplied without having to touch it's own (considerable) strategic reserves... all done on the basis of a nearly 10-year old Security Council resolution that the UN wasn't sure applied, implemented at the cost of American, Iraqi and Australian lives. There is absolutely no disagreement there mate, not from me at any rate.

Still not sure I'd lump Powell in with all of those guys. The fact that they kicked him out of their little club for protesting too much says something about that. On that point we might just have to agree to disagree.

And I think the ambivalence and vacillation of people like your good self, as demonstrated by the qualification to which I originally took exception, becomes an enabler of future atrocities, such as the subject of this thread.

I don't consider waiting until I have all the available information before I'm incontravertibly set on a qualified unwavering point of view (and that's all the qualifier was meant to be) to be vacillation.

Likewise, that comment I made that you thought was me "Smirking", was a genuine one. I've devoted a significant chunk of life both in terms of time and health for the benefit of others. I'm a lot of things, but I don't think I can be accused of being ambivalent.

I too hope that "future atrocities" are avoided, although my life experience tells me that they won't be. Either way I don't think the decision makers will really give a sh!t what we say or think about it. History has shown us, repeatedly, that even the most "benign" or "enlightened" governments will do just whatever the hell they like if they see a need. Sadly, nothing said or done here will change that.

Thanks for your post.

 

[Si Botak]

Si, you gotta handle on those pipeline negotations yet? Batshit crazy? Read the sources I provided.

From "anti-war.com"? Mate the name of the domain doesn't imply balance of commentary. Not that I'm against left-wing sources. Find something from Al-Jazeera for example and I'll read it.

This is why I fail to consume the stuff that Gordon Junger Ricks put out. It is supposed to be lapped up by an American PBS centre left. Funny that, centre left is further right than the Norwegian Brevek and the right wing in Scandanavia.

Hmmm... ok, value statement there. Of course, you're welcome to your opinion and I respect it, but needless to say I think that's a bit hyperbolic and I don't agree with it. You're right, the American Left is probably where our Right is, but that doesn't necessarily match up with a guy who considers himself part of a direct action cell which affiliates with and names itself after a militant order of medieval christian extremists.

But they did look at Afghanistan as a key plank in their resource strategy, the pipelines from central asia, and so they could move central asia in a different direction than Russia. Zbig Brzezinski 101

Ok look I'd have preferred to not state the obvious here.... but to get an idea on just how bad an idea building an Oil or LNG pipeline through Afghanistan is, all you need to do is look at a map.

The Oil that the US wants is in the Arabian peninsula... Saudi, UAE, Iraq etc. To build an overland pipeline you can either throw it north up through Azerbaijan, Georgia et al around the Caspian through Turkmenistan before you even hit Afghanistan... or you can go through Iran (lolwut).

The former option is politically plausible before you consider the tribalistic, insecure, inherently unstable warlord ridden landscape that has been Afghanistan since forever (it's certainly not plausible by any considerations once Afghanistan/Pakistan enters the picture), but not economically... there are already a swathe of pipelines that far north that do the job already.

The latter might make sense after any war with Iran, but thereotically to pull this off GWB and Co should've gone for a Ghan and Iran combo meal not a Ghan and Iraq (inb4 "Iraq, Iran, what's the difference, put a load up guy relax").

Alternatively there's the third (sane) option which the world uses. It's proven, cheaper and it works. Quite simply put you use the Suez Canal for what it was intended for and you ship the sh!t to Rotterdam. The pipeline thing is an invention of interest groups who have a moral disagreement with the action in Afghanistan in a poor attempt to detract from the established legal basis of the operations there.

And like any invented pre-text (much like the Right's pretext over Iraq), once the light of day is thrown on it, it starts looking a bit shaky.

 

[OldBlueFan]

Correct, and I thought I already had? I can explain again if that'll help; As a relative layman to someone deep inside the circle of Bush Administration, I don't have access to the same level of information.... now that's not to say I can't form opinions based on what we as lay-people do know.

On the strength of that information that is available, I'm of the opinion that it wasn't a justifiable military action - my use of the word "probably" was simply a qualifier indicating that if someone else was joining the conversation with more or better information than I'd had access to, I was and am prepared to give that contribution due consideration on it's merits (or lack thereof). This is where I think you've gotten the wrong idea or maybe I communicated badly? Either way, there's an argument created where really no disagreement exists.

