Will Afghanistan become our 51st state?

Ok, we probably won't go that far. However, I'm wondering who is going to decide who runs that country after we leave and how much time and money we are going to put in there.

(Chuckle) Right now I'm thinking I'd like to buy stock in a company that prints Kyrgyz/English dictionaries.

-- (LadyLogic2000@yahoo.com), October 07, 2001

Answers

lol! Maybe I'll sell caps that read: TaliBOOM!

Sorry. I'm such a capitalist dog.

-- (LadyLogic2000@yahoo.com), October 07, 2001.

Ok, how about: bin Laden to rest.

-- (LadyLogic2000@yahoo.com), October 07, 2001.

How 'bout TaliBAM!

-- (LadyLogic@.......), October 07, 2001.

Ok, Ok. This is my last one. How about: Micky Mouse Loves Everyone!

-- (Ladylogic@......), October 07, 2001.

"I'm wondering who is going to decide who runs that country after we leave and how much time and money we are going to put in there."

That has already been decided by the NWO elite. It will be taken over by our Oil Industry, since it isn't much good for anything else. They will put a lot of time and money into it, but not their money. Dubya will make sure it is subsidized by the taxpayers, because of our "tremendous need for more fossil fuels as a source of energy".

-- (it's@done.deal), October 07, 2001.

Really? Does Afghanistan have oil? Does it have a pipeline? Does it have anything but rocks and poppies? Why would the NWO want this moonscape?

-- (Roland@hatemail.com), October 07, 2001.

I'm REALLY tired, but how 'bout Talabama?

(Sorry, Stephen.)

-- (LadyLogic@......), October 07, 2001.

To "its@done.deal":

Are you so ignorant as to think Afghanistan has any oil?

-- Peter Errington (petere7@starpower.net), October 07, 2001.

"To "its@done.deal":

Are you so ignorant as to think Afghanistan has any oil?

-- Peter Errington (petere7@starpower.net), October 07, 2001."

Oh, I see! Apparently YOU know something they don't know???

Why don't you enlighten them and save us taxpayers a shitload of money!

-- (peter errorton @ mr. knowitall!), October 07, 2001.

Actually Peter, there are substantial natural gas and oil deposits in Afghanistan. Please, try not to look too stupid again (remember Y2K?).

-- So (cr@t.es), October 07, 2001.

Afghanistan has no oil. It has some coal, but not much. I happen to have spent time in the country, in the early 70s. Only a drooling idiot would suppose that our current actions have anything to do with the country's energy resources.

-- Peter Errington (petere7@starpower.net), October 07, 2001.

"Afghanistan has no oil."

Oh boy, I hear it coming... "I have 35 years of experience as a geologist with the oil industry. I've been to Afghanistan and explored every square inch of that land. I know there isn't any oil there because I didn't find any."

Let us have it Peter! LMAO!!

"It has some coal, but not much. I happen to have spent time in the country, in the early 70s."

You're getting there! Give us the whole story, c'mon. Lay it on thick!

"Only a drooling idiot would suppose that our current actions have anything to do with the country's energy resources."

I beg to differ. Only a drooling idiot would suppose they DIDN'T!

Go home, Peter "Error"ton, you have shown us the "error" of your ways!!

ROTFLMAO!!

-- (peter errorton @ the. imbecilic fool), October 07, 2001.

Actually, I think its for the hash.

-- Jack Booted Thug (governmentconspiracy@NWO.com), October 07, 2001.

So(cr@t.es):

I posted my answer, to the post above yours, before reading your comment. Any finds, of the sort you mention, are certainly news to me. Has any actual production, of oil or natural gas, taken place?

But I'll stand behind my main point: anyone who thinks we are doing what we are doing because of Afghanistan's energy resources, whatever they are, is a drooling idiot.

-- Peter Errington (petere7@starpower.net), October 07, 2001.

Peter, Peter, you are at it again son. Natural gas production and distribution under Afghanistan's Taliban rulers is the responsibility of the Afghan Gas Enterprise, which, in 1999, began repair of a pipeline to Mazar-i-Sharif City. Afghanistan's proven and probable oil and condensate reserves were placed at 95 million barrels by the Soviets. So far, attempts to exploit Afghanistan's petroleum reserves or take advantage of its unique geographical location as a crossroads to markets in Europe and South Asia have been thwarted by the continuing civil strife. Remember Peter, you are a proven bullshitter so take it back to Olson’s latrine where you have a receptive audience. And wipe off your chin.

-- So (cr@t.es), October 07, 2001.

Socrates, chill, will ya?

-- helen (peace@on.earth.NOW.dammit), October 07, 2001.

So(cr@t.es):

Hey, enough about me (I've never been to Olson's, however). Let's talk about you. You sound like you believe that our motivation for military action is at least partly because of Afghanistan's energy resources. Do you believe that?

-- Peter Errington (petere7@starpower.net), October 07, 2001.

Shut up Helen. You want peace? How nice.

Peter, everything that happens in this world has complicated layers and webs of intrigue. Yes, there are many organizations and countries that would like to see Afghanistan open to free enterprise, for a variety of reasons. Layer and layers. Eliminating terrorism is the primary goal but there are many secondary objectives that are helping to form this world-wide coalition.

-- So (cr@t.es), October 07, 2001.

Well, our primary goal, after WTC, is so primary that other goals fade into complete insignificance.

-- Peter Errington (petere7@starpower.net), October 07, 2001.

Socrates, I know you must want to go over and kick some ass where it'll do some good. Doing it here doesn't do too much good.

-- helen (no@no.no), October 07, 2001.

