Are our young men dying so that the Afghan government can pass laws like this?

[seagullsovergrimsby]

Pipeline for what?

Natural gas , the pipeline would go from Turkmenistan , through Afghanistan , Pakistan and then terminate in India.

 

[seagullsovergrimsby]

We aint doing it for their benefit,we are doing it to secure the pipeline across Afghanistan to Pakistan, for America's benefit.
Same as Iraq we(and the locals) take the pain,America takes the profit.
And these conflicts are proving mighty lucrative for out friends across the sea.

Blair and Bush took us to war with Iraq using WMD as an excuse to eliminate Saddam Hussein. The ulterior motive was oil , with the added bonus of the yanks flattening the country and then rebuilding the infrastructure meaning mega $$$$$ contracts.

 

[looney]

We aint doing it for their benefit,we are doing it to secure the pipeline across Afghanistan to Pakistan, for America's benefit.
Same as Iraq we(and the locals) take the pain,America takes the profit.
And these conflicts are proving mighty lucrative for out friends across the sea.

well no its for Russias benefit, the article you posted was from 2002.

Heres one from a couple of years ago.

Russia to Get Central Asian Pipeline - New York Times

funny watching lefties scramble for some argument that its all the wests/Americas fault. When in effect all evidence says otherwise.

ever wondered why the left is in terminal decline in Europe?


We are killing their jihadis in there tens of thousands. better there than on the UK streets.

 

[looney]

Blair and Bush took us to war with Iraq using WMD as an excuse to eliminate Saddam Hussein. The ulterior motive was oil , with the added bonus of the yanks flattening the country and then rebuilding the infrastructure meaning mega $$$$$ contracts.

how much oil was gained from bombing Serbia?

 

[dougdeep]

Sarah Watts, a Brighton football fan who is thinking of marrying her imaginary Afghan boyfriend, Al-Terrio Connorjihad said "If I refuse to have sex with him and he starves me I could be dead within three years, it's a disgrace"

Sad git! What has she ever done to you?

 

[raymondbriggs]

Natural gas , the pipeline would go from Turkmenistan , through Afghanistan , Pakistan and then terminate in India.

And this construction will be controlled and exploited by the one true world police,with bribes and kickbacks to corrupt yank friendly Afghanistan politicians and warlords.

Funny how the Taliban were America's friend and invention during the Afghan/Russia War

 

[seagullsovergrimsby]

This article is much more up to date :


Why is Afghanistan strategically so important to the West? Why is Afghanistan strategically so important to the West?
Posted By John Foster, Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives
Posted 4 hours ago


Why is Afghanistan so important?

A glance at a map and a little knowledge of the region suggest that the real reasons for Western military involvement may be largely hidden.

Afghanistan is adjacent to Middle Eastern countries that are rich in oil and natural gas. And though Afghanistan may have little petroleum itself, it borders both Iran and Turkmenistan, countries with the second and third largest natural gas reserves in the world. (Russia is first.)

Turkmenistan is the country nobody talks about. Its huge reserves of natural gas can only get to market through pipelines. Until 1991, it was part of the Soviet Union and its gas flowed only north through Soviet pipelines. Now the Russians plan a new pipeline north. The Chinese are building a new pipeline east. The U.S. is pushing for "multiple oil and gas export routes." High-level Russian, Chinese and American delegations visit Turkmenistan frequently to discuss energy. The U.S. even has a special envoy for Eurasian energy diplomacy.

Rivalry for pipeline routes and energy resources reflects competition for power and control in the region. Pipelines are important today in the same way that railway building was important in the 19th century. They connect trading partners and influence the regional balance of power. Afghanistan is a strategic piece of real estate in the geopolitical struggle for power and dominance in the region.