Ask yourself these simple questions and note that they need no knowledge of "inner sanctum" deliberations:

Why was a non-existent link to AQ invented and repeated ad-nauseum to the US public?

Why was a non-existent link to the events of 9-11 invented and repeated ad-nauseum to the US public?

Why were UN weapons inspection results ignored in favour of the baseless claims made by CP in front of the UN?

The only possible answer to these questions is that the war was in no way justifiable on any reality-based grounds. If it was, why the need for fabrications?

Oh no, I get it alright. High margin transport and logistics contracts for the old boys, infrastructure projects tendered at whatever bid price the US chooses, one-sided terms of trade, a strategic shift to get one more major nation "on our side", as well as a greater level of oil supplied without having to touch it's own (considerable) strategic reserves... all done on the basis of a nearly 10-year old Security Council resolution that the UN wasn't sure applied, implemented at the cost of American, Iraqi and Australian lives. There is absolutely no disagreement there mate, not from me at any rate.

So, 1,000,000 people die for these reasons and the best you can do is say it "probably" isn't justification? You certainly seem to be wanting to have a bit each way on this.

I too hope that "future atrocities" are avoided, although my life experience tells me that they won't be. Either way I don't think the decision makers will really give a sh!t what we say or think about it. History has shown us, repeatedly, that even the most "benign" or "enlightened" governments will do just whatever the hell they like if they see a need. Sadly, nothing said or done here will change that.

I believe in small steps. And one of those small steps is that people who consider themselves to be compassionate and hold themselves up as having an awareness of political realities at least acknowledge and confirm that their country has engaged in an illegal war. And whenever the opportunity is granted to them, be prepared to share this view in a forthright manner with others, in the hope that the awareness grows and the possibility of future atrocities (at least with the timid complicity of nations like ours) is diminished.

 

[Si Botak]

Ask yourself these simple questions and note that they need no knowledge of "inner sanctum" deliberations:

Why was a non-existent link to AQ invented and repeated ad-nauseum to the US public?

Why was a non-existent link to the events of 9-11 invented and repeated ad-nauseum to the US public?

Why were UN weapons inspection results ignored in favour of the baseless claims made by CP in front of the UN?

The only possible answer to these questions is that the war was in no way justifiable on any reality-based grounds. If it was, why the need for fabrications?

Well... as much as I still believe that Powell was duped as opposed to being complicit, his gullibility is kinda irrelevant to the wider point you're making...

They're good questions, especially the last one. I mean, I was thinking maybe there must've been some other kind of genuine rationale which at least some of the softer members of the administration (who later got marginalised) were operating under... otherwise how can a government be so stupid??? Expensive wars are the kind of things which culturally and economically kill Empires....

But you know what? I think you're right... I don't think that matters.

So, 1,000,000 people die for these reasons and the best you can do is say it "probably" isn't justification? You certainly seem to be wanting to have a bit each way on this.

That was never my intent mate.

But in this case it's a moot point. You're right; they were that stupid.... Otherwise why go ahead and pull the trigger? Why start a war based on a few powerpoint slides with no reconstruction strategy other than "She'll be right mate" because they had other things on their mind, eg making cash? There's no other explanation that follows any kind of rationale, flawed or otherwise.

And I can't find any primary sources that I'd consider trustworthy or balanced which dispute the points you're making. I've tried to do in the last few days so purely in the interests of ensuring I'm coming to an informed conclusion; Nudda.

I'd apologise for the earlier obstinance over the qualifier if I didn't believe in coming to conclusions in my own good damned time.... but you can call me convinced.

The 2003 Invasion of Iraq can't be justified; Simple as that and it is what it is.

I believe in small steps. And one of those small steps is that people who consider themselves to be compassionate and hold themselves up as having an awareness of political realities at least acknowledge and confirm that their country has engaged in an illegal war. And whenever the opportunity is granted to them, be prepared to share this view in a forthright manner with others, in the hope that the awareness grows and the possibility of future atrocities (at least with the timid complicity of nations like ours) is diminished.

Well, I guess I'm a bit cynical that regard - nothing's going to reduce the possibility of future wars or future atrocities.... Human beings just aren't that bright. That doesn't mean you shouldn't keep trying though.

