billvon 3,120 #1 December 30, 2002 I don't subscribe to the theory that the war in Afghanistan was all about gas and oil, but I would find it equally hard to believe that it was not one of the major reasons that it was waged. From www.paknews.com, a pakistani news agency: Agreement On US 3.2 Billion Gas Pipeline Project Signed Turkmenistan: Dec 28 (PNS) ‑ Pakistan, Afghanistan and Turkmenistan on Friday signed here a framework agreement for a US $ 3.2 billion gas pipeline project passing through the three countries. Another interesting tidbit about the 12,000 some odd unexploded cluster bombs we left in Afghanistan: US Cluster Bombs Continue Killing Afghan Civilians . . .From October 2001 to November 2002, at least 127 civilians as well as two deminers were killed or injured by cluster bomblets. Common post-strike victims in Afghanistan include shepherds grazing their flocks, farmers ploughing their fields, and children gathering wood. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #2 December 30, 2002 Quote(Note that the 127 does not include maimings and blindings as a result of the bomblets.) I wonder what the definition of "or injured" is then.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #3 December 30, 2002 Here's the article: QuoteASHGABAT, Turkmenistan: Dec 28 (PNS) ‑ Pakistan, Afghanistan and Turkmenistan on Friday signed here a framework agreement for a US $ 3.2 billion gas pipeline project passing through the three countries. The ceremony was held at the Presidential Palace with the three leaders, Prime Minister Mir Zafarullah Khan Jamali, President Saparmurat Niyazov of Turkmenistan and Afghan President Hamid Karzai signing the document. The framework agreement defines legal mechanism for setting up a consortium to build and operate the pipeline. According to a study by Asian Development Bank (ADB), the 1460 km pipeline would use gas reserves at Dauletabad fields in Turkmenistan, which has world's fifth largest reserves, while passing through Afghanistan into Pakistan. The three countries had earlier signed a trilateral agreement to develop a natural gas and oil pipeline from Turkmenistan through Afghanistan into Pakistan in May this year, during the first trilateral summit in Islamabad. The three countries are laying great importance on the project as it could provide much needed boost to their economies. The reference to "US" you're making is in regard to the value of the contract in American dollars. Funny...it doesn't mention UNOCAL...So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #4 December 30, 2002 >I wonder what the definition of "or injured" is then. You are correct; my mistake. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #5 December 30, 2002 >The reference to "US" you're making is in regard to the value of the >contract in American dollars. Funny...it doesn't mention UNOCAL... From an earlier BBC story here: US company preferred Mr Razim said US energy company Unocal was the "lead company" among those that would build the pipeline, which would bring 30bn cubic meters of Turkmen gas to market annually. Unocal - which led a consortium of companies from Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Turkmenistan, Japan and South Korea - has maintained the project is both economically and technically feasible once Afghan stability was secured. -------------- I suppose it's possible that another company took over (the Paknews thing doesn't say) but it would be odd. Unocal was originally going to build the pipeline through a holding company (Centgas) but they dropped out of that when the Taliban became difficult. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #6 December 30, 2002 Quote"Unocal is not involved in any projects (including pipelines) in Afghanistan, nor do we have any plans to become involved, nor are we discussing any such projects," a spokesman told BBC News Online. The US company formally withdrew from the consortium in 1998. Even if Unocal or another US based company is part of a consortium to build it, that doesn't mean they'll own it. Either way, I don't understand why any of these developments are a bad thing for anyone.So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhino 0 #7 December 30, 2002 I think we should have a remote on all the bombletts... When the war is done, trip the button and no more innocent deaths.... Rhino Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhreeZone 20 #8 December 30, 2002 Whats so bad about it is that stability was needed to build the pipeline. That stability was bought with US military dollars, then another corporation (that I'm willing to bet half the White House has stock in) gets awarded big bucks to build it. Basically that corp got the US military to do a lot of policeing for free.Yesterday is history And tomorrow is a mystery Parachutemanuals.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #9 December 30, 2002 >Either way, I don't understand why any of these developments are a bad thing for anyone. They're not. They should help out both the countries and the oil companies involved. Heck, the US reconstruction of Japan after WWII was great for their economy as well, but I can think of a few people who would have preferred no war at all. Of course, why one would want to help Turkmenistan is a good question. The dictator there is like a comic version of Saddam - as megalomanical, but much less competent and a little more vain. