War Without End

*Mutt American · Posted: Mon Dec 30, 2002 6:54 pm Post subject:

The US isn't giving this money. This is Afghan income generated on the open market by Afghan resources.

You don't just complain when the US owns or controls something. You like to complain when the US - or in this case the rest of the world - buys something.

It seems you don't want the Afghan economy to prosper. Are you afraid that they will prosper and not be able to serve as examples of US aggression?

Guest

Afghanistan - vs. - Iran : The Pipeline Built on Destroying Peace
by Erik Myers, Corning, New York 12/28/02

It was announced Friday that a deal has been reached by the leaders of Afghanistan, Turkmenistan, and Pakistan for the construction of a $3.2 billion natural gas pipeline. The plan, which will provide Pakistan with a cheap source of natural gas from Turkmenistan via a proposed pipeline through Afghanistan, is not the first of its kind.
The Union Oil Company of California ( UNOCAL ) spent most the latter half of the past decade trying to hammer out the details of a similar proposal, but due to the Afghanistan conflict, no agreement was ever reached. In a statement to the press in 1998, Unocal formally withdrew as the leader of the U.S. consortium which had been pursuing the deal, yet details have emerged over the past year which show that the UNOCAL Corporation, with the aid and cooperation of the Bush Administration, continued negotiations with the Taliban regime as late as August of 2001. One of the central figures representing Unocal in these negotiations was Harmid Karzai, now the interim president of Afghanistan appointed by President Bush, and also a key proponent of the present Afghan pipeline deal.
In a striking similarity to the Unocal project, advocates of the Trans-Afghanistan Pipeline hope to eventually suffuse the shortfall in India's growing demand for natural gas consumption, an estimated shortage of 29 million cubic meters per day.
Until earlier this year, members of the Bush Administration had a particular interest in meeting this demand as the infusion of a cheap supply of natural gas into India could have salvaged a failing electric generating plant which had been heavily backed by ENRON ( to the tune of $3 billion ), thereby temporarily averting the corporation's financial collapse.
India however, was skeptical of the Unocal deal, and continues to remain leery of the current pipeline agreement for security reasons arising from the Afghanistan Conflicts. ( First the civil war, then the U.S. invasion, and now the inability of the new Afghan government to quell dissenting factions on their own.) Adding to India's present reservations with respect to entering into any commitment(s) is Pakistan's recent withdrawal ( then entering into the Afghan Framework ) from yet another proposed pipeline: The Iran-India Pipeline.
The Iran-India Pipeline project has been a deal in the making far longer than either of the two previously mentioned proposals. Originally the pipeline was intended to carry natural gas from the Iranian coast to Multan, Pakistan, and finally on to Delhi, India. This proposal included provisions for Pakistan to be able to both extract natural gas from the pipeline at a savings of $200 million annually, and to infuse it with exported gas of its own, while collecting an estimated $500 million per year in transit fees. ( The Trans-Afghanistan Pipeline on the other hand, will only afford them with $300 million annually in royalties.) more important for the region however, was a possibility for this pipeline to be linked to yet another trans-Indian pipeline to meet increasing demands in other South-Asian countries. Iran and Pakistan signed a preliminary agreement in 1995, and Iran signed a preliminary " in-principle" agreement with India in February of 1999. Peace and prosperity seemed to be more than a likelihood, they seemed inevitable, despite the fundamental ideals behind the contentions among their common radical elements that these countries have yet to reconcile.
These preliminary agreements bore incredible significance in South-Asian politics. The possibility for fostering a sense of regionalism among the people of Pakistan, Iran, and India was unprecedented, but more importantly, it was the commonly held view of the leaders of these three nations that a sense of regionalism was in itself, a necessity. Of course this could be attributed to the increasing momentum of globalization in the region, but it implicated the possibility of such an agreement as serving as an example to be followed by other South-Asian and Mid-East states alike. This sense of regionalism was hoped to be realized through efforts at reaching an understanding through Irani - Pakistan relations, India - Pakistan relations, and Iran - India relations - all aimed at achieving a common agenda, which in essence, might have produced a resolution to the Afghan Civil War and thereof, produced a sense of regional stability for all.
But all of this progress was eventually negated. The military coup of Pervez Musharraf in October of 1999 caused the deal to stall amid Indian fears that a radical Pakistani regime could become a serious threat to the pipeline's service. This was followed by an increase in support for radical elements operating out of Afghanistan by the Taliban regime in response to increasing pressure from the American government to sign what would have been in the long run, a less-lucrative deal in exchange for American support of their oppressive regime. Finally, in light of the U.S. led invasion of Afghanistan which injected a lasting presence of U.S. military into the immediate region, the situation simply became too volatile for India's liking. Pakistan has since seized upon the potential opportunities offered by the U.S. - conceived pipeline, in a gamble to resuscitate their own poor, textile-based economy.
What is remarkable about this turn of events is that prior to the Trans-Afghanistan proposal, the single largest stumbling block in the Iran-India project centered around Pakistan's support of the Taliban regime, while it was Iran, who supported the Northern Alliance opposition group.
Today the Iran-India Project has a much different face. The current proposal is aimed at the construction of a Russian-built deep-water pipeline which circumvents Pakistan's territorial waters. Just as Iran was intentionally left out of the Trans-Afghanistan arrangement by the present U.S.corporate-led, U.S. government-subsidized consortium, so too have Iran and India abandoned any hopes for a regional unity with Pakistan.
The Russians are attempting to take advantage of the opportunity that has been afforded them by recent U.S. involvement in regional affairs, since the dissolution of the Soviet Union - viewed by some as detrimental to the recent independence of many countries in the region. It was reported in July 2002 that Russian state-owned oil company Gazprom is likely to form a cooperative effort with the state-owned Gas Authority of India, thereby establishing an economic viablity for the Iran-India Pipeline which the Trans-Afghanistan deal lacks.
One thing is certain, Iran is going to move forward with its intentions of constructing a pipeline, regardless of whatever else it may or may not achieve. In addition to a vast reserve of crude oil, Iran also has the second largest known reserves of natural gas in the world. The ability to export these resources to a reliable consumer ( such as India ) holds a far too lucrative potential to be ignored.
An historic effort behind a project which once held promise for economic and political stability in the region has fallen victim to the tide of globalism, and corporate, rather than cooperative agenda.