On the other hand I suppose if we don't identify the bad policy decisions our government makes (and that our civilians and soldiery have to put up with), it makes it that much harder for us to identify the good policy decisions our government should be making (regardless of whether those decisions involve war or not)...

 

[blackcat]

From "anti-war.com"? Mate the name of the domain doesn't imply balance of commentary. Not that I'm against left-wing sources. Find something from Al-Jazeera for example and I'll read it.



Hmmm... ok, value statement there. Of course, you're welcome to your opinion and I respect it, but needless to say I think that's a bit hyperbolic and I don't agree with it. You're right, the American Left is probably where our Right is, but that doesn't necessarily match up with a guy who considers himself part of a direct action cell which affiliates with and names itself after a militant order of medieval christian extremists.

anti-war are a bunch of rightist libertarians. Ron Paul is a regular. They also have Seymour Hersh interviewed too. And Ellsberg.

Pity you dont wish to engage.

THEY ARE NOT LEFTISTS.

They are not even the primary source. This is about the Taliban Pipelines across Afghanistan, and you smeared me. And you wont even go and see how I corrected your information.

I am far far too generous extending a good faith in this thread. Usually I bang on and pull the trigger and play harlequin. Guess it has not served me well to be serious in this thread.

Afterall, lets get back to some good old Hird v Buckley v Voss arguments. Mcuh more edifying

 

[Si Botak]

anti-war are a bunch of rightist libertarians. Ron Paul is a regular. They also have Seymour Hersh interviewed too. And Ellsberg.

Pity you dont wish to engage.

THEY ARE NOT LEFTISTS.

They are not even the primary source. This is about the Taliban Pipelines across Afghanistan, and you smeared me. And you wont even go and see how I corrected your information.

I am far far too generous extending a good faith in this thread. Usually I bang on and pull the trigger and play harlequin. Guess it has not served me well to be serious in this thread.

Just because I don't consider your evidence balanced doesn't mean I wasn't discussing with goodwill mate...

Afterall, lets get back to some good old Hird v Buckley v Voss arguments. Mcuh more edifying

Up for that too.... Crazy crazy Vossy...

 

[OldBlueFan]

The 2003 Invasion of Iraq can't be justified; Simple as that and it is what it is.

Glad we cleared that up.

Now you can give BC's points the attention they deserve

 

[blackcat]

"Getting used to the idea of double standards" Robert Cooper - Blair's advisor for Foreign Affairs
'The underlying maxim is: we will punish the crimes of our enemies and reward the crimes of our friends' Tariq Ali

what about the Salon.com reference to the pipelines Si?

U smeared me, but you have failed to even check the simple sources I coughed up in one phlegm stricken minute.

http://globalresearch.ca/articles/MAD201A.html

According to Afghan, Iranian, and Turkish government sources, Hamid Karzai, the interim Prime Minister of Afghanistan, was a top adviser to the El Segundo, California-based UNOCAL Corporation which was negotiating with the Taliban to construct a Central Asia Gas (CentGas) pipeline from Turkmenistan through western Afghanistan to Pakistan.

Karzai, the leader of the southern Afghan Pashtun Durrani tribe, was a member of the mujaheddin that fought the Soviets during the 1980s. He was a top contact for the CIA and maintained close relations with CIA Director William Casey, Vice President George Bush, and their Pakistani Inter Service Intelligence (ISI) Service interlocutors. Later, Karzai and a number of his brothers moved to the United States under the auspices of the CIA. Karzai continued to serve the agency's interests, as well as those of the Bush Family and their oil friends in negotiating the CentGas deal, according to Middle East and South Asian sources.

When one peers beyond all of the rhetoric of the White House and Pentagon concerning the Taliban, a clear pattern emerges showing that construction of the trans-Afghan pipeline was a top priority of the Bush administration from the outset. Although UNOCAL claims it abandoned the pipeline project in December 1998, the series of meetings held between U.S., Pakistani, and Taliban officials after 1998, indicates the project was never off the table.

Quite to the contrary, recent meetings between U.S. Ambassador to Pakistan Wendy Chamberlain and that country's oil minister Usman Aminuddin indicate the pipeline project is international Project Number One for the Bush administration. Chamberlain, who maintains close ties to the Saudi ambassador to Pakistan (a one-time chief money conduit for the Taliban), has been pushing Pakistan to begin work on its Arabian Sea oil terminus for the pipeline.