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #10 December 30, 2002 >I think we should have a remote on all the bombletts... When the >war is done, trip the button and no more innocent deaths.... Ah, but that costs money! Such money is much better used buying even more bombs . . . Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhino 0 #11 December 30, 2002 Simple... Congress can take a deduction in pay Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #12 December 30, 2002 Quote Whats so bad about it is that stability was needed to build the pipeline. That stability was bought with US military dollars, then another corporation (that I'm willing to bet half the White House has stock in) gets awarded big bucks to build it. Basically that corp got the US military to do a lot of policeing for free. Read the BBC article, then the Paknews item...there is no mention of a US company getting a windfall sale out of this... Of course, UBLs presence there, the taliban, the fact that the area has been a haven for terrorists, political and regional unrest for decades and that we have links to the 9/11 attacks....I guess that didn't weigh in at all. Now, lets explore a much more viable, and everyday scenario: American companies that participate in consortiums involving development in foreign countries where the only reason they can do business there is because of the DoS diplomatic corps doing its job, maintaining relations between the US and other countries. US taxpayer dollars bought that effort too...is that equally bad? edit: too many italics...So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
narcimund 0 #13 December 30, 2002 QuoteI think we should have a remote on all the bombletts... When the war is done, trip the button and no more innocent deaths.... Clever idea but the economics don't work out. A mass-produced remote activator would cost around $0.25 each and innocent human lives are only worth $0.03 each to the american military. First Class Citizen Twice Over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freeflir29 0 #14 December 30, 2002 Cluster bombs have their draw backs. They are also a VERY effective weapon. There will ALWAYS be duds.....especially in desert areas. It just happens. I do wonder if any of those 127 include the little boy and girl that approached my friends compound about 5 months ago. They walked up to a clearly marked mine field and started poking at the mines with a stick. Not the smartest thing they ever did. Cost the boy a lower leg and sprayed the girl with shrapnel. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rgoper 0 #15 December 30, 2002 it really doesn't matter which side of the story you believe, or what your personal view(s) are/were/will be in the future. i know for a fact, having seen this with my own two eyes, and having been in each region recently, that you CANNOT rely on the media for your "correct" information. the news i see abroad when i'm on my assignments, and the news here in the states "don't match" makes ya wanna go hmmmmmmm........(i've personally seen F-16's flying over my head (out of Quatar i presume) at mach 2 speeds "loaded" going to Iraq, and coming back "unloaded" recently, this was not broadcast on the news) the russians tried to conquer afghanistan for 10 years and couldn't do it, we go in, and viola, done deal. truth of that matter is we needed the territory to construct a pipe line to get oil out of that particular region. now with south america on strike, 1/5th of the world's oil consumption has to be drawn from elsewhere, i'm betting on ol' wyubya to tap into our reserves soon, to control prices, you heard it here first. "You take a mortal man, and put him in control. Watch him become a god, watch people's heads a roll" Dave Mustaine MegaDeth***--Richard-- "We Will Not Be Shaken By Thugs, And Terroist" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freeflir29 0 #16 December 30, 2002 Quote at mach 2 speeds "loaded" going to Iraq, and coming back "unloaded" recently, this was not broadcast on the news Sure it was....the news around here has been reporting regularly about all the bombs that have been dropped on Iraq. Including 30 differen't targets in one day recently. Circa 2000 none of it was getting reported. In fact I was a bit suprised when I got a classified briefing in 2000 that detailed the number of engagements over 1999-2000. We've been regularly bombing ADA/SAM emplacements over there almost since the "end" of the war. It just really hasn't been "news" until recently. Isn't it interesting to be in another country and see the difference in how the news gets reported. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rgoper 0 #17 December 30, 2002 QuoteSure it was this much is true, but for what ever the reason the reporting was behind for at least 3 days. my son is in the region as well, i don't understand the "lag" in reporting such details, it makes me wonder what else is going unreported, or being reported "at a later date" in either event, the news stories still do not match in the middle east, and europe or the states, too many "gaps" a lot going on we don't know about, trust me.--Richard-- "We Will Not Be Shaken By Thugs, And Terroist" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freeflir29 0 #18 December 30, 2002 Quotea lot going on we don't know about That's normally true........however....MOST of the time the "real story" can be pretty boring. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)