American over-consumption, and a discussion of attitudes to the environment

Sharkey

Originally posted by bonkey

The US buys oil from the ME. This needs to be transported to the US, which typically involves ships. This means that the oil the US needs must get to the coast, which involves pipelines.
New pipelines are proposed which would be most cost-effectively done by running them across Afghanistan.

Really? Even if it were, who would invest in a pipeline crossing such a politically unstable country? Even then the pipeline must be run through either (most likely) Pakistan or Iran, both countries having their own problems.

It is one thing to propose a pipeline -- it is another to make the deal work, which means INVESTORS

Hobbes

Way to go Sharkley, on top form as ever

Proving you don't actually have to read anything to argue your point.

American

Originally posted by bonkey

TWhen you go read up on it a bit (look for the links under Humanities, or just do a google search, its not hard) come back and discuss it. Your continued denial of its existence is futile -

I did a Google search, and I went to whitehouse.gov and I couldn't find reference to an Afghanistan oil pipeline.<p>
A link under "Humanities?" I don't know what that means.<p>
Another person suggested Indiareacts.com which doesn't sound like a good place to get anything but reactions to rumors.<p>
As long as you can't be more helpful, I appeal to the forum for a URL to a reliable news source that discusses American oil companies or the American government wanting to put an oil pipeline across Afghanistan.<p>
As to why I haven't bothered to leap to look at something in the Congressional record from 5 years ago, it is because I know what kind of unsubstantiated garbage gets into the record.
All sorts of things get into the Congressional record because all sorts of things are discussed, including a Congressman discussing how there are still sharks circling parts of the ocean today where the slave trade ships sailed 150 years ago waiting for more slaves to be thrown overboard. Some of the Congress members have screwy viewpoints, but doesn't make what they say worth anything.<p>
A URL from a reliable source, please, someone. <p>
Meanwhile, I'm coping with a family emergency and can't play tonight

bonkey

Originally posted by American
I did a Google search, and I went to whitehouse.gov and I couldn't find reference to an Afghanistan oil pipeline.

[/b]
I just did a google search on "Afghanistan oil pipeline" and the first number of hits I got have the following titles :

Is an Oil pipeline behind Afghanistan
Afghanistan Oil and Gas Pipeline
British Waking Up to Afghan Oil Pipeline in US war on ...
<skip about 3 entries>
Is Oil the real Target in Afganistan

So, forgive me if I find it hard to believe that you couldnt find anything reference to one.

A link under "Humanities?" I don't know what that means.<p>

The boards.ie bulletin system has a number of forums. You are currently in Politics, which was recently spun off from Humanities. Have a look at the menus at the top of the pafe, or go do a search on the forum for Afghanistan and Oil, or some other attempts.

As long as you can't be more helpful, I appeal to the forum for a URL to a reliable news source that discusses American oil companies or the American government wanting to put an oil pipeline across Afghanistan.

I think telling you how to find the information you're looking for is pretty helpful. What you are in effect saying is that you want us to do your searching for you.

As to why I haven't bothered to leap to look at something in the Congressional record from 5 years ago, it is because I know what kind of unsubstantiated garbage gets into the record.

So - again - if we cant trust congressional records, what forms a reliable news source? Or is it only reliable if it prints something which you are willing to agree with?

The basic fact is that there are literally hundreds or thousands of pages, easily findable, which put forward the concept of an oil pipeline through Afghanistan.

In terms of Sharkey's question/comment about investors and political instablilty...

the argument about oil being behind the current war is that the war will get rid of the political instability by putting a less volatile government in place. Of course, once that is done, the US / UN / whoever now have a vested interest in seeing this government succeed, and this gives them more ability to intervene in the region. In short, the war is about removing the political instability in order to make the pipeline a viable option.

As to the notion of investors....JJ Maresca of UNOCAL testified before congress in 1998 that it was interested in procuring oil from reserves north of Afghanistan (i.e. ex-Soviet territory), and that the best way for this to be brough to market was via a pipeline running through N. Afghanistan and on to Pakistan and the Gulf. However, he also stated that this pipeline would not be built until there was a single government in Afghanistan.

This is a pretty clear indication that UNOCAL thought about it, decided the best way to do it, and decided that it was not viable for them to realise these plans at the time...and discussed this with Congress.

Now, I have never said that oil was behind this. I dont know if it is or not. What I do know is that with a whole 5 minutes of research, I was able to find the facts presented here, using the methods I have suggested to people to use to find said facts. Given that numerous links have been posted on boards.ie before, and the methodology to go find the links I am using, I have absolutely no inclination of helping any further.