Meanwhile, President Bush says that U.S. troops will remain in Afghanistan for the long haul. Far from being engaged in Afghan peacekeeping -- the Europeans are doing much of that -- our troops will effectively be guarding pipeline construction personnel that will soon be flooding into the country.

Karzai's ties with UNOCAL and the Bush administration are the main reason why the CIA pushed him for Afghan leader over rival Abdul Haq, the assassinated former mujaheddin leader from Jalalabad, and the leadership of the Northern Alliance, seen by Langley as being too close to the Russians and Iranians. Haq had no apparent close ties to the U.S. oil industry and, as both a Pushtun and a northern Afghani, was popular with a wide cross-section of the Afghan people, including the Northern Alliance. Those credentials likely sealed his fate.

About Global Research

The Centre for Research on Globalisation (CRG) is an independent research and media organization based in Montreal. The CRG is a registered non profit organization in the province of Quebec, Canada.

In addition to the Global Research website, the Centre is involved in book publishing, support to humanitarian projects as well as educational outreach activities including the organization of public conferences and lectures. The Centre also acts as a think tank on crucial economic and geopolitical issues. ​

Glad we cleared that up.

Now you can give BC's points the attention they deserve

OBF, I think we are deluded if we believe they deserve attention eh. Si has just glossed over this, and made out I am profoundly ignorant in mentioning this apocryphal "fact" (sic). Yeah, intentional invoking that dichotomy/paradox.

The pipeline negotiations existed as figments of my imagination. I was stupid to assume this was common knowledge. Does Gordon Junger or Ricks reference this? How can you not if you wish to write on the occupation?

 

[Mustafa1982]

Iran is a whole different beast compared to Iraq or Afghanistan. They actually have a military. It would probably not end well for anyone.

I agree with you completely.
Iran overlooking the most important waterway in the world.
Everyone will lose in this war.

 

[Si Botak]

"Getting used to the idea of double standards" Robert Cooper - Blair's advisor for Foreign Affairs
'The underlying maxim is: we will punish the crimes of our enemies and reward the crimes of our friends' Tariq Ali

what about the Salon.com reference to the pipelines Si?

U smeared me, but you have failed to even check the simple sources I coughed up in one phlegm stricken minute.

http://globalresearch.ca/articles/MAD201A.html

OBF, I think we are deluded if we believe they deserve attention eh. Si has just glossed over this, and made out I am profoundly ignorant in mentioning this apocryphal "fact" (sic). Yeah, intentional invoking that dichotomy/paradox.

The pipeline negotiations existed as figments of my imagination. I was stupid to assume this was common knowledge. Does Gordon Junger or Ricks reference this? How can you not if you wish to write on the occupation?

1. I never said anything about you being ignorant. I never personally slighted you or smeared you, as you say. Let's get that straight right now. I did, quite correctly, point out a) you have no place, business or perspective attacking a man who did his best to make a bad situation in Iraq somewhat better for things going on in Afghanistan, b) that your objections to Afghanistan are based on moral and political misgivings, not legal ones, c) that your notion that the war started so that an Oil/LNG pipeline could be built was a ridiculous one (Note how this is different from calling you personally ridiculous).

2. I'm aware and have always been very much aware of the Salon.com reference. Why? Because it's the same "factoid" trumped out with the same "cross-referencing" back to a single source. You want to know why I refuse to argue about this? Because like all such references,the single source all of them rely on is one single article written in a French paper, Le Monde, which made no serious demonstrable attempt at source verification or fact-checking (Coz Newspapers never do that in an attempt to sell copy huh?? ) and that establishes no reliable basis as to what Karzai's involvement with Unocal actually was, especially given the vagaries around the French that was used in the article and the fact that it's entirely possible that he was confused with Zalmay Khalilzad instead.

The only reason this conspiracy theory (At this stage that's all it is) has more than a minute's phlegmy consideration given to it by anyone is that at the time Michael Moore (Objectivity? LOLWUT?) took it and decided it was ironclad fact and presented as much in Fahrenheit 911, without any independant verification or crosss-reference work being done.