Oh, another thing, Ace: I know you aren't Louis because your political philosophies are way different. Were that not so, I would conclude you were one of Louis's many aliases. That's because you have the manners of a pig.

-- Peter Errington (petere7@starpower.net), October 07, 2001.

Helen,

I'm sure there are a lot of forums on the net where you can discuss warm and fuzzy feelings. Have you looked into them yet? Try searching for fans of Rosie O'Donnell, Phil Donahue, or Oprah Winfrey. Either that, or just start another thread and don't look at this one anymore.

-- (move@along.whiner), October 08, 2001.

“Afghanistan has no oil. It has some coal, but not much. I happen to have spent time in the country, in the early 70s. Only a drooling idiot would suppose that our current actions have anything to do with the country's energy resources.”

Peter, these are your words and just like Y2K you don’t know what you are talking about. You want us to see you as a source of valid information when in fact you are just simply WRONG. Even us pigs are smarter than that.

-- So (cr@t.es), October 08, 2001.

So(cr@t.es):

We have been talking about two issues. One is minor, the other is major.

The minor issue is what energy resources Afghanistan has. When I was there, the only exportable resource the country had, that came out of the ground, was lapis (blue semi-precious stone). The country was the leading producer in the world for that. Discoveries I guess have been made in the interim; I'm happy to stand corrected.

The major issue is whether the country's natural resources have anything at all to do with our conduct post-WTC. I say that it is absurd to think that.

Correct me all you want on the minor issue. On the major issue, place yourself with the fools.

-- Peter Errington (petere7@starpower.net), October 08, 2001.

Like I said, rocks and poppies.

Oooops, I forgot afghans.

-- Lars (lars@indy.net), October 08, 2001.

Okay Peter, you don't know jack shit. You went to Afghanistan on some kind of drug-induced hippie mission over 30 years ago and you think that this makes you an authority. It is a poor country. Technology has changed a lot in 30 years. Just because they weren't producing oil when you were there doesn't mean they can't. Look at the region, get a clue.

As far as the motives for the evil-fighting missions of the almighty United States, there is usually more to the picture than what you see. Terrorists have been around a long time. If our only motive was to eliminate them, we could have done that eons ago. The recent terrorist attack provides an opportunity to take advantage of some fringe benefits that can be gained by assuming a position of the controlling authority over Afghanistan. As Tony Blair said, it is time to "seize the moment".

There, you stand corrected on both issues.

-- (just another step @ in. the NWO agenda), October 08, 2001.

OK Peter, you stand corrected on the ‘minor’ issue. Maybe those petroleum deposits were not there in the 70’s.

On the ‘major’ issue, you still stand corrected. I’m not a NWO fanatic, but only a fool would believe that there are not many agenda’s being served by a changing of the guard in Afghanistan. But then, you have been proven to be quite the fool in the past so your qualifications are beyond reproach.

-- So (cr@t.es), October 08, 2001.

I'll take one of those TaliBOOM hates :-)

-- k. (k@a.n), October 08, 2001.

errr..hats.

(that wasnt a freudian slip..so DONT GO THERE)

-- again (k@a.n), October 08, 2001.

"So" cpr is alive and well. Okay -- alive, anyway.

-- Those who live in the past (are.condemned@to.repeat.it), October 08, 2001.

Well, gathering of the loons.

"just another step" informs us that "if our only motive was to eliminate (terrorists) we could have done that eons ago."

Some statements are so remarkable that one doesn't even much feel like responding. Just let it sit there and have people marvel.

As for So(cr@t.es) claim that he has refuted me not only in the minor matter but also in the major, in your dreams, pal.

-- Peter Errington (petere7@starpower.net), October 08, 2001.

LOL

There are many things that happen in this world that will always seem "remarkable" to you, Peter. People with much higher levels of intelligence can do things that you will never believe or understand, simply because they have higher levels of intelligence. Intellectual capacity is funny that way. When you are of lower capacity, you cannot CONCEIVE of someone else doing things that you don't understand, because you literally CAN NOT UNDERSTAND them.

Ever wonder why we didn't kill Saddam Hussein, when it would have been easy to do?

How much do you want to bet we won't kill Bin Laden either?

LOl, yet people like you will continue to think that this is nothing more than what you are told, "just the good ole USA trying to get those nasty terrorists".

LOL, keep believing Peter, the NWO is banking on it.

-- (you'll never believe @ what you. don't understand), October 08, 2001.

“Well, gathering of the loons.”

Ah Peter, your stock in trade. Now we are loons because we call you out for not understanding the world you live in? Peter, do you have any idea how foolish you look? Your own words are your worst enemy… nobody needs to help you on. You are so quick to make these authoritative statements that prove, time after time, to be just plain WRONG. Are you still trying to impress someone? You might want to consider lurking and not hang your ass out for all to see. Your credibility is non-existent.

-- So (cr@t.es), October 08, 2001.

Afghanistan Oil Interests

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), October 08, 2001.

The country with largest proved reserves is Saudi Arabia with Saudi Arabia 259 billion barrels. The next nine countries are Iraq, UAE, Kuwait, Iran, Venzuela, Russia, Lybia, Mexico and China. At "10" China has 24 billion barrels. Afghanistan does not even make the CIA publication listing world oil reserves. (Economic powerhouse Romania has 2 billion barrels.) A speculative reserve of 95 million barrels under horrible topography in a politically unstable region? ANWR may hold 5 to 16 billion barrels of oil, but I suppose the NWO has a secret plan for the caribou. I'm waiting for one of the local whiz kids to tell me the NWO was behind the WTC and Pentagon attacks. After all, before the attacks, the U.S. had pretty much ZERO interest in Afghanistan. Afghanistan for oil? Tell me another.

