Obama 'would strike' in Pakistan:

[Praxius]

BBC NEWS | Americas | Obama 'would strike' in Pakistan

US presidential candidate Barack Obama has said he would order military action against al-Qaeda in Pakistan without the consent of Pakistan's government. Mr Obama made the comments in a speech outlining his foreign policy positions. Pakistan's foreign ministry said any threat to act against al-Qaeda from within its territory should not be used for political point scoring. Earlier this month, Mr Obama's chief rival, Hillary Clinton, described him as "naive" on foreign policy. The attack from Mrs Clinton came after a televised debate between Democrat presidential hopefuls. During the debate Mr Obama said he would be willing to meet leaders of states such as Cuba, North Korea and Iran without conditions. 'Terrible mistake' Mr Obama said Pakistani President Gen Pervez Musharraf must do more to end terrorist operations in his country. If not, Pakistan would risk a US troop invasion and losing hundreds of millions of dollars in US aid, Mr Obama said. "It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al-Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005," he said, referring to reports that the US had decided not to launch a strike for fear of harming ties with Pakistan. "If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will," Mr Obama said.

You know, I really love this moronic cocky attitude people have around the world....... Do what we want or we'll cut your money and invade your country..... Great.... another Friggin Bush! Another Team America World Police situation where you think you can just waltz over someone's borders and pick around and do what you please because someone's not doing exactly as you want.......

This Obama clearly doesn't have a brain of his own.... since he's following the same logic as a current president... instead of leading to a new future, this already sounds like he's following the trend of what everybody already is sick of.

I imagine the US would hate another country landing on their shores and meddling around in your country with their own troops..... "Oh but that would never happen because we got so many troops, blah blah blah...." Well regardless if it would or not, I'm sure you guys would be a tad bit pissed about it.... so where the hell do you guys get off doing the same thing to other countries?

"Because we can" ~ I imagine would be the most common ignorant response, since I've already seen it in the past..... frig every day that goes by, I start to see why many around the world want the destruction of the US.... it's not just the threat of you guys invading and spreading your tryrany, it's just the continual pompus, ignorant, isolated attitude most have about the world around you.... and the leaders you guys have to pick are sure as hell not showing much promise.... just another 4-8 years of more BS, murders, killings, raping, tourturing, and air striking of civilians all for National Security for the Motherland and to pump more money into the War Machine...... After all.... Wars are good for the economy they say.... I guess money exceeds human dignity.

If there is a person of interest in a country you want.... you let them deal with it and let them determine if they want to send them your way..... Hence the reason why we have countries and borders...... this friggin attitude that the entire world is your play thing is becoming beyond annoying.

This whole "Do as we say or we'll Invade" attitude is what's causing all the crap in the world today..... esspecially towards your own so-called allies..... If you plan on attacking your own allies, then who the hell is safe? Who the hell want's to be on your side??

[Rainbow]

US presidential candidate Barack Obama has said he would order military action against al-Qaeda in Pakistan without the consent of Pakistan's government.

Pakistan has not granted a permission, for any U.S. military action(s) that may take place on Pakistani soil.
No idea what Obama is talking about, in order to accomplish that task.

[Yarn]

I don't see whats wrong with attacking terrorists and others in Pakistan, whom threaten Canadian and US lives in Afghanistan, and at home.

Iraq was a bad idea for the US, but Afghanistan is highly accredited with having thrown Al Qaeda and the Taliban into disarray.

Why should it be stated therefore that the Taliban and Al Qaeda cannot be thrown into disarray again, by attacking them in Pakistan's northwest territories, their new headquarters.

Quote by: Rainbow Pakistan has not granted a permission, for any U.S. military action(s) that may take place on Pakistani soil.

We have justified pre-text. People are attacking us from Pakistan, and Pakistan given time and money, has not done a sufficient amount about it.

We should take into account what the Pakistani governmental response to us going in without permission would be. We should think beforehand, what effect it will have on the climate of the overall region that will be effected by the attacking.