You can continue to deny it, and throw empty arguments like geography and investment at me, but all you are showing is that you havent read anything on the subject and that you basically dont want to believe it.

jc

Canaboid

Originally posted by American


George W. Bush bows only to his Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.

Here ya go God Boy:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/afghan.html

http://www.atimes.com/global-econ/CJ06Dj01.html

http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/intlrel/hfa48119.000/hfa48119_0.HTM

http://www.smh.com.au/news/0110/25/world/world9.html

Some for information, some for proof. Please read them before commenting further on the U.S' interests in Afghanistan.

"Jesus is not my saviour, he's my mexican houseboy. And it's pronounced hey-zeus"

Sharkey

Originally posted by bonkey

In terms of Sharkey's question/comment about investors and political instablilty...

the argument about oil being behind the current war is that the war will get rid of the political instability by putting a less volatile government in place. Of course, once that is done, the US / UN / whoever now have a vested interest in seeing this government succeed, and this gives them more ability to intervene in the region. In short, the war is about removing the political instability in order to make the pipeline a viable option.

The likelyhood of nationbuilding for the US or UN is abysmally bad -- about 50% success from what I hear. Afghanistan has been nothing but a pile of rubble and poverty run by various feuding warlords and wacky groups for over 20 years.

As to the notion of investors....JJ Maresca of UNOCAL testified before congress in 1998 ...

MARESCA simply provided a study on the benefits of exploiting those oil reserves. Yes, people thought abought this, but that is a drastically different issue than raising $$capital$$ for a pipeline across Afghanistan. Regardless -- it seems a far cry that Maresca's report would set the U.S. to invade Afghanistan on the off-chance that (1) we could install a friendly and stable regime; (2) such a regime someone might build a pipeline across the Country; (2) such a regime would get along with its neighbors sufficiently to cooperate on building the pipeline; and (4) international financing might be arranged.

A more likely reason behind the current war in Afghanistan would be some A-hole hijacked our planes, slit the throats of their crews and flew the planes into our buildings killing thousands of innocent people. Add on to that these same A-holes bombed our embassies, attacked one of our ships and made an earlier attempt to bring down the WTC and I'd say that there's clear motive that has little to do with oil.

Yet some people continually assert that "it's all about oil" despite the obvious answer.

Go figure.

American

Originally posted by JustHalf
Surely you are guilty of obstructing the course of justice, and not "equally guilty of the original attack"?

I'll have to check with a lawyer in the family, but we do take a severe view of aiding and abetting a murderer in any way.

There was a story about a country (in South America?) which wouldn't extradite an arsonist because we were going to charge him with murder as a death occurred due to the fire. They thought the death was unintentional and an accident. Our view was it didn't matter if his death was intended, a man was still dead due to a deliberate, intentional criminal act.

But I'll try to clear that up.

American

Originally posted by Aspro

That kind of language makes me think a military incursion into the Middle East was preconceived before 9/11. No! It couldn't be!

Actually, Clinton had been paying nuclear blackmail to Korea and the People's Republic of China had been having fun aiming warheads at our West Coast cities, so that is where we thought we would have our first ticklish situations.
Iraq had been given a pass by Clinton on his obligations under the ceasefire, and a reckoning would come due there, so that was the only place we felt we might need to fight in the ME.
Interestingly, my spouse and I thought back in 1992, before the first WTC bombing, that Hussein/bin Laden terrorists would seek out New York and probably WTC and would seek out a monument in Washington, D.C., and possibly Los Angeles, as a demonstration of their hatred for us. We were rather happy they didn't use nukes, and relieved, as that meant to us that thy probably didn't have any.


Awoken to the fact that their money is being wasted killing ordinary Third World muslims while they're losing their jobs at home.

No one, and I mean no one except some Socialist Workers Party types and the traditional total pacifists, thinks our money is being wasted getting al-Qaeda, bin Laden, al-Zawahiri, Taliban, and Mullah Omar.
And they blame their job losses on those guys, and the 9-11 attacks, and not on our beloved President Bush, still running 85% approval ratings here.
No one in the U.S. (except the rabid few who never face facts they don't like no matter what) considers Bush to be a fool, although some partisans wonder if he got a brain transplant.

The general consensus is that the Bushes throw mighty good wars. If you got have one, these are the people you want to handle the affair.

