I'm surprised there weren't more world leaders talking about how we "deserved" it.
<hr></blockquote>
You're right: On 11 September Chirac must have been warming up some real good crocodile tears:
You guys talk about Europe as if it were one place. Here's a more nuanced look: an assessment of the Campaign Against Terror, dated 1 October, by the US Dept of State:
[quote]NATO COUNTRIES
Â*
In general, reaction across the political spectrum to the Bush administration's "calm and methodical" behavior in the wake of the attacks has been notably positive.Â* The president's speech before Congress, his calls for Americans to shun anti-Muslim behavior and the executive order freezing terrorists' assets all appear to have reassured commentators that the U.S. was acting in a responsible manner.Â*
Â*
Nevertheless, while praising the Bush administration's "astute diplomatic footwork" and public relations strategy thus far, uncertainty appeared to be on the rise about future U.S. plans and whether Washington could achieve its ambitious goal of defeating terrorism.Â* A majority of commentators--mainly writing in, but not limited to, liberal to center-left dailies in West European capitals--argued that the U.S. must now set out clear aims and objectives, consulting closely with coalition allies.Â* Many also demanded the U.S. produce hard evidence that Usama bin Laden masterminded the attacks.Â* At the same time, more conservative analysts--most notably in Britain, Canada and East European capitals--viewing the attacks as an assault on all democracies, were unrelenting in their calls for a military reprisal.Â* Cynics--a distinct minority, mostly in the Greek press--continued to blame U.S. policies for fostering anti-Americanism and fueling international terrorism.
Â*
In the second and third weeks after the attacks, writers focused on how U.S. coalition-building could change the geopolitical landscape. Â*Concern grew that in an effort to forge new alliances with sometime foes--Pakistan, Russia, China, Iran, Sudan, Syria were named--the U.S. would overlook certain human rights and nonproliferation issues.
<strong>Europe was internally outraged at the way the U.S. acted in regards to 9/11. Of course, the leaders gave tacit support, but that was a thinly-veiled sheepshow.</strong><hr></blockquote>
That is a flat out lie. I actually think there is more internal US sceptisim against the attack on Afghanistan than European. Almost everyone I know recognised 911 as an attack against US and it had the right to defend itself against those who did it. Would our government offer ground troops, military ships and fighter planes to help in the war one month before the election to parliarment if it hadn´t the support of the population? Only one party (the most left winged) with about 6-7 seats out of 179 was against it.
What european leaders said in september was not "Its their own fault". No they basically said three thing over and over and over again.
This is an outrageous attack on US. Of course they have every right to hit back on those who did this and their supporters and we are morally obligated to assist according to article five and we will do that.
Internal security must be secured. Laws must be passed allowing police and agencies to operate more freely (I disagree with a lot of the legislation that have been pushed forward under this hat but that is what they said)
We must identify the source of terrorism and work to stop it.
Now the disagreement between Europe(ans) and US is how we do the last thing not on the attack on Afghanistan. Bush et al seems to think #1 and #3 is the same thing and that you somehow can bomb or scare the source of terrorism away while "we" think that the source of terrorism is rooted in much more fundamental conditions and you have to deal with them to get rid of it.
What you obviously fail to see is the difference between a war against an identified enemy Al Quada and its supporter Taliban and then a war against anything Bush declares as evil. It is two different things at least for me and also what I read out of any of the reactions from european politicians.
Germany gave up their post WWII "no german troops outside Germany" policy after 911 to be able to assist US troops if needed and everyone knowing just a little bit about post 45 Germany know it is not a trivial political desicion. The coalition between the green and the socialist party was close to breaking up because of this (the common members of the green party was partly against it but Fisher convinced them to support it). Doesn´t seem to be facade half-assed support to me.
n the second and third weeks after the attacks, writers focused on how U.S. coalition-building could change the geopolitical landscape. Â*Concern grew that in an effort to forge new alliances with sometime foes--Pakistan, Russia, China, Iran, Sudan, Syria were named--the U.S. would overlook certain human rights and nonproliferation issues.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I partly disagree with that analysis. One of the positive things that was hoped by at least parts of the press was if US was to cooperate with Iran (using landing strips, getting supplies or at least using air space) in the fight against Taleban and getting more normal relations to it this way. Unfortunetly it wasn´t nessesary.
