If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
More proof that Afghanistan and now Iraq are wars for oil
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
I found this on the Schnews website it makes interesting reading
While the ‘weapons of mass destruction’ façade has well and truly fallen off the oil war in Iraq, last year’s oil war in Afghanistan was far better dressed up as something else, allowing the good work to go ahead… The latest US ambassador to Afghanistan - a senior executive of US oil company Unocal - along with the current Afghani president Hamid Karzai (once employed by a Unocal subsidiary) – are oiling the wheels for a lucrative pipeline to carry oil and gas across the country from the Caspian sea. And who’s building this pipeline? Er… Unocal.
As the BBC reported on September 18, 2001: “Niaz Niak, a former Pakistani foreign minister, was told by senior American officials in mid-July 2001 (pre 9-11) that military action against Afghanistan would go ahead by the middle of October. It was Naik’s view that Washington would not drop its war against Afghanistan even if bin Laden were to be surrendered immediately by the Taliban.” As journalist John Pilger puts it “One of the reasons the Americans attacked Afghanistan was not to liberate women but to liberate the pipeline deal.” Pilger continues, “This is the hidden agenda of the “war on terrorism” - a term that is no more than a euphemism for the Bush administration’s exploitation of the September 11 attacks and America’s accelerating imperial ambitions. In the past 14 months, on the pretext of “fighting terror”, US military bases have been established at the gateways to the greatest oil and gas fields on earth, especially in Central Asia, which is also coveted as a ‘great prize.’”
Meanwhile Donald Kagan, who served as co-chairman of the 2000 New American Century Project, embraces the idea that the United States should establish permanent military bases in a post-war Iraq. “We will probably need a major concentration of forces in the Middle East over a long period of time. That will come at a price, but think of the price of not having it. When we have economic problems, it’s been caused by disruptions in our oil supply. If we have a force in Iraq, there will be no disruption in oil supplies.” Source
While the ‘weapons of mass destruction’ façade has well and truly fallen off the oil war in Iraq, last year’s oil war in Afghanistan was far better dressed up as something else, allowing the good work to go ahead… The latest US ambassador to Afghanistan - a senior executive of US oil company Unocal - along with the current Afghani president Hamid Karzai (once employed by a Unocal subsidiary) – are oiling the wheels for a lucrative pipeline to carry oil and gas across the country from the Caspian sea. And who’s building this pipeline? Er… Unocal.
As the BBC reported on September 18, 2001: “Niaz Niak, a former Pakistani foreign minister, was told by senior American officials in mid-July 2001 (pre 9-11) that military action against Afghanistan would go ahead by the middle of October. It was Naik’s view that Washington would not drop its war against Afghanistan even if bin Laden were to be surrendered immediately by the Taliban.” As journalist John Pilger puts it “One of the reasons the Americans attacked Afghanistan was not to liberate women but to liberate the pipeline deal.” Pilger continues, “This is the hidden agenda of the “war on terrorism” - a term that is no more than a euphemism for the Bush administration’s exploitation of the September 11 attacks and America’s accelerating imperial ambitions. In the past 14 months, on the pretext of “fighting terror”, US military bases have been established at the gateways to the greatest oil and gas fields on earth, especially in Central Asia, which is also coveted as a ‘great prize.’”
Meanwhile Donald Kagan, who served as co-chairman of the 2000 New American Century Project, embraces the idea that the United States should establish permanent military bases in a post-war Iraq. “We will probably need a major concentration of forces in the Middle East over a long period of time. That will come at a price, but think of the price of not having it. When we have economic problems, it’s been caused by disruptions in our oil supply. If we have a force in Iraq, there will be no disruption in oil supplies.” Source
0
Comments
With all due respect; what's your point?
liv4now's boards are down and Steelgate has nowhere else to go.
Saddam was warned by the President a year ago. Iraq was named. The War Against Terror involves radical Muslims and the countries that allow them to operate in their country or share bomb-making information with them.
It was on Sky news yesterday and last week how one of the radical Muslims left Afghanistan after the fall of the Taliban, went to Bagdad for medical treatment, on to a Al Qaeda camp in Northern Afghanistan and on to the UK where he was picked up as a terrorist with ricin and plans to poison British troops.
If you support Iraq so much with poorly pasted lies, why live here?
Yes they have. Clandestine did some time ago.
Perhaps you should look into this a little more. IRA/Sinn Fein have been raising moneyopenly in the US for decades - NORAID is a name you should search for...