3. As a result, my stance on this is pretty much summarised in the last paragraph here.... This is why I said blanket, straight out, "Nope, not getting into this one")

The original story claims that Karzai was "for a moment" a consultant for Unocal. There's no reference or source to explain how they know this.

The timeline as presented in the story doesn't make sense (we've found no reference to him spending time in the US after India, and Unocal wouldn't be interested in the pipeline for another 10+ years anyway).

Both Unocal and Karzai deny the claim. No evidence has ever been forthcoming to prove them wrong. (And why not? If there is evidence, why not bring it forward? Catching Unocal and Karzai in a lie would be a far bigger scoop than the original story).

Our conclusion: the best you can say about this claim is that it's unproven.

At best, this is yet-to-be-substantiated conjecture. You're not only painting it as established fact, you're painting it as established fact in an attempt to cast doubt upon what is established in fact - that ISAF are in Afghanistan at the specific behest of the legitimate government, backed by UN Security Council resolutions, operating according to UN-backed and regulated Rules of Engagement and internationally recognised Laws of Armed Conflict.

My take? I think you're misguided... you're not ignorant, or stupid, or disingenuous. Just (as far as this goes) wrong for placing too much weight of evidence on something that's tenuous (at best) and has remained so for years without any decent supporting evidence (other than other theorists citing each other in a circular fashion whilst presuming it's fact) surfacing anywhere.

EDIT: I thought we were going to talk about Crazy Vossy?

 

[blackcat]

yeah, Michael Moore is a joke. But I dont go to him for my references.

But we differ in one respect. You find the Grey Lady and WaPO as the world papers of record.

Me, I assume there are CIA and FBI and Mossad operatives in their staff, even if they needed them to be there (cia/fbi need) because these papers are captive.

I dont need to hold Judy Millers head on a platter ti know this. As Chomsky says, and he got it wrong on the http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=sudan%20pharmaceutical%20bombing%20chomsky&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CCoQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FAl-Shifa_pharmaceutical_factory&ei=4hCaT5yQFaitiAfp-OnADg&usg=AFQjCNHZ08N4O6QqGA3No4FeZu2ptlQlew re: fatalities as consequences
...
... we know of the Eddie Bernays consent manufacturing old Noam writes of.

We cant go to the fairfax and News sources, to pull out the truth behind the truth. I usually try and check, time pending, the sites, and the who is. I mean, Alex Jones, and Infowars, if a big red flag. So it is a problem, when we have reputable sources, who have material that Alex Jones is using.

Then William Blum is on one of those sites I linked to, a major contributor. But I dont agree with him that 9/11 was a conspiracy.And it matters little about the 3000 of rich western folk who copped it, in comparison to the million+ who dies because of the US adventurism. I can disagree with Blum on that one matter, but still seek him out as a legit source.

AntiWar.con is a very good site. You dont get Hersh and Ron Paul being interviewed by Kooks. They even have had Kucinich and I think Wesley Clark. So that is the foremost investigative journo, plus 3 president race party nomination election candidates...

 

[blackcat]

 

[blackcat]

SI, BBC good enough for you?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/west_asia/37021.stm

u said you accepted Al Jazeera, they talk of proposals in the 90's and these premised the Afghanistan link.
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/asia/2012/02/201221714401728685.html

 

[blackcat]

wiki does it ok
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opposition_to_the_War_in_Afghanistan_(2001%E2%80%93present)#Pipeline_path_.27clearing_and_holding.27_forces