If the EU is against the United States doing what is necessary to protect her citizens, then I fail to see what purpose the EU's criticisms serve.</strong><hr></blockquote>
We are not against security but "we" disagree strongly on how to obtain it. Will calling Iran and NK evil make it more secure for us or at least for US citizents? Will an attack on those countries do it? I don´t think so and nobody have explained to me how this is suppose to work. I just don´t buy the "well the Iranian population will see this as support for their fight for freedom" unless you hope for a revolution. The best authority on NK is SK in my book and they were pissed when Bush cancelled the sunshine policy. What are the goals to that? Starve the country to death or hope for a revolution?
I need some goals for this policy to be able to understand it.
I partly disagree with that analysis. One of the positive things that was hoped by at least parts of the press was if US was to cooperate with Iran (using landing strips, getting supplies or at least using air space) in the fight against Taleban and getting more normal relations to it this way. Unfortunetly it wasn´t nessesary.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You mean fortunately it wasn't necessary. We don't want to have to compromise with them.
Why would the US want to make nice with the current government in Iran?
Massood was already dead, and with him the only adversary to the Taliban.</strong><hr></blockquote>
No, on Sept 11 Massoud wasn't already dead. He lingered for five days after the initial attack (which was on Sept. 9) in a hospital in Tajikistan, cared for by Russian army surgeons, before dying of his wounds. And he obviously wasn't the only adversary (just the most formidable) to the Taliban. The Taliban are no longer in power, are they?
<strong>... I don't think your congressional testimony from a guy in a leather coated office stands any credibility when compared to the testimony of Massood.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Let's see. You allege that our policy is driven by our desire to build a pipeline across Afghanistan but it doesn't matter to you that Assistant Secretary for Policy, U.S. Department of Energy said otherwise? And he took this position because there was an alternate route available that didn't present the same investment risks as the Afghan route. This is of no consequence? Think whatever you want to think. Make as little sense as you want. I have better things to do than to argue with you anymore.
[quote] Europe was internally outraged at the way the U.S. acted in regards to 9/11. Of course, the leaders gave tacit support, but that was a thinly-veiled sheepshow. <hr></blockquote>
They did agree on Article 5 of NATO, and nobody I know or heard of had the balls to go against that. Europe doesn't hate the US. Europe just doesn't approve all actions, and this is what you don't understand.
[quote] No, on Sept 11 Massoud wasn't already dead. He lingered for five days after the initial attack (which was on Sept. 9) in a hospital in Tajikistan, cared for by Russian army surgeons, before dying of his wounds. And he obviously wasn't the only adversary (just the most formidable) to the Taliban. The Taliban are no longer in power, are they? <hr></blockquote>
Again, like a child, you discuss semantics. Massood being dead or close to dead doesn't change anything. Does it? He died in the end.
Now to discuss your "argument" regarding the pipeline:
[quote] In other words, by this testimony it's obvious that the Afghan option wasn't very high on the list. <hr></blockquote>
Well, how shall I put it... It seems to me you do infact suffer from a sever case of attention span disorder. If you had read the document, instead of picking a paragraph out of context, you would have noticed the entire document you pointed me to insisted on the importance of Aghanistan to the pipeline for UNOCAL and CentGas.
here are a few interesting exerpts:
[quote] The second option is to build a pipeline south from Central Asia to the Indian Ocean. One obvious route south would cross Iran, but this is foreclosed for American companies because of U.S. sanctions legislation. The only other possible route is across Afghanistan, which has of course its own unique challenges. The country has been involved in bitter warfare for almost two decades, and is still divided by civil war. From the outset, we have made it clear that construction of the pipeline we have proposed across Afghanistan could not begin until a recognized government is in place that has the confidence of governments, lenders, and our company.