-- Remember (the@ld.forum.com), October 08, 2001.

The article that Anita has linked to tells the story. In itself, the oil and gas reserves in Afghanistan are not that profound but coupled with the strategic location for transmission lines (pipelines), there are majors just foaming at the mouth for access. It will take the establishment of a stable government before the investment coffers open up.

-- So (cr@t.es), October 08, 2001.

Ok, how about this...

We put in some great, big, HUGE hiway signs that read:

Welcome to New Yorkistan!

-- (LadyLogic@......), October 08, 2001.

Well, Socrates, if you had transmission routes in mind, why didn't you say so. Not that I think much of that rationale either. If the oil comes from north of the country, there are incredible mountains, you can forget that. In the south of the country, there aren't the mountains, but where would the oil be coming from?

-- Peter Errington (petere7@starpower.net), October 08, 2001.

Sometimes we're interested, sometimes we're not.

Trans-Caspian pipeline link

I suspect we are about to become interested again.

-- (LadyLogic@......), October 08, 2001.

I should have mentioned that I tried twice to link to Anita's article, and all I get is a blank screen.

-- Peter Errington (petere7@starpower.net), October 08, 2001.

LL, the Trans Caspian pipeline was supposed to become a very big deal. But it would have gone to the north of Afghanistan's mountains, which are actually the western end of the Himalayas.

-- Peter Errington (petere7@starpower.net), October 08, 2001.

Yeah, but if we have a presence there, we shouldn't have to pipe it.

Don't worry about not seeing Anita's link. It's to an opinion piece in an Asian paper.

-- (LadyLogic@........), October 08, 2001.

Socrates,

I'm not sure what you're trying to say. Yes, Peter made a mistake about the oil and gas deposits in Afghanistan, but by any measure, they're certainly not large enough to attract American involvement. It's understandable that he wouldn't have known about them, not even having lived in the country for a while. Those are minor deposits by any measure.

Something that small you leave to the locals, then buy the stuff (if there's any excess to sell). The *Russians* would be the likely customer, not us (and in fact, the Russians had been working with the Taliban in the past to exploit some of that).

The most likely scenario is that Afghanistan could become mostly self-supporting in energy for the forseeable future. What they sold to others would provide badly-needed currency to bootstrap their economy. That's a GOOD thing. Contented people with bread in their bellies are less likely to revolt!

Where I probably agree with you, Socrates, is indicated by my astonishment at the number of people who can't understand basic economic realities. Of COURSE there's an economic aspect; there always is, and only a naive fool would believe otherwise!

Some people live in a utopian fog, where governments and wars and political movements are supposed to run by pure-as-the-driven-snow idealists who stick to ideological principles and damn the consequences. "We're only fighting this war because [fill in the name of certain corporations who need something]."

Well, to start with, it's usually not that simplistic; there are always a million different motivations behind war. That's how you build a coalition.

(The Japanese, for example, are supporting us partially in hopes that the treaty restrictions imposed over WWII will be eased, and they'll be permitted to rebuilt a modest military defense. Fine; we need their help. Tit for tat, trade for fair.)

The Gulf War was primarily fought over control of oil. Iraq couldn't be allowed to control that much of the world's energy supply (and on the other side of the coin, that's the REAL reason why Hussein tried to grab Kuwait to start with).

A good thing we did, too. If we'd listened to the "it's only about oil!" crowd and refused to act, Hussein would have had far more influence with OPEC, because the Arab states would have KNOWN that we would refuse to back them up if they tried to resist him. They'd have KNOWN that they were on their own.

The world's economy would have been at the mercy of a single tyrant. Not good.

Try to explain that the "purists," though, and you're wasting your time.

-- Stephen M. Poole (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), October 08, 2001.

Laura,

I like "TaliBOOM" the best. :)

-- Stephen M. Poole (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), October 08, 2001.

Actually Peter, I didn’t have anything in mind when I responded to your pronouncements. You’ll have to excuse me but I am conditioned to automatically question any of your so-called expert pronouncements. You have this way about you that conveys that you are in possession of pure knowledge, when in fact you are often full of crap. It all started with ‘these’ words of your:

“Are you so ignorant as to think Afghanistan has any oil?”

"Afghanistan has no oil."

You don’t just make a statement; you scream it as if it were the gospel. We all make mistakes but you seem to be insistent that we are to take your word, as if you are some sort of fact meister on high. Poole is correct in his evaluation of these reserves and I’ll admit to being overly sensitive to your frequent bouts of know-it-all bullshit.

So, sue me.

-- So (cr@t.es), October 08, 2001.

Well, Socrates, grave as my faults may be, I don't shout major idiocies as if they are gospel. Oilmen slavering over Afghanistan as a transmission route, my fanny. Where did you pick up that idea? Do you ever look at a map?

-- (petere7@starpower.net), October 08, 2001.

Peter, don’t let these facts scare you too much. You know; ‘Reality, what a concept.’

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/afghan2.html

http://www.unocal.com/uclnews/97news/102797a.htm

http://www.hazara.net/taliban/protectors/oil/oil.html

-- So (cr@t.es), October 08, 2001.

Also, Sucrates, you mention my "frequent bouts of know-it-all bullshit." Care to give some examples?

-- Peter Errington (petere7@starpower.net), October 08, 2001.

So tell us lady are do you Ever tire of speaking to yourself? I did not think so. Have you noticed nobody else seems to be listening? Did not think so.