Since the 1990s, Washington has promoted a natural gas pipeline south through Afghanistan. The route would pass through Kandahar province. In 2007, Richard Boucher, U.S. assistant secretary of state, said: "One of our goals is to stabilize Afghanistan," and to link South and Central Asia "so that energy can flow to the south." Oil and gas have motivated U.S. involvement in the Middle East for decades. Unwittingly or willingly, Canadian Forces are supporting American goals.

The proposed pipeline is called TAPI, after the initials of the four participating countries (Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, Pakistan and India). Eleven high-level planning meetings have been held during the past seven years, with Asian Development Bank sponsorship and multilateral support (including Canada's). Construction is planned to start next year.

The pipeline project was documented at three donor conferences on Afghanistan in the past three years and is referenced in the 2008 Afghan Development Plan. Canada was represented at these conferences at the ministerial level. Thus, our leaders must know. Yet they avoid discussion of the planned pipeline through Afghanistan.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper says he "will withdraw the bulk of the military forces" in 2011. The remaining troops will focus mostly on "reconstruction and development." Does that include the pipeline?

Pipeline rivalry is slightly more visible in Europe. Ukraine is the main gateway for gas from Russia to Europe. The United States has pushed for alternate pipelines and encouraged European countries to diversify their sources of supply. Recently built pipelines for oil and gas originate in Azerbaijan and extend through Georgia to Turkey. They are the jewels in the crown of U.S. strategy to bypass Russia and Iran.

The rivalry continues with plans for new gas pipelines to Europe from Russia and the Caspian region. The Russians plan South Stream - a pipeline under the Black Sea to Bulgaria. The European Union and U.S. are backing a pipeline called Nabucco that would supply gas to Europe via Turkey. Nabucco would get some gas from Azerbaijan, but that country doesn't have enough. Additional supply could come from Turkmenistan, but Russia is blocking a link across the Caspian Sea. Iran offers another source, but the U.S. is blocking the use of Iranian gas.

Advertisement
Meanwhile, Iran is planning a pipeline to deliver gas east to Pakistan and India. Pakistan has agreed in principle, but India has yet to do so. It's an alternative to the long-planned, U.S.-supported pipeline from Turkmenistan through Afghanistan to Pakistan and India.

A very big game is underway, with geopolitics intruding everywhere. U.S. journalist Steven LeVine describes American policy in the region as "pipeline-driven." Other countries are pushing for pipeline routes, too. The energy game remains largely hidden; the focus is on humanitarian, development and national security concerns. In Canada, Afghanistan has been avoided in the past two elections.

With the U.S. surge underway and the British ambassador to Washington predicting a decades-long commitment, it's reasonable to ask: Why are the U.S. and NATO in Afghanistan? Could the motivation be power, a permanent military bridgehead, access to energy resources?

Militarizing energy has a high price in dollars, lives and morality. There are long-term consequences for everyone. Canadian voters want to know: Why is Afghanistan so important?

John Foster is an energy economist and author of "A Pipeline Through A Troubled Land - Afghanistan, Canada, and the New Great Energy Game," published by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives

 

[seagullsovergrimsby]

how much oil was gained from bombing Serbia?

none , the bombing of Serbia was retalliation for the mass genocides in Bosnia-Herzegovina , Kosovo and Croatia.

 

[raymondbriggs]

much as I might like to take Looneys views seriously
All his views are taken from the Israel book of modern politics.

 

[raymondbriggs]

well no its for Russias benefit, the article you posted was from 2002.

Heres one from a couple of years ago.

Russia to Get Central Asian Pipeline - New York Times

funny watching lefties scramble for some argument that its all the wests/Americas fault. When in effect all evidence says otherwise.

ever wondered why the left is in terminal decline in Europe?


We are killing their jihadis in there tens of thousands. better there than on the UK streets.

Ever wondered why the Taliban was founded,armed and trained to fight the Government of the Northern Alliance

and what part of this pipeline BENEFITS Russia?