Â*Â*Last October, the Central Asia Gas Pipeline Consortium, called CentGas, in which Unocal holds an interest, was formed to develop a gas pipeline which will link Turkmenistan's vast Dauletabad gas field with markets in Pakistan and possibly India. The proposed 790-mile pipeline will open up new markets for this gas, traveling from Turkmenistan through Afghanistan to Multan in Pakistan. The proposed extension would move gas on to New Delhi, where it would connect with an existing pipeline. As with the proposed Central Asia oil pipeline, CentGas can not begin construction until an internationally recognized Afghanistan Government is in place.
Â*Â*Â*Â*The Central Asia and Caspian region is blessed with abundant oil and gas that can enhance the lives of the region's residents, and provide energy for growth in both Europe and Asia. The impact of these resources on U.S. commercial interests and U.S. foreign policy is also significant. Without peaceful settlement of the conflicts in the region, cross-border oil and gas pipelines are not likely to be built. We urge the Administration and the Congress to give strong support to the U.N.-led peace process in Afghanistan. The U.S. Government should use its influence to help find solutions to all of the region's conflicts.
Mr. MARESCA. First, on the question about Afghanistan, of course we're not in a phase where we are negotiating on a contract because there is no recognized government really to negotiate with. However, we have had talks and briefings with all the factions. It is clear that they all understand the significance for their country of this pipeline project, and they all support it, all of them. They all want it. They would like it to start tomorrow. All of the factions would like it to start tomorrow if we could do it.
<hr></blockquote>
The involvement of the company in Afghanistan, coupled with the fact that a route through Iran is not viable, clearly demonstrates that YOU, my friend, are not
a) capable of reading a document
b) capable of having an unbiased opinion
c) Are very stubborn on irrelevant issues.
Anything else?
As to some poster saying the US shouldn't tie with undemocratic countries such as Pakistan:
You herlad democracy like it's some kind of St Graal. Guess what, it isn't. Not only is it now an obsolete concept, but in some countries, it can not handle itself. Without the help of Pakistan, the US would have been in a very unfomfortable position in Afghanistan. Pakistan has just gone through 20 years of corrupted democratic governments. General Muscharraf is a very good man, as can clearly be seen by his recent speeches and action. He's the best ally the US will get in the area. When the time will come, he will also stage elections. However for the time being, the stabilitty of the country and of the region is not enough for elections. Furthermore, he has the support of a large majority of the population, so your point about the country not being democratic is irrelevant. The same applies to other countries.
[quote] As to some poster saying the US shouldn't tie with undemocratic countries such as Pakistan <hr></blockquote>
I deleted that statement, but as you refered to it anyway I guess i'll have to explain my point a bit more.
I said that the way the US allies itself with stategicly important partners to make short-term millitary gains, could backfire in a major way later (i.e. Iraq).
It is a bit hard to accept the "axis of evil" of the month, when the "friends" of the US, are just as bad...
About Musharaff; He might be the best ally the US has in the region, but he is also a millitary dictator who siezed power with force from a democraticly elected government. The signal the US send is clear: "If your a power hungry general who feels left out of the worlds spotlight, then go ahead! Just throw out those no-good politicians and run the show yourself. Just remember to be a friend of the US. Let us build a few bases, and you to can be a superstar of international politics.
You can't really hide behind the argument that he is a "good dictator"... thats a real dangerous path to walk down.
[quote] I said that the way the US allies itself with stategicly important partners to make short-term millitary gains, could backfire in a major way later (i.e. Iraq).<hr></blockquote>
Very good point. The US tends to only see short-term benefit, in most of its actions (see kyoto protocol)
[quote] About Musharaff; He might be the best ally the US has in the region, but he is also a millitary dictator who siezed power with force from a democraticly elected government. The signal the US send is clear: "If your a power hungry general who feels left out of the worlds spotlight, then go ahead! Just throw out those no-good politicians and run the show yourself. Just remember to be a friend of the US. Let us build a few bases, and you to can be a superstar of international politics. <hr></blockquote>
You might want to get your facts straight. The gvt before Muscharraf (that of Nawaz Sharif) was corrupted, in fact Sharif already had gotten ousted as a PM once for charges of corruption. While General Muscharraf was outside the country, Sharif tried overturning him, and putting an armies chief that as loyal to him. Upon learning this, Muscharraf tried flying back to Pakistan. Sharif ordered the Airport authorities to prevent him from landing. Muscharraf managed to land nevertheless, with the help of loyal generals within the army. Landed with fuel left for only 2 minutes. Sharif got charged with kidnapping and other charges related to that event and the corruption issues. The seizure of power of Muscharraf was actually greeted with demonstations of joy throughout the country. So while some democracy advocates might paint the events as being "millitary dictator who siezed power with force from a democraticly elected government", the facts say otherwise.