American

Originally posted by bonkey

Now, I have never said that oil was behind this. I dont lnow if it is or not. What I do know is that with a whole 5 minutes of research, I was able to find the facts presented here, using the methods I have suggested to people to use to find said facts.

I just did a google search on "Afghanistan oil pipeline" and the first number of hits I got have the following titles :
Is an Oil pipeline behind Afghanistan
Afghanistan Oil and Gas Pipeline

I tried something else like, oil pipeline, Afghanistan, a couple days ago and got something else. Anyway, thanks for the help, and here's what they say-- mostly that the idea is of interest only to regional governments in that area in order to bring gas and oil down from the Caspian for their use, and the Russians are interested as they like the idea of access to a warm water port and another way to get their oil to market, but Unocal is no longer interested.

The important point is that the U.S. did not go to war over this issue of how to get the oil from the Caspian Sea fields to a port. We solved the problem without resorting to war. American companies helped build a pipeline to the Black Sea which has been pumping on to oil barges since March of this year, and they are discussing buiding another one to also go from the Caspian Sea to a Turkish port, that is, again, East to West, not down South into Afghanistan.
So references that go back to 1998 or earlier are outdated.
Oil prices are low because the problem is already solved, and Russia is pumping over 7 million barrels now compared to around 5 before with the new pipeline and this little fact has broken OPEC's cartel power. Less demand from a sluggish economy has helped bring price down, too.

American

Originally posted by Canaboid


Here ya go God Boy:

For the record, I prefer Jesus Freak. And for the record, I prefer Yeshua for the pronunciation, not Hey-Zeus.

Back to the pipeline. Sounds like the interest in it is fairly dead since the U.S. solved the problem without resorting to war by helping Russia build it westward to the Black Sea. And they are now considering building one to Turkey.

It didn't cross my radar screen because it was an idea that never flew.

JustHalf

Originally posted by American
Actually, Clinton had been paying nuclear blackmail to Korea and the People's Republic of China had been having fun aiming warheads at our West Coast cities, so that is where we thought we would have our first ticklish situations.

Would you mind explaining the phrase "paying nuclear blackmail"?

Originally posted by American
No one, and I mean no one except some Socialist Workers Party types and the traditional total pacifists, thinks our money is being wasted getting al-Qaeda, bin Laden, al-Zawahiri, Taliban, and Mullah Omar.
And they blame their job losses on those guys, and the 9-11 attacks, and not on our beloved President Bush, still running 85% approval ratings here.

You'd be surprised. There a people who say that the US allowed a terrorist attack to be carried out to help them gain public support for a war against Afghanistan to install a pipeline -- but didn't know it was going to be so bad.

Some people deserve a slap.

Sharkey

Originally posted by JustHalf
You'd be surprised. There a people who say that the US allowed a terrorist attack to be carried out to help them gain public support for a war against Afghanistan to install a pipeline -- but didn't know it was going to be so bad.

Some people deserve a slap.

Indeed, some people are just plain ridiculous. I suppose we just let the Japanese bomb Pearl Harbour so we could corner the rice market in the Pacific.

Regardless -- I've not seen anyone but the most moronic or anti-American make such statements.

Sharkey

Originally posted by JustHalf
Would you mind explaining the phrase "paying nuclear blackmail"? .

American refers to the money that Clinton gave to N. Korea for the purpose of developing a domestic nuclear energy source in exchange for a promise by the N. Koreans not to develop their missiles.

WhiteWashMan

Originally posted by American
No one in the U.S. (except the rabid few who never face facts they don't like no matter what) considers Bush to be a fool, although some partisans wonder if he got a brain transplant.

yes but americans were always a little slow in the uptake.
maybe someday they too will see that , yes, bush is in fact a complete idiot.
by the way, your arguments arent very convincing.
do you actually believe any of the rubbish you spout, or did god tell you to say it?

Gargoyle

Originally posted by WhiteWashMan


yes but americans were always a little slow in the uptake.

Here we have the crux of the matter with many Europeans. You apparently believe that Americans are intellectually inferior, no?

bonkey

Originally posted by Gargoyle
Here we have the crux of the matter with many Europeans. You apparently believe that Americans are intellectually inferior, no?

No, that is not necessarily true. First of all, I dont know about other Europeans, so I will only speak about the Irish and my perception of them.

There is a general perception that Americans are less educated about the world outside their own borders. Often, there is often also a disturbing degree of naivite about the reality inside the US.