 

[Huple]

This article is much more up to date :


Why is Afghanistan strategically so important to the West? Why is Afghanistan strategically so important to the West?
Posted By John Foster, Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives
Posted 4 hours ago


Why is Afghanistan so important?

A glance at a map and a little knowledge of the region suggest that the real reasons for Western military involvement may be largely hidden.

Afghanistan is adjacent to Middle Eastern countries that are rich in oil and natural gas. And though Afghanistan may have little petroleum itself, it borders both Iran and Turkmenistan, countries with the second and third largest natural gas reserves in the world. (Russia is first.)

Turkmenistan is the country nobody talks about. Its huge reserves of natural gas can only get to market through pipelines. Until 1991, it was part of the Soviet Union and its gas flowed only north through Soviet pipelines. Now the Russians plan a new pipeline north. The Chinese are building a new pipeline east. The U.S. is pushing for "multiple oil and gas export routes." High-level Russian, Chinese and American delegations visit Turkmenistan frequently to discuss energy. The U.S. even has a special envoy for Eurasian energy diplomacy.

Rivalry for pipeline routes and energy resources reflects competition for power and control in the region. Pipelines are important today in the same way that railway building was important in the 19th century. They connect trading partners and influence the regional balance of power. Afghanistan is a strategic piece of real estate in the geopolitical struggle for power and dominance in the region.

Since the 1990s, Washington has promoted a natural gas pipeline south through Afghanistan. The route would pass through Kandahar province. In 2007, Richard Boucher, U.S. assistant secretary of state, said: "One of our goals is to stabilize Afghanistan," and to link South and Central Asia "so that energy can flow to the south." Oil and gas have motivated U.S. involvement in the Middle East for decades. Unwittingly or willingly, Canadian Forces are supporting American goals.

The proposed pipeline is called TAPI, after the initials of the four participating countries (Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, Pakistan and India). Eleven high-level planning meetings have been held during the past seven years, with Asian Development Bank sponsorship and multilateral support (including Canada's). Construction is planned to start next year.

The pipeline project was documented at three donor conferences on Afghanistan in the past three years and is referenced in the 2008 Afghan Development Plan. Canada was represented at these conferences at the ministerial level. Thus, our leaders must know. Yet they avoid discussion of the planned pipeline through Afghanistan.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper says he "will withdraw the bulk of the military forces" in 2011. The remaining troops will focus mostly on "reconstruction and development." Does that include the pipeline?

Pipeline rivalry is slightly more visible in Europe. Ukraine is the main gateway for gas from Russia to Europe. The United States has pushed for alternate pipelines and encouraged European countries to diversify their sources of supply. Recently built pipelines for oil and gas originate in Azerbaijan and extend through Georgia to Turkey. They are the jewels in the crown of U.S. strategy to bypass Russia and Iran.

The rivalry continues with plans for new gas pipelines to Europe from Russia and the Caspian region. The Russians plan South Stream - a pipeline under the Black Sea to Bulgaria. The European Union and U.S. are backing a pipeline called Nabucco that would supply gas to Europe via Turkey. Nabucco would get some gas from Azerbaijan, but that country doesn't have enough. Additional supply could come from Turkmenistan, but Russia is blocking a link across the Caspian Sea. Iran offers another source, but the U.S. is blocking the use of Iranian gas.

Advertisement
Meanwhile, Iran is planning a pipeline to deliver gas east to Pakistan and India. Pakistan has agreed in principle, but India has yet to do so. It's an alternative to the long-planned, U.S.-supported pipeline from Turkmenistan through Afghanistan to Pakistan and India.

A very big game is underway, with geopolitics intruding everywhere. U.S. journalist Steven LeVine describes American policy in the region as "pipeline-driven." Other countries are pushing for pipeline routes, too. The energy game remains largely hidden; the focus is on humanitarian, development and national security concerns. In Canada, Afghanistan has been avoided in the past two elections.