We should exert whatever means we could rightfully use to pressure the government into giving us permission, but Pakistan under sensible leadership will not go to war with us, over us taking action against our enemy.

[Praxius]

The issue is the Pakistan Military is fighting them right now, when they can due to respect for tribal areas..... if they attack in the Tribal areas, things could get even worse... not just from the Taliban, but also the tribals will most likly turn as well..... then you would have Iraq all over again..... only this time with an ally country.

It's not just about going after them, it's about going after them without making things worse then it already is.... Pakistan should know best what to do in their own country....

Allowing a forign country to come in and just disrespect tribal land, air strike them all and the sort.... Will just cause more problems then we already have.

You can't just run and gun everytime you know where the enemy is, you gotta know the whole situation that surrounds them.

[Yarn]

The issue here I guess might be, that in Afghanistan, we had the assistance of the fact that we left a small impact on the ground, the previous government had been horrendous, and the people were relatively united.

Thats not all true in the tribal areas, which would make them less conductive to likewise success.

That having been said, how do we deal with the issue.

A completely respectful approach has proved utterly ineffective, as conditions on the ground have gotten worse and worse.

Other strategies should be explored, at least in thought.

Would a US attack lead to considerable blow back in the region? Certainly.

We should then perhaps use all pressure within our grasp, to push the Pakistani government, to take a harsher approach, which priotizes success more than the present approach does.

Of course then it ought to be considered that, we want to keep a government in place in Pakistan that is reasonably agreeable, and that might undermine that goal.

The blasted fact of the matter, is that this matter contains much uncertainty.

What do you think we should do?

[thx1138]

What do you think we should do?

Stop this nonsense.
The only reason Afghanistan was attacked was to secure the gas pipeline running through the country. The Taliban wanted too big of a cut in the profits so they were taken out of power.

The Trans-Afghanistan Pipeline (TAP or TAPI) is a proposed natural gas pipeline being developed by the Asian Development Bank. The pipeline will transport Caspian Sea natural gas from Turkmenistan through Afghanistan into Pakistan and then to India.

But the pipeline is now delayed because the area can not be secured...

Since the United States military overthrew the Taliban government the project has essentially stalled; construction of the Turkmen part was supposed to start in 2006, but the overall feasibility is questionable since the southern part of the Afghan section runs through territory which continues to be under de facto Taliban control.

That is why the U.S., The EU, and Canada are fighting in Afghanistan, this bull about stopping terrorists is just the cover story used to justify it.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: Yarn Iraq was a bad idea for the US, but Afghanistan is highly accredited with having thrown Al Qaeda and the Taliban into disarray.

And then completely and utterly failing to complete the job by, a) taking our eye off the ball and invading Iraq, b) diverting much needed resources from the rebuilding of Afghanistan and mopping up the Taliban, c) yet another failure by Rumsnamara when he failed to capture bin Laden at Tora Bora after replacing George Tenet's plan with his own.

Quote by: Yarn I don't see whats wrong with attacking terrorists and others in Pakistan, whom threaten Canadian and US lives in Afghanistan, and at home.

And how would you feel if, say, Mexico, without our permission, sent troops into Texas, shooting up communities in their pursuit of... oh... drug cartel members? And their American accomplices. And they decide exactly who's an American accomplice.

After all, they're evil, murderous drug dealers, right? Why would we possibly complain about their removing such threats in our own midst? And if a few innocent American civilians die in the crossfire, gosh, isn't that the price of getting rid of evil?

Quote by: Yarn Other strategies should be explored, at least in thought.

Exactly so, and the first different strategy that needs to be tried is to conclude that military solutions against civilian criminal gangs aren't working. Think outside the box of the myth of "unbeatable American military might", and focus on what works... internationally cooperative intelligence and POLICE work.

In case you hadn't noticed, that's where we and our allies have experienced the most success during the last 6 years.

Quote by: thx1138 Stop this nonsense. The only reason Afghanistan was attacked was to secure the gas pipeline running through the country. The Taliban wanted too big of a cut in the profits so they were taken out of power.