-- (Yawn@yawn.boreUsAll), October 08, 2001.

This is a case where Soc is more interested in beating up an Errington than a real discussion. Sure, Errington made a mistake when he said there was "no" oil in Afghanistan. There's a helluva lot less oil in Afghanistan than in other places. What exactly do you think the United States aims to accomplish in Afghanistan, Socrates? How exactly are we going to see a return of the investment of troops, equipment, etc? Just wondering.

-- Remember (the@ld.forum.com), October 08, 2001.

Never.

-- (Ladylogic@.....), October 08, 2001.

And another thing, Sucrates, you keep mentioning what an unholy ass I made of myself regarding Y2K. I beg to differ. Considering that I did not prep, that I dumped on Milne for his calls for everyone to bug out, and only predicted a severe recession, I think my Y2K record is respectable.

-- Peter Errington (petere7@starpower.net), October 08, 2001.

Hey wait a minute Remember, why can’t ‘beating up on Errington’ qualify as a real discussion? Hell, on this forum that could be in the top ten on the intellectual rating chart. But let me attempt to answer your question.

Afghanistan’s petroleum reserves while not spectacular have been on the table for development for many years by the majors. Also, there are many countries and majors standing in line to lay in transmission systems that have been engineered for many years. Am I suggesting that this is the primary goal of the military action taking place as we speak? Of course not.

Putting pure vengeance and the need for justice aside, the primary goal is to hopefully stabilize this entire area which will allow for many economic projects to take wing. The folks in Moscow will be first in line when pipe is laid. The coalition was built with trade- offs and favors….business as usual.

-- So (cr@t.es), October 08, 2001.

Peter: You know that I've always liked you, but you lost all credibility on THIS issue when you began insulting people who KNEW that there were energy issues in Afghanistan. Instead of standing up like a man and stating an apology, you declared that, well, MAYBE there ARE energy issues in Afghanistan, but anyone is an idiot who thinks that they're an issue here, going on to state that your original claim was a minor issue and your new one more major.

Despite what you've posted on Poole's Roost regarding the mentality of folks on this forum, Peter, there ARE a few folks here who understand some issues.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), October 08, 2001.

Anita, I am going to quote my entire post which kicked this whole business off:

"Afghanistan has no oil. It has some coal, but not much. I happen to have spent time in the country, in the early 70s. Only a drooling idiot would suppose that our current actions have anything to do with the country's energy resources."

As you can see, the major issue was not something I retreated to later in the discussion.

I have admitted that I was wrong on the minor issue. I continued to get crap on the major issue.

"On the major issue you still stand corrected. I'm not a NWO fanatic, but only a fool would believe that there are not many agendas being served by a changing of the guard in Afghanistan." This from a Socrates post this morning.

Let me keep this very simple. I don't care if there are businessmen making plans for a post-Taliban country. That's not why we are in there. We are in there because we suffered a vicious attack and there must be retribution. Call it revenge, call it justice, call it anything you want. And we should attempt to make other states that support terrorism understand that they are playing a very dangerous game.

-- Peter Errington (petere7@starpower.net), October 08, 2001.

Peter, I didn't see a post eluding to energy being the REASON we were there. Here's what *I* saw:

"I'm wondering who is going to decide who runs that country after we leave and how much time and money we are going to put in there."

The answer first given involved energy interests.

YOUR response to that was, "Are you so ignorant as to think Afghanistan has any oil?"

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), October 09, 2001.

Oh boy. Please modify that eluding to alluding. Better yet, modify it to STATING. Maybe I should go back to drinking coffee.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), October 09, 2001.

Anita, I believed that I was responding to an NWO conspiracy theorist.

Certainly one NWO conspiracy theorist wrote to me later in the thread (Oct.8): "LOL, yet people like you will continue to think that this is nothing more than what you are told, 'just the good ole USA trying to get those nasty terrorists.' LOL, keep believing, Peter, the NWO is banking on it."

-- Peter Errington (petere7@starpower..net), October 09, 2001.

Anita, I might also add that during this argument, Socrates told me to get back to Dennis Olson's board, ie I was some kind of Olsonite.

-- Peter Errington (petere7@starpower.net), October 09, 2001.

Well, Peter, I hope you understand your errors now. Businesses ARE watching, guessing, and calculating their next moves. I remember many years ago working in the Operations Research Department at what then was Standard Oil. There were about six analysts who seemed to do NOTHING at all but stand around and think until given an assignment. I can't remember the assignment given, but they were charged with calculating a decision for the company based on how they thought the president would decide on a given event. The year is wrong for it to have been the Bay of Pigs. Maybe it was Granada. Heh. They blew it, and the company lost a LOT of money. Times have changed since then, however, and they may have learned that it's simply a lot easier to calculate which way would benefit them most and then lobby for it. I can't say that has anything to do with a New World Order. There's certainly nothing new about it. It's simply the way companies work to maximize profits.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), October 09, 2001.

On a lighter note [perhaps more in keeping with the original post in this thread] I received this joke in an E-mail today:

NEW YORK 2032....

A man and his son are walking through a highly built-up

area of Manhattan when they come across an empty

space and the father stops to reflect for a while.

"Imagine son," the father says. "Exactly 31 years ago

the great twin towers stood proudly in this area."

Intrigued by thy comment, the son then asks,

"What were the twin towers, dad?"

To which the father replys, "they were two of the

largest buildings in the world and they housed many

thousands of offices...but in 2001 they were destroyed by Arabs."

The son pauses for a while and then asks, "Dad, what were Arabs?"

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), October 09, 2001.