Guest

In Iraqi War Scenario, Oil Is Key Issue

http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2002/09/15/in-iraqi-war-scenario-oil-is-key-issue.php

Guest · Posted: Thu Jan 02, 2003 11:33 am Post subject: U.S. wants cheaper oil

Subj: RE: U.S. wants cheaper oil
Date: 1/1/03 8:20:17 AM Pacific Standard Time

It is time to dispel this myth. The U.S. is not interested in gaining control over oil and natural gas resources for purposes of U.S. domestic consumption. Look to the African continent. Look to the Indian sub-continent, and to south-Asian and east-Asian regions of the world. These are areas which have been typically comprised of third-world nations, but that is changing now. Many of these countries are developing, industrializing, and this is creating a new wave of consumerism - new markets - a new demand for these fuels. The United States is intent on cornering these markets, because after all, he who control the resources flowing into these regions, will in effect, control the regions themselves. This is why, for the past ten years, we have seen the proliferation of U.S.-led consortiums throughout the middle east and nations which were once a part of the Soviet Bloc - because these are the countries who will meet these new demands for gas and oil. Look at Afghanistan, for example. The U.S. government gave financial aid and diplomatic assistance to U.S. corporations trying to establish footholds in this country for years - all at U.S. taxpayer expense. They did this not because they wished to end the civil war there, not because they wished to end opium cultivation there, but because Afghanistan ( like Iran ) is strategically situated in the region, in terms of exporting gas and oil from former Soviet states such as Turkmenistan and Kazakhstan who control the vast reserves of natural gas and oil in the Caspian region. This is why the current situation in Afghanistan is such that the bombs haven't stopped falling yet, but there is already a deal for a Trans-Afghanistan pipeline on the table and signed. Mark my words, a U.S. invasion of Iran is coming in the next decade. Once the U.S. assumes control in Iraq, Iran will be isolated on all sides - encompassed by U.S. military-controlled nations, and their allies. This is no coincidence, my friend. Iran is a crucial piece to the plan to monopolize the gas and oil industries of the Asian continent. Not only does Iran control enormous reserves of oil and natural gas, but they are ideally situated for the exporting of these resources to the Far East and elsewhere. In addition, the presence of the U.S. military in both Iraq and Iran solves the long-standing issue of security in the region, which has been a major stumbling block in export consumer-related deals for decades.