There is a general perception that Ireland has a better basic education system than the US. Few would doubt that quality of the top US universities, but that the general education system (say, to end of high-school) is not as good as in Ireland (to end of secondary).

Besides which - we've been "dumb paddy's" to the world for decades, and smile at it. If you take offence to us dumb paddy's making the same comments at Americans, then I would take it more as a sign of your lack of humour than your lack of intelligcence or education.

p.s. Interestingly, the only links I could find concerning IQs had Ireland at 99.2, based on an American standard of 100.

jc

JustHalf

Ah IQ tests. The test that simply sees how good you are at IQ tests.

American

Originally posted by bonkey

There is a general perception that Ireland has a better basic education system than the US. Few would doubt that quality of the top US universities, but that the general education system (say, to end of high-school) is not as good as in Ireland (to end of secondary).

We believe that is true, too, which is why we just passed and President Bush will sign in early January an Educational Reform Bill to start holding schools accountable for the job they are doing or not doing by requiring regular testing to see how the kids are doing in reading and math skills, for starters.

American

Originally posted by Sharkey

American refers to the money that Clinton gave to N. Korea for the purpose of developing a domestic nuclear energy source in exchange for a promise by the N. Koreans not to develop their missiles.

Not just that, but a pretty hefty chunk of money was being sent to North Korea via the laundromat. And we're not so sure it's to keep them from developing a missile delivery system, but to keep them from targeting us with the one the Chinese gave them that the Chinese got from Bill Clinton.

American

Originally posted by WhiteWashMan

your arguments arent very convincing.
do you actually believe any of the rubbish you spout, or did god tell you to say it?

Which particular piece of rubbish are you referring to?

I believe it all. Occasionally I am mistaken and accept correction. Most of it comes from sources other than the Almighty.

Et tu?

American

Getting back to the subject of oil and Islam and American oil companies and war, I ran across this interesting article that you might find a nice heads up on fun to come.
************************
THE WASHINGTON REPORT ON MIDDLE EAST AFFAIRS
Published: 12/20/2001 Author: Jon Gorvett


It sounds like a riddle, but the question could have a far from funny answer. "When is a sea not a sea?" is the conundrum that has been occupying the minds of diplomats and generals from countries around the Caspian ever since the Soviet Union collapsed. Finally, in August, the repercussions of the various littoral states’ views on the answer threatened to go critical. Inthe middle of all this was Turkey, and its age-old rivalry with neighboring Iran.

The substance of the dispute, naturally enough, is very non-semantic. In Soviet days, the Caspian Sea was divided territorially along a national boundary between the Soviet Union and Iran. However, with the independence of Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan and Kazakhstan—all with Caspian coastlines—carving up the waters and what lies beneath them has turned into a so-far insoluble problem. If the Caspian is a sea, the Law of the Sea Convention would apply, establishing full maritime boundaries for the five littoral states bordering the Caspian according to an equidistant division of the sea—and its undersea resources—into national sectors.

If the Caspian is a lake, however, the rules change and the Caspian and its resources would have to be developed jointly—a division referred to as the "condominium approach."

What gives this legalistic-sounding dispute its edge of course, is that the undersea—or "underlake"—resources could involve up to 250 billion barrels of oil and equally colossal amounts of natural gas. How much sea floor each state gets, therefore, is extremely significant, as is what kind of sea floor, with the areas that look to be holding the most energy reserves naturally being the most contested.

The five littoral states all have been trying to develop these resources in association with both foreign and domestic oil and gas companies. In addition, many out-of-area national governments — including the U.S. and Turkey—have seen it as in their interests to develop these resources in specific ways with specific nations. Central to Washington and Ankara is the Baku-Tiblisi-Ceyhan oil pipeline. This is projected to bring Azeri Caspian oil ashore at the Azeri capital of Baku, ship it northwest (going around Armenia) to the Georgian capital of Tiblisi, then bring it all the way south again to Turkey’s
Mediterranean port of Ceyhan. This, U.S. and Turkish strategists hope, will serve to cement the three transit countries together, decrease Turkey’s current dependence on Russia for energy supplies, and do all this while keeping the Iranians—or the Russians—from dominating the region.

In order to satisfy political criteria, the economics largely have been forgotten.

The problem is that, in order to satisfy all these political criteria, the economics largely have been forgotten. The result is a projected pipeline that would most likely be prohibitively expensive, unless oil prices rocketed and stayed there, or unless the transit countries—or possibly the U.S.— stumped up a subsidy. With Georgia and Azerbaijan both economic black holes and Turkey in the midst of a financial crisis, it seems unlikely that the money will be generated locally.