Let me see if I understand this correctly. We are really bombing Afghanistan because we want their oil (which is not very much and very expensive to get at, I'm hearing). Taking this a step further, was it us who got bin Laden to get his network together and attack the US? Or, another theory: if Afghanistan didn't have that tiny deposit of oil which is expensive, would we NOT have taken any action after the terrorist -- oh, excuse me ALLEGED terrorist -- attacks?

Or maybe there's oil under the WTC site and this is a great, cheap way for an oil company to get the buildings out of their way.

-- Very (Confused@your.theories), October 09, 2001.

Anita, you say you hope I understand my errors now, because businesses do plan ahead etc.

What on earth does that fact have to do with anything?

That's not why we are there.

-- Peter Errington (petere7@starpower.net), October 09, 2001.

That's not why we are there.

Nobody said it was, Peter. You, apparently, thought someone said that and the confused poster apparently thought so, but read it all again and show me where someone did, please. It may well be that I missed it.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), October 09, 2001.

Hey Errington, your problem is you don’t know when to shut the fuck up. You just can’t let it go when you are wrong…….same thing with Y2K. What’s your problem? Hell, to the best of my knowledge nobody here knows you IRL so why do you persist like this. Are you really this insecure in person?

Oh, and I apologize for insinuating that you were a regular at Olson’s. My mistake. I was wrong. See how easy that was?

And ‘Very’, you DON’T understand it correctly. Read and comprehend. Nobody is suggesting that we are bombing Afghanistan for their oil and gas reserves. It was simply stated that in the big picture, those aspects are playing a minor role.

-- So (cr@t.es), October 09, 2001.

1. It will be taken over by our Oil Industry, since it isn't much good for anything else. They will put a lot of time and money into it, but not their money. Dubya will make sure it is subsidized by the taxpayers, because of our "tremendous need for more fossil fuels as a source of energy".

2. "Only a drooling idiot would suppose that our current actions have anything to do with the country's energy resources."
I beg to differ. Only a drooling idiot would suppose they DIDN'T!

3. In itself, the oil and gas reserves in Afghanistan are not that profound but coupled with the strategic location for transmission lines (pipelines), there are majors just foaming at the mouth for access. It will take the establishment of a stable government before the investment coffers open up.

4. Putting pure vengeance and the need for justice aside, the primary goal is to hopefully stabilize this entire area which will allow for many economic projects to take wing. The folks in Moscow will be first in line when pipe is laid. The coalition was built with trade- offs and favors….business as usual.

5. You know that I've always liked you, but you lost all credibility on THIS issue when you began insulting people who KNEW that there were energy issues in Afghanistan.

-- Still Very (Confused@your.theories), October 09, 2001.

Sub·plot

a subordinate plot in fiction or drama

In this real-life drama, the petroleum issues are a subplot, IMHO. Does that help the confusion?

-- So (cr@t.es), October 09, 2001.

Anita:

As I have said, initially I believed that I was responding to a NWO conspiracy theorist, even though what I was responding to did not in fact state that business interests were an influence in the United State's decision making. Such statements came later (e.g. the one I have already quoted from Socrates: "On the major issue, you still stand corrected. I'm not a NWO fanatic, but only a fool would believe that there are not many agendas being served...")

Socrates is now trying to minimize what he has said: "Nobody is suggesting that we are bombing Afghanistan for their oil and gas reserves (my comment: I believe someone on this thread did say that.) It was simply stated that in the big picture, these aspects are playing a minor role (my comment: Unless I missed something in re- reading this thread, the word or concept of "minor" makes its introduction in this very sentence).

It seems perverse to me to argue that we are doing what we are doing for anything other than one very big reason, and one very big reason only.

Socrates:

If you really were aware of anything I said about Y2K, aware of anything other than the fact that I posted at old TB2000, I don't see how you could have thought I was an Olsonite. If you aren't just bluffing, about what you are guessing my views to be, prove it.

-- Peter Errington (petere7@starpower.net), October 09, 2001.

LOL, this shit is STILL going on?

Hey Errington, give it up you meathead!

You jumped onto this thread at the first chance you got to accuse others of being ignorant. Cocky words don't mean shit if you can't back them up. The facts presented in front of you have overwhelmingly proven that it is YOU who are the ignorant one, Mr. Knowitall.

Now apologize, tuck your tail between your legs, and remember next time to put your brain in gear before you run your mouth!

-- (you fucked up @ admit it. you're stupid), October 09, 2001.

Well, Soc, you've created a fairly bulletproof position, though logically flawed. No one can prove oil has nothing to do with the conflict in Afghanistan (proving a negative). If you assert that oil is "subplot," prove it. It's a given to say most major multinational firms have an interest in the outcome of any regional conflict. The proved reserves of Afghanisation, however, are rather piddly. The geography is difficult, a far cry from a flat desert. To successfully extract the oil would require significant expense. Even if the U.S. prevails, there is no assurance of local stability. Why worry about a small reserve of expensive oil in a politically explosive country when there are other sources available at a lower risks and costs?

I realize "big oil" conspiracies are all the rage, but I'll need more substantive evidence than your hunch to suggest any of the "seven sisters" are waiting to jump into a war ravaged Afghanistan.

I think you should prove your claim that major oil companies are "foaming" to gain access to the piddling 95 million barrels.

1. It will be taken over by our Oil Industry, since it isn't much good for anything else. They will put a lot of time and money into it, but not their money. Dubya will make sure it is subsidized by the taxpayers, because of our "tremendous need for more fossil fuels as a source of energy". 2. "Only a drooling idiot would suppose that our current actions have anything to do with the country's energy resources." I beg to differ. Only a drooling idiot would suppose they DIDN'T!