U.S. energy interests
Afghanistan's significance from an energy standpoint stems from its geographical position as a potential transit route for oil and natural gas exports from central Asia to the Arabian sea. This potential includes the possible construction of oil and natural gas export pipelines through Afghanistan.
—U.S. Energy Information Administration, September 2001[104]
In an article entitled "America's Pipe Dream" published October 23, 2001, British investigative journalist George Monbiot outlined the 2001 U.S. invasion of Afghanistan as primarily being a bid to control oil and gas resources and distribution in central Asia.[104]
In 1995, U.S. energy giant Unocal, partnered with Saudi oil company, Delta Oil Co. Ltd, started negotiating to build pipelines through Afghanistan to transport oil and gas from Turkmenistan to ports in Pakistan on the Arabian Sea, a multi-billion dollar scheme that would require a stable regime in Afghanistan to guarantee safe passage of the energy commodities. The U.S.-Saudi-led consortium, called CentGas, also included firms from Pakistan, Japan, Korea, Indonesia, and Korea.[104][108][109]
Shortly after the Taliban gained control of Kabul in September 1996, The Telegraph reported:
Oil industry insiders say the dream of securing a pipeline across Afghanistan is the main reason why Pakistan, a close political ally of America's, has been so supportive of the Taliban, and why America has quietly acquiesced in its conquest of Afghanistan.
—The Telegraph, September 1996[104]
According to former U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency military analyst Julie Sirrs who went to Afghanistan in October 1998 and met with Ahmed Shah Massoud, the leader of the Northern Alliance: "Massoud told me he had proof that Unocal had provided money that helped the Taliban take Kabul" in September 1996.[109]
In the years that followed, Unocal frequently wooed Taliban leaders, hosting them as VIP guests at its headquarters in Houston, Texas, and in meetings with U.S. government officials in Washington, D.C. According to a December 10, 2001 article in the Boston Herald: "Before the pipeline deal could go through, Unocal needed the U.S. to recognize the Taliban as the legitimate government in Afghanistan. To that end, company representatives arranged high-level meetings between the Taliban and State Department officials in Washington, D.C." On at least one occasion, in December 1997, Unocal oil executives and representatives, including Zalmay M. Khalilzad, a former assistant undersecretary of defense under Defense Secretary Dick Cheney in the first Bush administration, wined and dined the Taliban and took them on a shopping spree.[104][106][108][110][111][112]
The Taliban will probably develop like the Saudis did. There will be Aramco, pipelines, an emir, no parliament and lots of Sharia law. We can live with that.
—A U.S. diplomat in 1997 to journalist and author Ahmed Rashid[104][107][113]
On November 28, 1997, Unocal's vice-president of international relations, John J. Maresca, made a presentation at a NATO Parliamentary Assembly seminar in Istanbul. In previous roles, Maresca had been U.S. Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Policy, U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for European and NATO Policy, chief of staff to two NATO Secretaries General, State Department officer in charge of NATO political affairs, U.S. ambassador to the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, and Special Envoy to open US relations with the newly independent states of the former Soviet Union. In a session named "The Caucasus Region: competing stakes, conflicts and co-operation", Maresca spoke of the U.S. State Department's assessment of Caspian oil reserves, underlined the importance of ensuring transport of those reserves to market, identified important markets, gave the participants information on existing and planned pipelines, and discussed various pipeline routes.[114][115][116][117]
Two months later, in February 1998, Maresca also addressed U.S. Congress representatives in a "Hearing on U.S. Interests in the Central Asian Republics", congratulating them for "focusing on Central Asia oil and gas reserves and the role they play in shaping U.S. policy" and telling them that growing demand for energy in Asia coupled with U.S. sanctions against Iran made Afghanistan "the only other possible route" available to them for Caspian oil. Maresca again made clear the Unocal pipeline project's need for a "recognized government" that would have "the confidence of governments, lenders, and our company". According to author-journalist Richard W. Behan in an article entitled "The Surreal Politics of Premeditated War", Unocal's vice-president had essentially asked politely to have the Taliban removed and a stable government inserted.[104][106][118]
I cannot think of a time when we have had a region emerge as suddenly to become as strategically significant as the Caspian.
—Dick Cheney, in 1998 as CEO of energy-military-industrial corporation Halliburton[104]
In the summer of 2001, the United States Geological Survey (USGS)'s annual assessment of Afghanistan reported that, in addition to its considerable mineral resources, "Afghanistan has additional economic potential because of its strategic geographical position as a transit route for Cental Asian hydrocarbons to the Arabian Sea. This potential includes proposed multibillion dollar oil and gas export pipelines through the country."[119]
In July 2001, with Cheney back in the Whitehouse as Vice-President and Khalilzad appointed to President Bush's National Security Council, three American officials met with Pakistani and Russian intelligence officials to inform them of planned U.S. military strikes against Afghanistan in October.[106][120]
In August 2001, U.S. State Department official Christina Rocca told the Taliban, at their last pipeline negotiation just five weeks before 9/11, "Accept our offer of a carpet of gold, or we bury you under a carpet of bombs."[106][121][122]
On October 7, 2001, the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan officially began with a bombing campaign that Noam Chomsky of MIT described as "weeks of carpet bombing and resort to virtually every available device short of nuclear weapons ("daisy cutters", cluster bombs. etc.)"
On October 10, 2001, though the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan had barely begun, an article in the English-language Pakistani Frontier Post reported that U.S. Ambassador to Pakistan Wendy Chamberlain had already informed the Pakistani Oil Minister that, "in view of recent geopolitical developments", the negotiations for a pipeline through Afghanistan would be revived.[123]
On December 5, 2001, just 8 weeks into the U.S. invasion, Hamid Karzai was named Chairman of the Interim Administration of Afghanistan. According to the New York Times, Karzai had played a "role funneling covert American aid" to mujahedeen insurgents in Afghanistan in the eighties, beginning a long relationship with U.S. policy makers in Washington.[124][125]
A top contact for the CIA in the eighties, Karzai had also later testified before Congress, the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee, periodically met former CIA officer, Senate aide, and future State Department official Christina Rocca, and addressed a RAND seminar on Afghanistan in 2000 at Khalilzad's invitation. A U.S. State Department official referred to Karzai's close ties with the U.S.: "To us, he is still Hamid, a man we've dealt with for some time."[121][124][125]
In addition to these ties, Karzai was reported to have also been an adviser to Unocal.[121][123][125][126][127][128][129][130][131][132]
On January 1, 2002, nine days after Hamid Karzai was sworn into office, Zalmay M. Khalilzad, who had been a key Unocal consultant on the pipeline project and special liaison between Unocal and the Taliban government in the pipeline negotiations, was named as U.S. Special Envoy to Afghanistan by U.S. President George W. Bush, while continuing his role in Bush's National Security Council.[121][133]
On February 8, 2002, just 6 weeks after being sworn into office as Chairman of the Interim Administration, Karzai announced that he and Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf had discussed the proposed Central Asian gas pipeline project and agreed to work on its development.[134]
If one looks at the map of the big American bases created for the war, one is struck by the fact that they are completely identical to the route of the projected oil pipeline to the Indian Ocean.
—Uri Avnery, former member of the Israeli Knesset, February 2002 article in Israeli daily Ma'ariv[132][135]
On May 30, 2002, just four months later, Hamid Karzai, still as chairman of Afghanistan's interim administration, signed a deal with the presidents of Pakistan and Turkmenistan to construct a multi-billion dollar 1,500-km Trans-Afghanistan Pipeline from Turkmenistan's Dauletabad gas fields to the Pakistani port city of Gwadar.[136]
One of our goals is to stabilize Afghanistan, so it can become a conduit and a hub between South and Central Asia so that energy can flow to the south.
—U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for South and Central Asian Affairs, Richard Boucher, September 2007[137