With the U.S. surge underway and the British ambassador to Washington predicting a decades-long commitment, it's reasonable to ask: Why are the U.S. and NATO in Afghanistan? Could the motivation be power, a permanent military bridgehead, access to energy resources?

Militarizing energy has a high price in dollars, lives and morality. There are long-term consequences for everyone. Canadian voters want to know: Why is Afghanistan so important?

John Foster is an energy economist and author of "A Pipeline Through A Troubled Land - Afghanistan, Canada, and the New Great Energy Game," published by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives

People are not buying enough hats you say...............

 

[looney]

This article is much more up to date :


Why is Afghanistan strategically so important to the West? Why is Afghanistan strategically so important to the West?
Posted By John Foster, Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives
Posted 4 hours ago


Why is Afghanistan so important?

A glance at a map and a little knowledge of the region suggest that the real reasons for Western military involvement may be largely hidden.

Afghanistan is adjacent to Middle Eastern countries that are rich in oil and natural gas. And though Afghanistan may have little petroleum itself, it borders both Iran and Turkmenistan, countries with the second and third largest natural gas reserves in the world. (Russia is first.)

Turkmenistan is the country nobody talks about. Its huge reserves of natural gas can only get to market through pipelines. Until 1991, it was part of the Soviet Union and its gas flowed only north through Soviet pipelines. Now the Russians plan a new pipeline north. The Chinese are building a new pipeline east. The U.S. is pushing for "multiple oil and gas export routes." High-level Russian, Chinese and American delegations visit Turkmenistan frequently to discuss energy. The U.S. even has a special envoy for Eurasian energy diplomacy.

Rivalry for pipeline routes and energy resources reflects competition for power and control in the region. Pipelines are important today in the same way that railway building was important in the 19th century. They connect trading partners and influence the regional balance of power. Afghanistan is a strategic piece of real estate in the geopolitical struggle for power and dominance in the region.

Since the 1990s, Washington has promoted a natural gas pipeline south through Afghanistan. The route would pass through Kandahar province. In 2007, Richard Boucher, U.S. assistant secretary of state, said: "One of our goals is to stabilize Afghanistan," and to link South and Central Asia "so that energy can flow to the south." Oil and gas have motivated U.S. involvement in the Middle East for decades. Unwittingly or willingly, Canadian Forces are supporting American goals.

The proposed pipeline is called TAPI, after the initials of the four participating countries (Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, Pakistan and India). Eleven high-level planning meetings have been held during the past seven years, with Asian Development Bank sponsorship and multilateral support (including Canada's). Construction is planned to start next year.

The pipeline project was documented at three donor conferences on Afghanistan in the past three years and is referenced in the 2008 Afghan Development Plan. Canada was represented at these conferences at the ministerial level. Thus, our leaders must know. Yet they avoid discussion of the planned pipeline through Afghanistan.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper says he "will withdraw the bulk of the military forces" in 2011. The remaining troops will focus mostly on "reconstruction and development." Does that include the pipeline?

Pipeline rivalry is slightly more visible in Europe. Ukraine is the main gateway for gas from Russia to Europe. The United States has pushed for alternate pipelines and encouraged European countries to diversify their sources of supply. Recently built pipelines for oil and gas originate in Azerbaijan and extend through Georgia to Turkey. They are the jewels in the crown of U.S. strategy to bypass Russia and Iran.

The rivalry continues with plans for new gas pipelines to Europe from Russia and the Caspian region. The Russians plan South Stream - a pipeline under the Black Sea to Bulgaria. The European Union and U.S. are backing a pipeline called Nabucco that would supply gas to Europe via Turkey. Nabucco would get some gas from Azerbaijan, but that country doesn't have enough. Additional supply could come from Turkmenistan, but Russia is blocking a link across the Caspian Sea. Iran offers another source, but the U.S. is blocking the use of Iranian gas.