3. In itself, the oil and gas reserves in Afghanistan are not that profound but coupled with the strategic location for transmission lines (pipelines), there are majors just foaming at the mouth for access. It will take the establishment of a stable government before the investment coffers open up.

4. Putting pure vengeance and the need for justice aside, the primary goal is to hopefully stabilize this entire area which will allow for many economic projects to take wing. The folks in Moscow will be first in line when pipe is laid. The coalition was built with trade- offs and favors….business as usual.

5. You know that I've always liked you, but you lost all credibility on THIS issue when you began insulting people who KNEW that there were energy issues in Afghanistan.

-- Remember (the@ld.forum.com), October 09, 2001.

To "fucked up":

If you are truly concerned with cocky words that don't mean shit if not backed up, applied to a really important issue such as the U.S. motivation for its military campaign...

If you really dislike knowitalls....

Then I suggest you turn your attention to the excellent critique of Socrates' pronouncements, the critique immediately following your post

-- Peter Errington (petere7@starpower.net), October 09, 2001.

LOL, you just don't know when to give up!

I think we're going to call you Peter Rabbit, since you like to dig holes... holes so deep that you can't get out!

-- LMAO (you are @ such. a fool), October 09, 2001.

Good afternoon Remember. I would be honored to address your request, which you stated as follows:

“I think you should prove your claim that major oil companies are "foaming" to gain access to the piddling 95 million barrels.”

Were you referring to MY statement, which reads:

“In itself, the oil and gas reserves in Afghanistan are not that profound but coupled with the strategic location for transmission lines (pipelines), there are majors just foaming at the mouth for access. It will take the establishment of a stable government before the investment coffers open up.”

If so, you have taken a quantum leap with your statement, doncha think? And what’s up with your items 1-5? I can only take credit for items 3 &4. I have put some links a few posts above that you may find enlightening, but how does one ‘prove’ that which is public knowledge? You either believe these reported facts or you don’t. Your call.

Peter, you are obviously an intelligent person but I’ll pass on dealing with your fragile self-esteem.

-- So (cr@t.es), October 09, 2001.

Well hells fire!!! All this time I thought one of the minor perks from the onslaught in Afghanistan was to get the pick of the litter, sota-speak, from all those Afghanistan Hounds that they've been raisin.A bit prissy for me really but lots of the high brows like to own'em.

I really got get with the program here, cause if Osama really gave a shit about those people he would have ponied up all that cash he has (had) and tried to drill for all that oil, lay the ground work for all those pipelines transporting oil and maybe put the proceeds back into rebuilding that moonscape.

But....nothing is as easy as it sounds.

-- capnfun (capnfun1@excite.com), October 09, 2001.

Socrates:

I may be wrong, but I think I'm wonderful.

-- Peter Errington (petere7@starpower.net), October 09, 2001.

Olsonite??? Is that like kryptonite?

-- Jack Booted Thug (governmentconspiracy@NWO.com), October 09, 2001.

Not hardly, Jack Shit.

Remember, did you used to be a polly?

-- (LadyLogic@......), October 09, 2001.

Think long and hard. Maybe, just maybe you'll get it some day. Try not to let it eat you up too much.

-- Jack Booted Thug (governmentconspiracy@NWO.com), October 09, 2001.

Wow Laura! You get the Troll Award today. Look at all the foul-mouthed idiots that you got to argue among themselves. Great to have you back.

-- (where@idiots.abound), October 09, 2001.

Thanks. I'll wear that troll award proudly: always did, always will.

-- (LadyLogic@...), October 09, 2001.

Thanks, asshole. I just became a "G.I.".

Hold on to your hat!

-- (LadyLogic@....), October 09, 2001.

I'm sorry. The recipient of my last remark may be confused.

I was talking to you, "Jack".

-- (LadyLogic@.......), October 09, 2001.

Afghanistan natural resources

-- (Roland@hatemail.com), October 09, 2001.

The reason why it is important to get our motivation straight, regarding military action in Afghanistan, is so as not to give support to practitioners of the big lie technique.

What will be coming our way, I am sure, is the following big lie:

"The American response to the WTC attack was a complex mixture of revenge and greed"

I can just see revisionist historians making this claim.

-- Peter Errington (petere7@starpower.net), October 10, 2001.

1 through 5 were accidently left in from a cut-and-paste, Soc. As for your statement, I think oil and gas reserves are a nonissue. The pipeline issue has more merit, but I fail to see any linkage between the WTC/Pentagon attack and the financial interest of multinational oil firms. One can reasonably say, a stable, safe Afghanistan might create some interest. It is difficult to predict when anyone can expect Afghanistan to be a place suitable for major foreign investment.

It is hyperbole to say the "majors" are "foaming." I challenge you to provide definitive proof that oil companies are influencing U.S. involvement in Afghanistan. Is Osama bin Laden secretly hoping to cut a rich oil deal? Businesses, by their natures, are opportunistic. To call business interest a "subplot" is going beyond the information you have provided into the realm of speculation.

-- Remember (the@ld.forum), October 10, 2001.

Hey Socrates:

When it comes to copping out, you're a real Pro. (If you have my meaning).

And these little remora-fish fuckwads that echo you, they haven't the foggiest notion of what's really happening here.

-- Peter Errington (petere7@starpower.net), October 11, 2001.

Peter,

There is some good news.