In addition, the route has been in difficulties because the Azerbaijan International Operating Company (AIOC)—the consortium of oil corporations contracted to develop Azeri Caspian energy resources—is split on the issue. Led by BP-Amoco-ARCO, it also contains Russia’s Lukoil and Exxon-Mobil, both of which have extensive interests in rival pipelines. In addition, a recent huge oil discovery (25 billion to 40 billion barrels) at Kazakhstan’s Kashagan field, which is being developed by the French Total-Fina-Elf, and the successful completion of the Caspian Pipeline Consortium (CPC) route from the Kazakh Tengiz field to the Russian Black Sea port of Novorossisk have upstaged Baku-Tiblisi-Ceyhan dramatically.

Christophe de Margerie, head of Total-Fina-Elf’s upstream operations, also suggested recently that the Kashagan oil likely would go to Western markets via Iran. When asked about U.S. sanctions on Tehran, he replied, "Total was back in Iran in 1995 and did not fear punishment from Washington. We don’t intend to be provocative, but we will continue to rely on European and international laws."

Iranian Maneuvers

With this background of international competition, then—and the apparent flagging of Turkish and U.S. hopes—this summer saw the first clear skirmish on the issue of physical control of Caspian resources.

On July 23, two Iranian air force planes overflew BP-Amoco-ARCO ships that were exploring the Caspian’s Araz-Alov-Sharg area, which is claimed by Azerbaijan. Iran maintains that this region — known to Tehran as the Alborz field—belongs within its sector. Later that evening, an Iranian warship entered what Baku considers Azeri territorial waters and threatened to fire on an Azeri oil exploration ship unless it departed the region. Iranian aircraft then reportedly violated Azeri airspace on three occasions.

These actions led Baku to summon the Iranian ambassador the following day and lodge a formal protest with Tehran. Iran’s Expediency Council secretary and former Revolutionary Guard chief, Mohsen Rezai, then "recalled" that "Azerbaijan
belonged to Iran 150 years ago."

Rezai’s remark set off a chorus of alarm bells in Ankara. Turkey has long been a close ally of Azerbaijan, with which it shares strong ethnic ties. And, with the Baku-Tiblisi-Ceyhan pipeline to consider, it has been closer than ever in recent years. Add in Turkey’s long-standing rivalry with Iran for regional influence, and it was not surprising that Ankara responded rapidly to Rezai’s implied threat. On Aug. 26 the chief of the politically powerful Turkish General Staff, Huseyin Kivrikoglu, arrived in Baku on an official visit, accompanied by 10 Turkish F-16 fighter jets, an action the Azeri newspaper Zerkalo suggested was
"a warning" to Azerbaijan’s enemies.

It was certainly interpreted as such by Tehran, which demanded an official explanation from Turkey. Ankara responded that the visit was merely to celebrate the anniversary of Azerbaijan’s independence, though this new-found sovereignty seemed to be rather questionable when, upon Kivrikoglu’s arrival, Azeri President Haidar Aliyev announced that Turkey and Azerbaijan were “two countries, one nation.”

The incident quickly demonstrated how sensitive the Caspian is. The other big local player, of course, is Russia, which recently announced it no longer was keeping to the Soviet Union-era division of the sea between itself and Iran, calling forth a charge of "duplicity" from Tehran radio in July. Iran also points to the fact that, while elsewhere the once mighty Russian military has been contracting—if not falling apart—

Moscow’s Caspian Sea Naval Flotilla has been expanding. This is certainly a worrisome point, as the sea in general is becoming rapidly more militarized. Turkmenistan recently also has swapped some of its gas rights for Russian patrol boats.

A summit of littoral states called for October in the Turkmen capital of Ashgabad was subsequently canceled, the issue of the Caspian’s status being the main subject for discussion.

Even though Turkey has no Caspian seashore, Ankara’s role in this dispute may prove to be a crucial one. It has long been the expressed aim of many in Ankara for the country to extend its influence eastward to the "Turkic states" of Central Asia, with an implied right to lead the millions of ethnic Turks who live in that vast geographical area. While Turkey may be assuming far too much, clearly the Azeris found it of considerable benefit to be able to call on their Turkic big brother. With the issue still far from being resolved, however, and all sides demonstrating their ability to rattle sabers, the Caspian looks set to remain a sea—or lake—of troubles for some time to come.

Jon Gorvett is a free-lance journalist based in Istanbul.