Murray asserts that the primary motivation for US and British military involvement in central Asia has to do with large natural gas deposits in Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan. As evidence, he points to the plans to build a natural gas pipeline through Afghanistan that would allow Western oil companies to avoid Russia and Iran when transporting natural gas out of the region.
Murray alleged that in the late 1990s the Uzbek ambassador to the US met with then-Texas Governor George W. Bush to discuss a pipeline for the region, and out of that meeting came agreements that would see Texas-based Enron gain the rights to Uzbekistan's natural gas deposits, while oil company Unocal worked on developing the Trans-Afghanistan pipeline.
"The consultant who was organizing this for Unocal was a certain Mr. Karzai, who is now president of Afghanistan," Murray noted.
Murray said part of the motive in hyping up the threat of Islamic terrorism in Uzbekistan through forced confessions was to ensure the country remained on-side in the war on terror, so that the pipeline could be built.
"There are designs of this pipeline, and if you look at the deployment of US forces in Afghanistan, as against other NATO country forces in Afghanistan, you'll see that undoubtedly the US forces are positioned to guard the pipeline route. It's what it's about. It's about money, it's about oil, it's not about democracy."
The Trans-Afghanistan Pipeline is slated to be completed in 2014, with $7.6 billion in funding from the Asian Development Bank.
Former UK ambassador: CIA sent people to be ‘raped with broken bottles’ | Raw Story (https://rawstory.com/2009/11/ambassador-cia-people-tortured/)
Tars
11-05-2009, 06:09 PM
The Trans-Afghanistan Pipeline is slated to be completed in 2014
The project was set up in the mid 90's, by Asian countries, and was intended to bring oil from the Caspian Sea to India, paying revenues to Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Uzbekistan for transportation rights. I believe the 2014 completion date was an estimate that was made well before 9/11. From what I've gathered, construction now is at a stand-still, and is on open-ended hold since 2002 because of the current conflict.
Hmm...if it was a nefarious BushCo. "war for oil", I'm confused why the Bush administration mostly ignored Afghanistan for 5 years, while they went after Iraq. I looks to me like someone with a predisposition to see evil plots, assumed that since there was a proposed oil transport project, it must follow that that's why the U.S. is fighting in Afghanistan.
Sadly, I think too much credit is being given to the evil oil corporations. It's much more likely that we're really still there because of cataclysmic incompetence of the Bush administration.
Clancy
11-05-2009, 07:16 PM
On one hand we have the UK ambassadors lecture that is barely a month old. On the other, we have you, who thinks Bush ignored Afghanistan for 5 years, in spite of our invasion and ongoing war and occupation there since October 7, 2001.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_(2001–present)
I'll go with the ambassador, but I'm willing to read any reputable sources you might provide that support your position.
I think attributing the incalculable suffering and evil that BushCo created to incompetence is naive. Here's some background on our relationship with Uzbekistan, when we knew full well who we were dealing with.
WARNING, this is very graphic. It includes photos of torture victims and if that sort of thing upsets you don't click on the link.
Our Presidents New Best Friend Boils People Alive: (https://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article3943.htm)
The project was set up in the mid 90's, by Asian countries, and was intended to bring oil from the Caspian Sea to India, paying revenues to Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Uzbekistan for transportation rights. I believe the 2014 completion date was an estimate that was made well before 9/11. From what I've gathered, construction now is at a stand-still, and is on open-ended hold since 2002 because of the current conflict.
Hmm...if it was a nefarious BushCo. "war for oil", I'm confused why the Bush administration mostly ignored Afghanistan for 5 years, while they went after Iraq. I looks to me like someone with a predisposition to see evil plots, assumed that since there was a proposed oil transport project, it must follow that that's why the U.S. is fighting in Afghanistan.
Sadly, I think too much credit is being given to the evil oil corporations. It's much more likely that we're really still there because of cataclysmic incompetence of the Bush administration.
Tars
11-06-2009, 08:40 AM
I'll go with the ambassador, but I'm willing to read any reputable sources you might provide that support your position.
A reputable source like rawstory.com? No possibility of bias there, eh?
I could go into lengthy discussion about why Bush incompetence should not be under-estimated. Do I feel any need to try to reason with military/industrial conspiracy theorists? Nope. It's sufficient for me to point out that there's more than one theory on the subject. I like mine better.
I wouldn't even want to get into a debate about why we're in Afghanistan as it would be a waste of time trying to change the mind of the self-convinced.
You have your theory, and I have mine. Naivety is in the eye of the beholder. 'Nuf said.
Clancy
11-06-2009, 10:04 AM
I'm surprised at your response. The slightest attempt to check the veracity of the former UK ambassador Craig Murray (a British diplomat for over 20 years) will show he's legitimate. Anyone who would like to see his lecture can view it here;
Episode (https://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=33&Itemid=74&jumival=466)
And Rawstory is a fine, reputable, progressive news site, your snarky dismissal of them is puzzling as well.
Construction on the $7.6 billion pipeline begins in 2010, slated to be completed by 2014, thanks to Karzai, our puppet in Afghanistan who just stole the election with 3 million fake votes (according to the UN) and his two warlord vice-presidents. That's the same Karzai who represented Unocal in the 90s.
It's appallingly naive to think we're in Afghanistan to promote democracy or fight terrorism, while we enable the subversion of Afghanistan's 'democracy' and fund neighboring dictators who torture their opposition to death.
A reputable source like rawstory.com? No possibility of bias there, eh?
I could go into lengthy discussion about why Bush incompetence should not be under-estimated. Do I feel any need to try to reason with military/industrial conspiracy theorists? Nope. It's sufficient for me to point out that there's more than one theory on the subject. I like mine better.
I wouldn't even want to get into a debate about why we're in Afghanistan as it would be a waste of time trying to change the mind of the self-convinced.
You have your theory, and I have mine. Naivety is in the eye of the beholder. 'Nuf said.