 

[blackcat]

http://www.historycommons.org/searc...tles=on&descriptions=on&dosearch=on&search=Go

In a Washington Post op-ed, Zalmay Khalilzad calls on the US to deal with the Taliban in Afghanistan. “It is time for the United States to reengage.…The Taliban does not practice the anti-US style of fundamentalism practiced by Iran—it is closer to the Saudi model.”

this Khalilzad the American ambassador to the UN in the Bush administration

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zalmay_Khalilzad

http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a0995turkenistandeal#a0995turkenistandeal

I mean, Si, there is denial and denial. My point on Kilkullen was, can u do good in a theatre of war and occupation, that is immoral, (if it parses some inscrutable un legality)

and I said it is instructive, to how many folks in military costume, actually resigned. Evidentally, they all have the omnipotence to change things for the better from inside, cept those like manning and ellsberg. And they are two of p'raps 20 million than have been thru the armed forces since ellsberg and before him.

You cant do good from inside, they arent asking the questions. Lets ask the questions, and try and change things publically. Like Assange and the Collateral Murder. Atleast JA takes a potshot, as delusional it might be to change big power from his position.

 

[Si Botak]

http://www.historycommons.org/searc...tles=on&descriptions=on&dosearch=on&search=Go



this Khalilzad the American ambassador to the UN in the Bush administration

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zalmay_Khalilzad

http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a0995turkenistandeal#a0995turkenistandeal

I mean, Si, there is denial and denial. My point on Kilkullen was, can u do good in a theatre of war and occupation, that is immoral, (if it parses some inscrutable un legality)

If that was your question, the answer is "Yes", see below. As for the links, they're based on Coll. Not a bad source, I likey.