No it wasn't... that's conspiracy claptrap. At most it was simply another nail in the Taliban's coffin.

Quote by: thx1138 But the pipeline is now delayed because the area can not be secured...

Ahhh, if I had a nickle for every irony of the Bush League's criminal incompetence, I could retire in comfort.

Quote by: thx1138 That is why the U.S., The EU, and Canada are fighting in Afghanistan, this bull about stopping terrorists is just the cover story used to justify it.

And I suppose you agree with some here that Bush and the CIA carried out 9/11 just so we would have an excuse to attack Afghanistan and Iraq?

.

[The Decider]

Quote by: Yarn Would a US attack lead to considerable blow back in the region? Certainly.

Yes, considerable blowback indeed, especially since Pakistan owns several nuclear devices and rockets capable of delivering them. Its current president is more unpopular than George Bush. An armed attack that may topple the leadership of a nuclear power is a unique kind of blowback threat---one that requires caution and analysis. Political bluster from a candidate behind in the polls does little to inspire confidence. Obama made a big mistake by making Hillary look even more level-headed. He needs new advisors.

Quote by: Yarn What do you think we should do?

Walk softly and carry a big stick. In other words, don't issue threats and act like Rambo on 'roids. If action is needed and warranted, then act. Otherwise STFU.

[christibe]

Seriously Decider


God, I cannot believe Barack sold out to them so quickly... He must have thrown up after saying all of this...What can you say though, he's a youngin' to politics.... GAHHH! he was one of the only good ones left.

.....crap.

IDEA!
Or no, wait... ok. Politics is smoke and mirrors, right? Barack doesn't like the war in Iraq, and would rather not spend a dime on the military industrial complex, and the like. He of course doesn't want a terrorist attack. The rest of these twits are talking about whatever, invading Iran? invading North Korea? invading whoever, right, it's all the 'middle east' yeah? So maybe he's making stuff up to take the talk away from invading countries that Bush would actually invade, if he could get Congress to allow it. It's like, ok, we know that Norway is harboring terrorists... so if PM Stoltenberg doesn't shape up and stop the Viking explorers, then by my Under God, we will!

Ahh... Barack... ahhh... my hopes going down the drain....

[thx1138]

Quote by: Sonart . And then completely and utterly failing to complete the job by, a) taking our eye off the ball and invading Iraq, b) diverting much needed resources from the rebuilding of Afghanistan and mopping up the Taliban, c) yet another failure by Rumsnamara when he failed to capture bin Laden at Tora Bora after replacing George Tenet's plan with his own. And how would you feel if, say, Mexico, without our permission, sent troops into Texas, shooting up communities in their pursuit of... oh... drug cartel members? And their American accomplices. And they decide exactly who's an American accomplice. After all, they're evil, murderous drug dealers, right? Why would we possibly complain about their removing such threats in our own midst? And if a few innocent American civilians die in the crossfire, gosh, isn't that the price of getting rid of evil? Exactly so, and the first different strategy that needs to be tried is to conclude that military solutions against civilian criminal gangs aren't working. Think outside the box of the myth of "unbeatable American military might", and focus on what works... internationally cooperative intelligence and POLICE work. In case you hadn't noticed, that's where we and our allies have experienced the most success during the last 6 years. No it wasn't... that's conspiracy claptrap. At most it was simply another nail in the Taliban's coffin. Ahhh, if I had a nickle for every irony of the Bush League's criminal incompetence, I could retire in comfort. And I suppose you agree with some here that Bush and the CIA carried out 9/11 just so we would have an excuse to attack Afghanistan and Iraq? .

Why was the Taliban in the U.S. before 2001 meeting with Washington?

[Yarn]

Quote by: thx1138 Stop this nonsense.

And give Afghanistan back to genociding oppressors (the Taliban), and the perpetrators of 9/11 (Al Qaeda)?

Quote by: thx1138 The only reason Afghanistan was attacked was to secure the gas pipeline running through the country.