Advertisement
Meanwhile, Iran is planning a pipeline to deliver gas east to Pakistan and India. Pakistan has agreed in principle, but India has yet to do so. It's an alternative to the long-planned, U.S.-supported pipeline from Turkmenistan through Afghanistan to Pakistan and India.

A very big game is underway, with geopolitics intruding everywhere. U.S. journalist Steven LeVine describes American policy in the region as "pipeline-driven." Other countries are pushing for pipeline routes, too. The energy game remains largely hidden; the focus is on humanitarian, development and national security concerns. In Canada, Afghanistan has been avoided in the past two elections.

With the U.S. surge underway and the British ambassador to Washington predicting a decades-long commitment, it's reasonable to ask: Why are the U.S. and NATO in Afghanistan? Could the motivation be power, a permanent military bridgehead, access to energy resources?

Militarizing energy has a high price in dollars, lives and morality. There are long-term consequences for everyone. Canadian voters want to know: Why is Afghanistan so important?

John Foster is an energy economist and author of "A Pipeline Through A Troubled Land - Afghanistan, Canada, and the New Great Energy Game," published by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives

It is also as biased as it gets as John foster writes for..

Socialist Voice

New Socialist: CANADA: A Socialist View of the Election

The Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives is a left-of-centre trade union financed bolt hole for commies.

 

[looney]

none , the bombing of Serbia was retalliation for the mass genocides in Bosnia-Herzegovina , Kosovo and Croatia.

Wooooooooosh!

 

[looney]

Ever wondered why the Taliban was founded,armed and trained to fight the Government of the Northern Alliance

and what part of this pipeline BENEFITS Russia?

the Taliban was founded by Pakistanis secret service the ISI and was founded out of ex-jihadis fighting the soviets to increase pakistani influence in Afghanistan along tribal lines.

 

[raymondbriggs]

the Taliban was founded by Pakistanis secret service the ISI and was founded out of ex-jihadis fighting the soviets to increase pakistani influence in Afghanistan along tribal lines.

just following the party line from Tel-Aviv

Even John Rambo would not believe that bit of bullshit

 

[raymondbriggs]

and again
What part of that Pipeline BENEFITS Russia?
It is designed to BREAK Russian influence on Gas Supplies.

 

[seagullsovergrimsby]

It is also as biased as it gets as John foster writes for..

Socialist Voice

New Socialist: CANADA: A Socialist View of the Election

The Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives is a left-of-centre trade union financed bolt hole for commies.

without reading articles from the left and right there is no way to take a balanced view or opinion , if all we are fed is pap by the media in this country.

 

[seagullsovergrimsby]

the Taliban was founded by Pakistanis secret service the ISI and was founded out of ex-jihadis fighting the soviets to increase pakistani influence in Afghanistan along tribal lines.

You forgot to mention that the CIA also gave military assistance and funding to the Taliban.

 

[raymondbriggs]

You forgot to mention that the CIA also gave military assistance and funding to the Taliban.

unfortunately,anything even remotely pro or sympathetic to any issue with regards to Muslims automatically brings our chum out to trot the Kosher line.
just as he decries any view as "leftie" "red" or "commie" it is only due to his insecurity over the future of Israel.
Muslims are his enemy-not the true victims of oppression and Land Theft

 

[Barrel of Fun]

I only just found out, the other day, that a chap I knew fairly well (obviously not that well) was killed in action, back in May. Quite a few of my friends have ended up in the army and served in Afghan, but I don't feel in a position to judge whether we should be there or not.

What we set out to achieve and what we now want to achieve may be very different things. One thing that does piss me off, is a movement like the Socialist Worker who seem to spring up all over the place, who are willing to push their agenda, but come across as lending no support to our troops that are out there (in my opinion).

Michael Moore covered things rather well. There are people that are very keen to send in troops (senates and what have you), but would not be willing to enlist their family members to the cause, whatever that might be.

RIP Mark BBC NEWS | UK | Tributes to Afghan death soldier