Now you have demonstrated that a company had concrete agreements in place to put a pipeline in from Turkmenistan to Pakistan via Afghanistan.... I still think it's a batshit insane idea, and apparently from what other information is available online, thanks to your links, I can see I'm not the only one who thought so. Even the UNOCAL execs thought it was a shot in the dark.

Regardless, as much as we all know that Coll has quite correctly pointed out some of the power that resides in the wider extended Karzai family (especially with Ahmed Karzai), that doesn't reinforce your theory about Harmid Karzai - especially given a) as I've pointed out the timing of Karzai's career doesn't support your theory, b) Karzai was not in a position to influence US State Department opinion in 2001, let alone in 1995, c) while the association may explain Karzai as a choice for provisional president prior to the elections, it doesn't establish a pipeline that Harmid Karzai may or may not have had anything to do with was a cause for a war six years after it was announced.

You've got major issues of timing and political linkage that you have to sort out if you're going to convince me, and that won't be easy.

and I said it is instructive, to how many folks in military costume, actually resigned. Evidentally, they all have the omnipotence to change things for the better from inside, cept those like manning and ellsberg. And they are two of p'raps 20 million than have been thru the armed forces since ellsberg and before him.

This is irrelevant. Kilcullen was ADF. We're not discussing the US Military, and never were. Furthermore, and generally speaking, military personnel wear uniforms, not costumes.

You cant do good from inside, they arent asking the questions. Lets ask the questions, and try and change things publically. Like Assange and the Collateral Murder. Atleast JA takes a potshot, as delusional it might be to change big power from his position.

Again, wrong. I fundamentally and completely disagree with the notion that a soldier caught in a conflict not of his making can't make a bad situation better for anyone.... that's dangerously simplistic, bordering on prejudicial.

By your theory, then-Sgt Michael Bernhardt didn't do any good in point blank refusing to open fire on civilians at My Lai in 1968 and helping expose the slaughter. I supposed if what you're saying is true, then I suppose WO1 Hugh Thompson Jr and his helicopter crew aren't heroes for a) refusing to take part, b) physically preventing soldiers committing war crimes from committing further acts by landing his helicopter across an embanked pathway and c) refusing orders to move his aircraft and indeed threatening to use his crew-served weaponry on Calley's soldiers if they tried to get past his chopper to kill more people?

I suppose Oskar Schindler, despite being a paid up member of the Nazi Party, did absolutely nothing to help a couple of thousand Jews living in Eastern Europe?

I think at this point you should probably just acknowledge that you were barking up the wrong tree with regards to Kilcullen, and we'll move on.... Pipelines, Crazy Vossy, or even Iran... I'm open to any of them.

 

[blackcat]

Si, see this by Johan Galtung.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WwWFgOCLxQY#t=34m20s

just catch the 20 secs from 25min, or a three minute clip from above.
[YOUTUBE]WwWFgOCLxQY[/YOUTUBE]

 

[CLUBMEDhurst]

Ah Dennis, you will be missed

[YOUTUBE]WZnTnkBIdk0[/YOUTUBE]

 

[DivideandMultiply]

Deeply concerning.

I think it is far more complex than one particular reason.

Eliminate a competitor with Israel for regional hegemony, destabilise an unfriendly Islamic nation, eliminate a potential competitor(s) for American multinationals in the energy market, positive internal political boost/national distraction, eliminates any continued push by Iran to promote a system that trades in other currencies outside of the greenback, new market for multinational defence contractors....the list goes on......

Unjust war for profit and political gain, I really hope this time more of the US's allies have the balls to tell them to GTFO you are on your own.

 

[blackcat]

Kucinich is retiring too, thinks he can be more effective outside the House.

Divideandmultiply, I think you missed the elephantine motive on capitol room.

Power Projection.

The US now feel a little impotent, and know their empire is accelerating toward an horizon.

With impotency, is sporned aggression in denial. We have an inverse dynamic, reins of power exercised, as its exorcised, or excised and emperors veil lifted like an islamic niqab.

True power, is but when you dont need to bring the smack down.