[QUOTE="jetpower3"]

[QUOTE="_R34LiTY_"]

As troublesome as it may be, that seems to be one of the motivations for having gone into Afghanistan.

Unocal and the CIA helped to bring the Taliban into power in the 90's hoping and planning that the Taliban, in support of their financiers, would allow them access to construct the pipeline from the Caspian Sea and through whatever route they had in mind. Once the Taliban started asking for royalties and allegedly held talks to revive it former Afghanistan National Oil Company, which had been abolished more or less by the Soviets, was when the TAP pipeline deal went to shambles. Reviving Afghan's oil company would not require the Taliban to get a loan of any sort, while the Unocal deal would require the Taliban to get a loan from the World Bank to help build infrastructure and extras that the Taliban were asking for, however the loan would also ina sense make the Taliban subserviant to western nations/conglomerates due to the loan.

TAP with Taliban was closed down and then the subsequent invasion of Afghanistan in 2001 resulted along with puppets from Unocal being placed in power seats in Afghanistan who coincidentially agreed to go along with the Trans-Afghanistan Pipeline.

_R34LiTY_

Okay, so? Failed business negotiations over something that had not yet happened leads to war, which drags on for 10+ years and with said project still not happening (and judging by history will not succeed anyway)? Why not just find a more timely and reliable project with that much leverage and control?

lol "so?" !? So the connection is there between the interests of the corporations in the US who had their crosshairs aimed at that region for it's resources and those in power in sections of the globe that we've "liberated". All too often failed negotiations may lead those involved to use certain events, like 9/11 for example, to captilaize on the moment at hand and advance their ideal policy through the "necessity" of introducing democracy to a particular people. The pipeline has been met with mild to fierce criticism and opposition which could be why it took a little longer than what was probably expected. The Trans-Afghanistan Pipeline can be looked at as more than a matter of business, it can serve as a key geo-strategic component for a much wider agenda of total economic and military control of Eurasia.

In this, we can see the swings of the objectives outlined in the Project for a New American Century(PNAC) in full effect.

"Total economic and military control of Eurasia" is NEVER going to happen. The U.S. cannot afford it, and if the recent slashes in the military budget mean anything, its deployment and influence are only going to go down. All U.S. troops will be gone from Afghanistan in a matter of years, and if the present is any indication, nothing much will get better between now and then.

And how does this affect the geopolitical balance so profoundly when the current Afghan regime is even weaker than the Soviet-backed one, and decidedly unreliable for a "puppet" (gravitating to both U.S. "frenemies" like Pakistan and sworn enemies like Iran)? The two main arguments here (geopolitical balance and the pipeline) are not going to mean anything if the country remains a messy warzone with a completely uncertain future and a completely certain drawdown.

[QUOTE="Frattracide"]

Are you suggesting that we went to war in Afghanistan in 2001 all so we could build a pipeline 13 years later?

_R34LiTY_

As troublesome as it may be, that seems to be one of the motivations for having gone into Afghanistan.

Unocal and the CIA helped to bring the Taliban into power in the 90's hoping and planning that the Taliban, in support of their financiers, would allow them access to construct the pipeline from the Caspian Sea and through whatever route they had in mind. Once the Taliban started asking for royalties and allegedly held talks to revive it former Afghanistan National Oil Company, which had been abolished more or less by the Soviets, was when the TAP pipeline deal went to shambles. Reviving Afghan's oil company would not require the Taliban to get a loan of any sort, while the Unocal deal would require the Taliban to get a loan from the World Bank to help build infrastructure and extras that the Taliban were asking for, however the loan would also ina sense make the Taliban subserviant to western nations/conglomerates due to the loan.

TAP with Taliban was closed down and then the subsequent invasion of Afghanistan in 2001 resulted along with puppets from Unocal being placed in power seats in Afghanistan who coincidentially agreed to go along with the Trans-Afghanistan Pipeline.

Okay, so? Failed business negotiations over something that had not yet happened leads to war, which drags on for 10+ years and with said project still not happening (and judging by history will not succeed anyway)? Why not just find a more timely and reliable project with that much leverage and control?

There are many here among us who feel that life is but a joke.

[QUOTE="jetpower3"]

[QUOTE="chandlerr_360"] It is there, the pipeline construction is happening right now just not in Afghanistan yet.

kuraimen

Why not just delay the war by 10 years then? What good is it to send money (regardless of whose) to get sucked up into a maw like Afghanistan for such a long time?

So you admit that perhaps there were other considerations at work than just pipelines? I see absolutely no reason that this was the main reason the U.S. went to war. Of course you are going to want to promote your economic interests while doing something like this, but to start a 11 year quagmire for it?

One of the prerequisites of any solid international business plan is not to conduct business or build infrastructure in any warzone or any politically and economically unstable region (particularly those with chronic problems). Afghanistan fits all of these criteria. I don't care how much money anyone thinks they are going to get out of it. It's not unilterally worth the risk for such a miniscule chance of success, at least for any organization that knows what it's doing.

[QUOTE="sonicare"]

Like I said, I'll believe it when I see it. While anything is possible, it's merely paranoid speculation at this point. The one thing all these theories lack is actual proof. It would be one thing if the US was sitting on this golden pipeline, but nothing is there. No pipeline has been built and afghan resources are not being sucked up by the US. In fact, I think China and Afghanistan just signed some deal.

chandlerr_360

Why not just delay the war by 10 years then? What good is it to send money (regardless of whose) to get sucked up into a maw like Afghanistan for such a long time?

tl;dw Short version?Solid_Tango

Kind of a fusion between The Matrix, 1984, and Zeitgeist. And I suppose Animal Farm and Anthem.

There is entirely too many variables to consider to make any real conclusions to what would have happened.sSubZerOo

No harm in speculation though. I like the contrived but fun thesis found in this series of stories.

I guess I'm still here. Although very confused and out of touch.

Sometimes it's bad enough to make me wonder why I still post here.

[QUOTE="Bucked20"]Tell him to meet you at the park at a certain time and when he gets there just have your boys jump him,problem solved jonathant5

I said only if it escalates into something serious. Depending on how well the OP knows the guy in question, I would not recommend taking any chances.