Guest · Posted: Thu Jan 02, 2003 1:26 pm Post subject:

Guest-400c

JINSA Behind Drive To Cover-Up Israel Spy Scandal:

JINSA (Jewish Institute of National Security Affairs) is the same cabal of Israel Firsters (of whom chicken hawks Dick Cheney, Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz are associated) which has hijacked the Bush regime and is driving us to the coming war on Islam (beginning with the invasion of Iraq) for Israel and oil (as the JINSA Israel First agenda is going to increase the risk of US experiencing further terror attacks in the UK and USA as well as in Europe):

JINSA Behind Drive To
Cover-Up Israeli Spy Scandal

http://www.rense.com/general18/JINSA.htm

JINSA Behind Drive To
Cover-Up Israeli Spy Scandal
Executive Intelligence Review News Service
1-6-2

(EIRNS) - One of the "Mega" agencies that mobilized to quash the Fox TV pick-up of our Israeli spy scandal was JINSA, the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs. JINSA President and CEO David Steinmann is also a director of CAMERA (Committee for Accurate Middle East Reporting in America), the group that actually staged the e-mail, fax, letter, and phone call mobilization that squeezed Fox TV, to the point that they removed the transcripts of the four Carl Cameron segments from their own web site. While CAMERA lists Tom Lantos among its advisors, along with Sharon cabinet minister Natan Sharansky, it is JINSA that is the real hotbed of "Mega" and "X Committee" clout, particular inside the Pentagon. On its own website, JINSA boasts that "Only one think tank puts the U.S.-Israel strategic relationship {first} -- JINSA!" JINSA lists among its directors: Richard Perle, Steven Bryen (whose wife, Shoshana Bryen is still one of the few full-time JINSA employees), Max Kampelman, Jeanne Kirkpatrick, Jack Kemp, Michael Ledeen, Joshua Muravchik, Kenneth Timmermann, and James Woolsey. Beyond these hardcore "X Committee" operatives, JINSA's board also includes a dozen or more retired flag grade U.S. military officers, including Lt. Gen. Anthony Burshnick (USAF), Gen. Crosbie Saint (USA), Maj. Gen. Lee Downer (USAF), Adm. Leon Edney (USN), Gen. John Foss (USA), Adm. David Jeremiah (USN), Adm. Jerome Johnson (USN), Maj. Gen. Jarvis Lynch (USMC), Rear Adm. Sumner Shapiro (USN). JINSA makes no bones about the fact that it is recruiting an Israeli fifth column inside the U.S. military command. They sponsor frequent all-expense-paid junkets to Israel for retired officers, which are co-sponsored by the Israeli Defense Force; they run an exchange program for military academy cadets at West Point, Annapolis and the Air Force Academy with military institutes in Israel; and they host lecture programs at all the military institutions in the U.S. where they bring in top IDF and Israeli intelligence officials. One of the top figures on the JINSA lecture circuit is Dore Gold, who is a top aide to Sharon and is about to come to Washington as the Israeli ambassador. JINSA's output of policy papers and press releases also makes clear that they are leading proponents of the "Clash of Civilizations," and the drive to lure the U.S. into a suicidal military alliance with an Israeli marcher lord state. Typical of JINSA's operations of late are their sponsorship of a series of lectures by Iraqi National Congress honcho Chulabi, and their Sept. 13 press statement, calling for the U.S. to "go beyond bin Laden" to launch military attacks against Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, Syria, Sudan, the Palestinian Authority, Libya, Algeria, "and even our presumed friends Saudi Arabia and Egypt." The release demanded that the U.S. bomb Beirut and Damascus, cut military aid to Egypt, and revoke the Presidential ban on assassinations.

War Without End

The global war against terror, news about the illegal invasion of Iraq, the corporate puppet presidents, the war criminal Tony Blair, September 11th 2001, the USS Liberty and New World Order crimes against humanity.

Mega Afghan pipeline deal signed - page 2