Most of the revisionist historians, having found themselves unable to sustain a living writing history texts, have moved to Hollywood where they make films nowdays. Most of these films do (at best) modestly at the box office, but they are allowed to cop a few cheep warm fuzzies when they win 127 Oscars from their socially-conscious Comrades in Tinseltown.

A few other aging revisionists have unfortunately found tenure at our colleges and university, but the attrition enforced on us all by Father Time is taking care of that.

A shame, really -- it's just so darned EASY to make up a Word template on how White Male Westerners are Inherently Evil and then insert the subject of choice for the day. Very cost-effective.

(Dare I say it? More "bang for the buck," as it were.[g])

But otherwise, very few people with any sense pay them much attention nowdays. They DO make an amusing diversion from time to time, but that's about it.

-- Stephen M. Poole (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), October 11, 2001.

Shephen:

The NWO conspiracy assholes (I use that word totally deliberately) remind me of a Robert Benchley parody of Italian opera which I read some years ago, wherein a revenge-seeking woman had a secret grudge against a duke. It was for cutting off her foot.

-- Peter Errington (petere7@starpower.net), October 11, 2001.

Wow Peter, your fragile ego must be under siege for you to engage in foul language. I can just picture you sitting there in Maryland, your glasses askew and your mousy little face turned beet red, spittle flying from your pinched lips. Take some more medication and calm down…..just like in your real life, nobody here really cares if you are right or wrong. You needn’t worry about losing your credibility…… you never had any to start with. So, move on little man. (sound of chain being pulled)

-- So (cr@t.es), October 11, 2001.

Well, Sucrates, what an interesting little post we have here from you. Total bullshitter, trying to cover your ass with blather. Well, who could have expected anything else.

-- Peter Errington (petere7@starpower.net), October 11, 2001.

Oh, Sucko, you tie in my use of foul language to this debate we are having? I don't give a damn about foul language, But when I said you had the manners of of pig, it was because you told Helen, in your your words, to "shut up".

-- Peter Errington (petere7@starpower.net), October 11, 2001.

Peter: I still don't understand why you see Socrates as a NWO conspiracy advocate. I see the acronym NWO bandied about all the time, but if it simply means that governments or even companies across the globe are anxious to see events in their favor, that's just common sense. You might notice that it wasn't Socrates who threw out the NWO term in the above except to suggest that he was NOT a NWO conspiracy believer. I dunno. Maybe you're just looking for one of these types, or maybe just looking for an online fight. I noticed on Poole's that you posted how you were "fighting NWO conspiracy advocates" in this thread. Who would they be...the few anonymous posters who threw out the acronym?

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), October 11, 2001.

Until Soc provides some hard data to justify the dramatic "foaming" comment, I think it's safe to say he was guilty of hyperbole. Businesses have interests anywhere profits can be made. War-ravaged countries run by theocrats, tin-pot dictators or puppet regimes are generally very poor places to do business. Less than a 100 million barrels of oil is hardly enough to get anyone's knickers in a twist. Pipelines are a huge investment and terribly fragile as shown by a single drunken Alaskan. If one idiot with a hunting rifle can cause major problems, can you imagine the risks in embattled Afghanistan?

I think calling the potential commercial exploitation of Afghanistan a "subplot" is unfounded. It seems, at least to me, Soc found a reason to jerk Errington around and now we have a pissing contest totally unrelated to the issue of Afghanistan.

-- Remember (the@ld.forum.com), October 11, 2001.

If I had made my remark to a man Soc's age IRL, my family would have taken action against me. I apologize, Socrates.

Peter, thank you, but I was in the wrong.

Like it or not, we've all been dragged into a bad situation regardless of our personal experiences or politics. I regard all of you as a form of extended family. If we were in a real place together and someone "outside" shoved one of you, you would have to peel me off of the outsider before you could fight back yourself. When you shove each other in a virtual sense, I jump in between. I don't know why. I'm sorry about that.

-- helen (sorry@my.bad), October 11, 2001.

You jumped in between because you are a sweet lady helen, you need make no apologies for it.

All you did was ask him to chill, and to be honest with you, Soc's rather bitter attack surprised me too. But I guess we all have days like that.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), October 11, 2001.

Actually, reading back, Peter was kinda nasty too, heehee.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), October 11, 2001.

Helen, stop that. You weren't remotely in the wrong. And you too, Anita. I like you both, but get out of this fight. This is between me and this miserable puffed up asshole.

-- Peter Errington (petere7@starpower.net), October 11, 2001.

Did somebody say "miserable puffed-up asshole"?

Uh-oh!! That is one of the symptoms of rectal inhalation anthrax! Have you sat on a toilet seat lately that has been recently visited by olive-skinned middle-eastern type men?

This could get much worse! Your asshole could become so large that it will swallow your body! Bend over, I better have a look at that.

-- Dr. Peter N. Rectum (Certified Proctologist @ Sphincter. Inspector), October 11, 2001.

http://www.peacemagazine.org/9709/lara-afg.htm

This report came out in 1997 and of special interest are the last two paragraphs.

-- Fact (finders@inc.com), October 11, 2001.

I'll heat up that link

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), October 11, 2001.

Much the same is true of Eastern Europe and the countries of the former Soviet Union, according to Mr. Todor. But Asia is a completely different story. Many speakers, not just Mr. Todor, argued that Asia will be the fastest growing market for Caspian oil, even if the region's present financial crisis should lead to a prolonged economic slowdown.

Three routes to Asian markets have been proposed: Through China, through Iran,and through Afghanistan to Pakistan.

In Mr. Todor's view, the proposed China route is too long, and will probably prove to be prohibitively expensive. The major argument against the Iran route is, quite simply, that the U.S. government opposes it.