How can you possibly claim to know that?

We would have gone into Afghanistan under most any administration. It made sense, much more sense than Iraq did, and makes sense in hindsight.

Quote by: Sonart . And then completely and utterly failing to complete the job by, a) taking our eye off the ball and invading Iraq, b) diverting much needed resources from the rebuilding of Afghanistan and mopping up the Taliban, c) yet another failure by Rumsnamara when he failed to capture bin Laden at Tora Bora after replacing George Tenet's plan with his own.

"I understand that President Musharraf (of Pakistan) has his own challenges. But let me make this clear. There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al-Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will."-Barack Obama

Quote by: Sonart And how would you feel if, say, Mexico, without our permission, sent troops into Texas, shooting up communities in their pursuit of... oh... drug cartel members? And their American accomplices. And they decide exactly who's an American accomplice. After all, they're evil, murderous drug dealers, right? Why would we possibly complain about their removing such threats in our own midst? And if a few innocent American civilians die in the crossfire, gosh, isn't that the price of getting rid of evil?

If we hadn't done anything effective about the drug dealers, and they were responsible for killing thousands in the region and abroad, and were plotting to and capable of killing more, and our people were actively sheltering them, then sure, I wouldn't mind Mexico coming in to root them out, even if some innocent civillians got killed in the process. I am a supporter of shooting one man to save 10.

Quote by: Sonart . Exactly so, and the first different strategy that needs to be tried is to conclude that military solutions against civilian criminal gangs aren't working. Think outside the box of the myth of "unbeatable American military might", and focus on what works... internationally cooperative intelligence and POLICE work. In case you hadn't noticed, that's where we and our allies have experienced the most success during the last 6 years.

What domestic strategy would be successful in destroying Al Qaeda and the Taliban. I don't see how we can aid them to death, though more aid should be given to Afghanistan.

Quote by: The Decider Yes, considerable blowback indeed, especially since Pakistan owns several nuclear devices and rockets capable of delivering them. Its current president is more unpopular than George Bush. An armed attack that may topple the leadership of a nuclear power is a unique kind of blowback threat---one that requires caution and analysis. Political bluster from a candidate behind in the polls does little to inspire confidence. Obama made a big mistake by making Hillary look even more level-headed. He needs new advisors.

"I understand that President Musharraf (of Pakistan) has his own challenges. But let me make this clear. There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al-Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will."-Barack Obama

Status quo has been proven to be ineffective. I am sure that Musharraf will realize that it makes more sense for his army to conduct the attacks, than it does for ours to, for him politically.

As long as they do the job, we don't have to, so our threats may be effective here.

Quote by: The Decider Walk softly and carry a big stick. In other words, don't issue threats and act like Rambo on 'roids. If action is needed and warranted, then act. Otherwise STFU.

Which is indeed Hillary's new stated stance. However, unlike her's Barack's strategy carries a reduced probability that the US will have to do anything. It may not be good PR to make threats, but it is better PR than a US attack would be.

Hillary is a hypocrite by the way:

"I am concerned about talking about it," she said. "I think everyone agrees that our goal should be to capture or kill bin Laden and his lieutenants but how we do it should not be telegraphed and discussed for obvious reasons."

Clinton didn't seem to have any problem "talking about" the subject on Wednesday, when interviewed on American Urban Radio News Network.

"I've long believed that we needed tougher, smarter action against terrorists by deploying more troops to Afghanistan, and if we had actionable intelligence that Osama bin Laden or other high-value targets were in Pakistan I would ensure that they were targeted and killed or captured," she said.
- ABC News: Obama-Clinton Race Goes Nuclear

[Rainbow]

Quote by: Yarn We have justified pre-text. People are attacking us from Pakistan, and Pakistan given time and money, has not done a sufficient amount about it. We should take into account what the Pakistani governmental response to us going in without permission would be. We should think beforehand, what effect it will have on the climate of the overall region that will be effected by the attacking. We should exert whatever means we could rightfully use to pressure the government into giving us permission, but Pakistan under sensible leadership will not go to war with us, over us taking action against our enemy.