Whether or not this war is about oil it is not about weapons of mass destruction either. It is about America wanting to throw its weight about in the Middle East without any rivals to its power.
Um....
Decisive proof, I'd say.
Get a grip.
Don't bother spamming with things you don't understand.
Don't copy and paste.
And don't ignore this post.
BTW This exact post, word for word, is on liv4now. Not that I am suggesting that he copied and pasted it onto there too...
He's Harlequin there...think that he was banned from here under that pseudonym.
america have stored millions of barrels of crude underground, around the gulf of mexico. it's the biggest emergency oil reserve ever put together on earth. there is now enough oil there to keep the u.s operating at normal levels for four... hours!
that puts into perspective i think, how much dependant on oil the u.s is. if you look on a map, you'll find american bases now surround the middle east.
within 3months of bush taking office he publicly announced that if china russia or anyone else tried to interupt americas aims, then america wouldn't hesitate to use all at it's disposal...including nukes.
we were aghast at such a statement, you can't go round saying things like that to the likes of china and russia! it was dismissed as the rantings of a stupid man. we now know what those plans are and why everyone was warned off.
By the way I dont support Iraq I only support the Iraqi people's right not to be bombed. How can people on one hand condemn the bombing of innocent people in America and in Bali while on the other approve of the bombing of people in Iraq!
Haven't you listened to the Iraqis and their friends complaining about the lack of medical services because of the embargo?
So why would this terrorist go to Baghdad?
As for bombing the people of Iraq. I suggest you pay attention. You'll find that there is a significant difference in how the American military strikes targets and how terrorists strike targets. Haven't you seen the AC130 video?
C'mon, Greenhat... :rolleyes:
That would require a momentary cure for his anal/cranial inversion... 'tis a difficult thing to see the light of day when his head is shoved up his ...
aah yes, us Americans, so evil, so driven by the demon that is the dollar sign. Ever think that such a pipeline could actually HELP the Afghani people with jobs, resources and infrastructure improvements that will be neccessary to sustain such a project? Ever think that such a project could indeed help bring much needed money to the Afghanis as they struggle to rebuild? of course not, youre bent that my country is evil and willing only to profit off of others.
Yes Unocol Oil will profit, but so will Afghanistan. Think before you spew, thanks.
If Hornblower had his way we'd be living in caves raping our sisters.
The war isn't about oil, war causes petrol prices to increase, and causes panic buying and shortages. The UK is self sufficient in oil for at least 50 years, as is the USA.
Both countries if needed can use other forms of energy that are being developed right now.
So, SHUT UP WITH YOUR MINDLESS RHETORIC.
http://www.iacenter.org/nowar_oil.htm
http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Articles/Pilger_Lies.htm
The argument that war makes oil prices higher is not a case against the truth of what our oil industry barons are after here my friend. Its what leverage and economic control they will enjoy after the war that they care about.
You keep telling yourself this ongoing warmongering and invasion/domination of sovereign states is all for peace and security, Bush and Co. will be laughing all the way to the bank along with their oil financiers about how easily the majority were duped by their mindless rhetoric, when the dust has settled.
The industry does have long term goals that do not need immediate fulfillment ol boy, but then you wouldnt understand that either. Now toddly off and polish your rifle or something.
so terrorism and terrorist threats have bollox all to do with it.
why can't some of you put yesterdays events into perspective regarding whats happening today? how do you so easily dismiss the historical truths i have quoted above? please tell.
thats because the job is clearly not done yet. the warlords will eventually disappear and over time, such as in Japan, Afghanistan will flourish with the help of corporations like Unocoal
In 20 years we'll have some new hawk with another reason to do further damage there.
Afghanistan has been key territory since long before oil was important. The Russians and the British have each fought over it before Unocal even existed.
What I'd like to see is you come up with some Soviet source material to prove what you claim. I've dug through the official history of the KGB (as declassified and released in the last two years) and find nothing that indicates your claims have any truth to them. Doesn't mean it isn't possible, but it is more than a little odd that the KGB wouldn't record that as a reason when they do record other reasons for the move into Afghanistan.
Clandestine,
Who cares? If these companies are as powerful as you claim, why couldn't they insist the US Army stay? Who would have moved the Army? Public opinion? Come now, you've told us how those corporations control public opinion... The great Armies of Europe? Sorry, but with the single exception of the UK, the Armies of Europe couldn't cause any major damage to the US Army without going nuclear (ah, that would be great for those oilfields...).
Come now..we're to believe that these corporations have such evil intentions and such control, and then believe that 12 years ago they didn't do what was obvious if such was true.