Among the many advantages of the Afghanistan route, according to Mr. Todor, is that it would terminate in the Arabian Sea, which is much closer than the Persian Gulf or northern China to key Asian markets:

"There is tremendous international and regional political will behind the pipeline. The pipeline is beneficial to Central Asian countries because it would allow them to sell their oil in expanding and highly prospective Asian markets. The pipeline is beneficial to Afghanistan, which would receive revenues from transport tariffs.... On a regional level, the pipeline will promote stability and encourage trade and economic development between South Asia and Central Asia. Finally, because of the combination of short pipeline distance and the relatively low cost of tankerage, this southern route will result in the most competitive export route to the Asia/ Pacific market."

Yet construction of this promising route can only begin if and when an internationally recognized government is formed in Afghanistan. A question from the audience betrayed a certain skepticism about that outcome. Todor was asked which do you think will occur first, an end to the civil war, followed by widespread international recognition of the Taleban, or a change in U.S. policy towards Iran?.

It would appear that these pipelines through Afghanistan are quite important afterall.

-- Fact (finders@inc.com), October 11, 2001.

Factfinder:

Very interesting. But that's not why we're there.

-- Peter Errington (petere7@starpower.net), October 11, 2001.

We are here to prove that Peter Rabbit is dumb, and we have proved that 100 times. Poor Peter Rabbit has dug a hole so deep he can't get out. He keeps digging and digging, but the hole just keeps getting deeper.

-- (dum@rabbit.dumb), October 11, 2001.

Fuck off, twerp. (Louis?)

-- Peter Errington (petere7@starpower.net), October 11, 2001.

Very interesting. But that's not why we're there.

I repeat, Peter...NO ONE SAID IT WAS. Jeez, you're being THICK on this one. Don't ask me to leave the thread again, either. SOMEONE needs to stay here to shake your shoulders and suggest you WAKE UP!

Personally, I've never agreed with Socrates on anything that I can remember, but you're taking this thread into a pissing contest [as duly noted by Remember], and at this point it makes no sense to carry it on further. What happened to the logic that I once thought you had?

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), October 11, 2001.

While the '91 Gulf War was purely about commerce and political/economic stability, it's blindingly obvious that this one is not. I think this thread has only lasted this long because of the unlimited, untapped resources of burning hatred between Socrates and Peter Errington. Someone should sink a well and a pipeline there, we wouldn't even need oil any more.

If anything is gained economically (by US/Western corporate interests,) the gains will be "Collateral" at best. And it would take a long time to make up for the billions already spent getting them, not to mention the ongoing costs of prosecuting this war.

This one is being fought because the term National Security has shifted meaning again, back to what it meant in 1941.

-- Bemused (and_amazed@you.people), October 11, 2001.

"What happened to the logic that I once thought you had?"

The inflated ego has taken over, he cannot simply admit he was wrong.

-- cyber freud (ego@defends.itself), October 11, 2001.

Anita, please read what has transpired with care:

"On the major issue you stand corrected....only a fool would believe that there are not many agendas being served by a changing of the guard in Afghanistan. But then you have been been proven to be quite the fool in the past so your qualifications are beyond reproach."

Socrates, posted 10-08-01

-- Peter Errington (petere7@starpower.net), October 11, 2001.

What's wrong with that statement?

-- Fact (finders@inc.com), October 11, 2001.

Factfinder: We've been creamed. We get their ass. That's all there is to it.

-- Peter Errington (petere7@starpower.net), October 11, 2001.

Mr. Errington, are you suggesting that you and I are singing off the same song sheet? In case you might have missed something, I have been posting some published data that supports the importance of running distribution pipelines through Afghanistan. This may not impact the West but there are many other players in that theater who have chips on the table. For some reason, all of this seems to escape your thought process.....comments?

-- Fact (finders@inc.com), October 11, 2001.

Mr. Errington, are you suggesting that it is all that simplistic? In case you might have missed something, I have been posting some published data that supports the importance of running distribution pipelines through Afghanistan. This may not impact the West but there are many other players in that theater who have chips on the table. For some reason, the obvious details seem to escape your thought process.....comments?

-- Fact (finders@inc.com), October 11, 2001.

Factfinder: I'm sure other countries, including in our coalition, have all sorts of agendas. There is a difference, though, because they weren't hit, we were.

-- Peter Errington (petere7@starpower.net), October 11, 2001.

This is true to a point. I understand that there were citizens from over 38 countries that lost their lives in the WTC ‘bombings’. And most of those countries have either experienced terrorist’s acts or expect to in the future.

-- Fact (finders@inc.com), October 11, 2001.

I've tried to tell you people before. This is not a conspiracy, it's a well thought out plan. We have regular meetings and everything.

Please try not to interefere. Thank you for your cooperation.

-- Jack Booted Thug (governmentconspiracy@NWO.com), October 11, 2001.

-- (dumb@dum.di dum), October 11, 2001.

The southern ex-Soviet states are licking their chops. There are probably elements within Pakistan who can see a sliver lining in his attack.

We know there are Afghan exiles who consider themselves "royal", and hope to regain power on the surf of an expanded economic outlook once the US starts pumping money into the area in 2003 or so.

The US has no real economic interest in this high desert. Errington is correct in what he says - why we're there is pretty basic. What we get out of it regionally/economically when all is said and done isn't the primary driver here.

The end we seek is homeland security. Anything else we gain on the way to this end is only gravy.

-- Bemused (and_amazed@you.people), October 11, 2001.

-- (gravy@train.rollin), October 11, 2001.