Musharraf has boxed bin-Laden in western parts of Pakistan. If Musharraf wipes bin-Laden out, then there is not much of interests U.S. may continue to financially support the Pakistan's governing body.

Do you think Musharraf is going to give up a source full of funds ?
Musharraf prefers to monitor bin-Laden's activity and grab the next U.S. Department of State's check (with some $$$ billions printed on it).
It is called : business (as usual).

[Yarn]

Quote by: Rainbow Musharraf has boxed bin-Laden in western parts of Pakistan. If Musharraf wipes bin-Laden out, then there is not much of interests U.S. may continue to financially support the Pakistan's governing body.

Killing Osama wouldn't eleminate Al Qaeda and the Taliban. It would be nice symbolically, but it would not constitute victory. Additionally, collusion with the United States is a primary source of Musharraf's present unpopularity. A victory over the extremists and an end to the military alliance between the US and Pakistan, would be highly beneficial for him politically.

Quote by: Rainbow Do you think Musharraf is going to give up a source full of funds ? Musharraf prefers to monitor bin-Laden's activity and grab the next U.S. Department of State's check (with some $$$ billions printed on it). It is called : business (as usual).

I think he'd rather stay in office than have his country collect those checks, which at any right, might not be collected, were the country to have another head of state.

[rmnunez]

OBL and his closest are hidding in those "tribal areas". This is inhospitable very mountainous high-altitude terrain of highly disputed jurisdiction between India, China, Pakistan and Afghanistan. US intervention here would be like an attack on the 4 countries at the same time, one a superpower and three with nukes.

[Praxius]

That's an interesting point.... Worst case scenario, if they are pressured by an insurgency of the Taliban and Tribes in their own country, they will most likly have to try and please those who live in their country in order to stop the continual bloodshed in their lands.... and launch at the US as a warning..... and Islam logic would send a nuke as a warning.... such as the US did in WWII.... but with most of Bush's mentality or any other like some of the new candidates, a full launch will occur to destroy their country, and vice versa..... whether or not they will have enough nukes to hit all of the US, the point will be made that you're civilian lives are meaningless in this kind of war..... and it would all start with invading to get the Taliban in an allied country with Nukes, on a mission that Did Not have to occur, because there are always alternatives to flat out assault like this plan is.

You do remember the fight put up by your and our natives of the Americas? Hell they're still fighting everyday for equality..... but imagine starting to do whatever you want in their reserves and home lands..... now picture the same thing in another country, but by even more forign forces then those who live in their lands..... logically, this wouldn't be a good idea.... just look at all the examples around the world just this minute.

[The Decider]

Quote by: Yarn "I understand that President Musharraf (of Pakistan) has his own challenges. But let me make this clear. There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al-Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will."-Barack Obama Status quo has been proven to be ineffective. I am sure that Musharraf will realize that it makes more sense for his army to conduct the attacks, than it does for ours to, for him politically. As long as they do the job, we don't have to, so our threats may be effective here.

Keyword "may." That's a big gamble to take in a nuclear nation populated by people who don't like Americans very much. Without local help, how do small numbers of American troops sustain operations in a mountainous warren like Waziristan? In any case, even if a unilateral invasion were inevitable, why make the threats public and further damage Musharaff's already weak position in that nation? Obama went out on a limb with these comments, a creaking, perilous limb.

Obama's decision to publicly threaten Musharraf not only backfired in Pakistan, but within America too. He's losing ground to Hillary so he tried a little sabre rattling. Big mistake. Obama's favorable ratings among Democrats have fallen in the most recent national poll:

...Clinton is now viewed favorably by 82% of Democrats, Obama by 66%. Those figures include 43% with a Very Favorable opinion of Clinton. Thirty-three percent (33%) have such a positive view of Obama. Just 16% of Democrats have an unfavorable view of Clinton while 30% hold such a view of Obama.

Rasmussen Reports™: The most comprehensive public opinion coverage ever provided for a mid-term election.

Quote by: Yarn Hillary is a hypocrite by the way: "I am concerned about talking about it," she said. "I think everyone agrees that our goal should be to capture or kill bin Laden and his lieutenants but how we do it should not be telegraphed and discussed for obvious reasons." Clinton didn't seem to have any problem "talking about" the subject on Wednesday, when interviewed on American Urban Radio News Network. "I've long believed that we needed tougher, smarter action against terrorists by deploying more troops to Afghanistan, and if we had actionable intelligence that Osama bin Laden or other high-value targets were in Pakistan I would ensure that they were targeted and killed or captured," she said. - ABC News: Obama-Clinton Race Goes Nuclear

What hypocrisy? Clinton didn't say she would invade Pakistan with US troops. She said "I would ensure that they [terrorists] were targeted and killed or captured.' That could happen with Pakistani forces, a combination of Pakistani and US Special Forces, or a multinational team. She left her comments vague to keep her options numerous. That's why she's winning the foreign policy issues with Democratic voters--experience and caution. Things may change in the coming months, but right now Clinton is cleaning Obama's clock.

[thx1138]

Quote: Quote by: thx1138 The only reason Afghanistan was attacked was to secure the gas pipeline running through the country. How can you possibly claim to know that?

Time to wake up...

Is an Oil Pipeline Behind the War in Afghanistan? by Bill Sardi Testimony before the US Congress is circulating on the internet. It pertains to a proposed oil pipeline through Central Asia that is applicable to the current war in Afghanistan. On February 12, 1998, John J. Maresca, vice president, international relations for UNOCAL oil company, testified before the US House of Representatives, Committee on International Relations. Maresca provided information to Congress on Central Asia oil and gas reserves and how they might shape US foreign policy. UNOCAL's problem? As Maresca said: "How to get the region's vast energy resources to the markets." The oil reserves are in areas north of Afghanistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan and Russia. Routes for a pipeline were proposed that would transport oil on a 42-inch pipe southward thru Afghanistan for 1040 miles to the Pakistan coast. Such a pipeline would cost about $2.5 billion and carry about 1 million barrels of oil per day. Maresca told Congress then that: "It's not going to be built until there is a single Afghan government. That's the simple answer." Dana Rohrbacher, California congressman, then identified the Taliban as the ruling controllers among various factions in Afghanistan and characterized them as "opium producers." Then Rohrbacher asked Maresca: "There is a Saudi terrorist who is infamous for financing terrorism around the world. Is he in the Taliban area or is he up there with the northern people?" Maresca answered: "If it is the person I am thinking of, he is there in the Taliban area." This testimony obviously alluded to Osama bin Laden. Then Rorhbacher asked: "... in the northern area as compared to the place where the Taliban are in control, would you say that one has a better human rights record toward women than the other?" Maresca responded by saying: "With respect to women, yes. But I don't think either faction here has a very clean human rights record, to tell you the truth." So women's rights were introduced into Congressional testimony by Congressman Rohrbacher as the wedge for UNOCAL to build its pipeline through Afghanistan. Three years later CNN would be airing its acclaimed TV documentary "Under The Veil," which displayed the oppressive conditions that women endure in Afghanistan under the rule of the Taliban (a propaganda film for the oil pipeline?). Rohrbacher then went on to say that a democratic election should take place in Afghanistan and "if the Taliban are not willing to make that kind of commitment, I would be very hesitant to move foreward on a $2.5 billion investment because without that commitment, I don't think there is going to be any tranquility in that land." Beginning in 1998 UNOCAL was chastized, particularly by women's rights groups, for discussions with the Taliban, and headed in retreat as a worldwide effort mounted to come to the defense of the Afghani women. This forced UNOCAL to withdraw from its talks with the Taliban and dissolve its multinational partnership in that region. In 1999 Alexander's Gas & Oil Connections newsletter said: "UNOCAL company officials said late last year (1998) they were abandoning the project because of the need to cut costs in the Caspian region and because of the repeated failure of efforts to resolve the long civil conflict in Afghanistan." [Volume 4, issue #20 - Monday, November 22, 1999] Three days following the attack on the World Trade Centers in New York City, UNOCAL issued a statement reconfirming it had withdrawn from its project in Afghanistan, long before recent events. [Chevron Corporation Home Page September 14, 2001 statement] UNOCAL was not the only party positioning themselves to tap into oil and gas reserves in central Asia. UNOCAL was primary member of a multinational consortium called CentGas (Central Asia Gas) along with Delta Oil Company Limited (Saudi Arabia), the Government of Turkmenistan, Indonesia Petroleum, LTD. (INPEX) (Japan), ITOCHU Oil Exploration Co., Ltd. (Japan), Hyundai Engineering & Construction Co., Ltd. (Korea), the Crescent Group (Pakistan) and RAO Gazprom (Russia). Just because CentGas had dissolved does not mean that the involved parties have totally abandoned their interest in building an oil pipeline out of Central Asia. There is also talk of another pipeline thru Iran. India and Pakistan are bidding to be the pipeline terminal ocean port since they would obtain hundreds of millions of dollars in fees. So, in 1998 Osama bin Laden was identified as the villain behind the Taliban, Afghanistani women the victims of an oppressive Taliban regime, and the stage was set for a future stabilization effort (i.e. a war). Was all this a cover story for a future oil pipeline? In November 2000, Bruce Hoffman, director of the Rand Institute office in Washington DC, indicated that the next US President would have to face up to the growing threat is Islamic terrorism. Hoffman: "The next administration must turn its immediate attention to knitting together the full range of US counterterrorist capabilities into a cohesive plan." [Los Angeles Times, November 12, 2000] All that was needed was a triggering event. October 15, 2001

And give Afghanistan back to genociding oppressors (the Taliban), and the perpetrators of 9/11 (Al Qaeda)?

[christibe]

the article that snapped me out of post-911 numbness. or, if not the exact one... one like it. anyway.

[thx1138]

It is naive to think the U.S. would spending $US4000 every second in Iraq and at least a quarter that in Afghanistan just to help lead the poor people of those countries to liberty and freedom.

If it was so, why are U.S. troops not in every country in the world that has a tyrant ruling people with an iron thumb.

It's simple there are natural resources in those areas the U.S. cherry picks to invade and put in a puppet government.

Central Asia Unocal was one of the key players in the CentGas consortium, an attempt to build the Trans-Afghanistan Pipeline to run from the Caspian area, through Afghanistan and probably Pakistan, to the Indian Ocean. One of the consultants to Unocal at that time was Zalmay Khalilzad, now US ambassador to Iraq. The CentGas pipeline was not built, due to inability of CentGas and the Taliban to come to a mutually acceptable economic understanding. Shortly thereafter, the US invaded Afghanistan, removing Taliban control from Afghanistan and making moot the question of their remuneration. Unocal is also the third largest member of the recently completed and opened Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline from the Caspian Sea to the Mediterranean Sea. [edit] Myanmar Unocal, along with Total S.A., was charged with numerous human rights violations in the construction of the Yadana Pipeline in Myanmar, also known as Burma. Since 1988, Myanmar has been governed by a military junta. The pipeline consortium (which included Unocal) employed the Burmese military, according to the company, to protect the pipeline from insurgents and terrorists. The Burmese soldiers have been accused by villagers in the vicinity of the pipeline of torture, rape and forced labor. Unocal has condemned these actions and points out that the company does not control the Burmese military and did not hire them to police residents. Unocal is the defendant in legal action brought in the United States under the Alien Tort Claims Act of 1789, a law originally designed to aid victims of pirates. The United States Department of Justice has taken measures to oppose use of the law in human rights cases, and business groups have lobbied the U.S. Congress to repeal the law. It is said to interfere with U.S. foreign relations. This would nullify all pending lawsuits filed under the act. Plaintiffs and Unocal settled the lawsuits against Unocal for an unsp ecified amount in April, 2005.