Once again, diversity of sources and information is key.
Yes. When it comes to attention deficits I've got nothing on you. I did not fail to notice that Unocal was invoved in Afghanistan. I specifically mentioned that fact in my post. The problem is those 5 words at the end of Mr. Maresca's statement, "... if we could do it." They couldn't. The Afghan project was all but dead by the time of this hearing. When you're looking to spend billions of dollars you can't just wish away the political instability of the region. And as you have helpfully pointed out, his testimony was that ALL of the factions in Afghanistan supported the pipeline project across the country. ALL of them. That pretty much vitiated any need to deal with Taliban to the exclusion of the other factions even if the Afghan option remained a viable choice. Finally, you mentioned that an Iran route is not viable. That wasn't the primary alternative that wasn't presented.
when you point at the sky, the idiot looks at the finger...
you're living proof of that saying.
I KNOW the pipeline was NOT possible. It was not possible BECAUSE of the taliban, the instability of the region etc. My initial point was that the US was in negotiations with the taliban regarding that pipeline, and that it was amongst the reasons why it closed its eyes on the doings of the taliban, expecting some positive outcome of the dealings.
Furthermore, your document dates from 98, ie the taliban had JUST come to power (and don't start discussing the definition of "just" in order to convince yourself that you're right). It doesn't adress AT ALL the evolution of the issue in the 3 years that followed. But dismissing Massood's testimony for this text is quite convenient for you isn't it?
So to sum this all up, I'll let you choose between my version and yours:
Me: The US waited until the 9/11 attacks before doing anything regarding the Taliban, thus letting them violate human rights and destroy valuable international cultural property. The US helped the taliban come to power in 97 because they were long-time soviet-era allies, and the US thought they would bring stability to the region, and help them securing energy deals.
The US closed its eyes on the actions of the taliban from 97 up until somepoint in 2001 because they badly wanted the taliban to stabilize the country, and thus allow the pipelines. When it became apparent at some point during 2001 that even though the taliban had control on over 90% of Afghanistan, especially the area where the pipeline was supposed to be built, and that nevertheless the taliban didn't agree on the pipeline deal, the US got pissed. Bush gets elected and warns the taliban gvt that it better cooperate, or else.
During all this time Afghanistan was the number one training ground of terrorist extremist forces in the world.
You: The pipeline deal was off in 98, and from there on, the US was simply either acting stupid and not realizing that Afghanistan was a dangerous breeding factory for terrorists and thus doing anything about it, or the US was being a hypocrite and letting the taliban do whatever they wanted as long as they didn't do anything to US assets.
<strong>Me: The US waited until the 9/11 attacks before doing anything regarding the Taliban, thus letting them violate human rights and destroy valuable international cultural property. The US helped the taliban come to power in 97 because they were long-time soviet-era allies, and the US thought they would bring stability to the region, and help them securing energy deals.
The US closed its eyes on the actions of the taliban from 97 up until somepoint in 2001 because they badly wanted the taliban to stabilize the country, and thus allow the pipelines. When it became apparent at some point during 2001 that even though the taliban had control on over 90% of Afghanistan, especially the area where the pipeline was supposed to be built, and that nevertheless the taliban didn't agree on the pipeline deal, the US got pissed. Bush gets elected and warns the taliban gvt that it better cooperate, or else.</strong><hr></blockquote>After the Soviets left in 1989, there was civil war and fighting among different anti-Soviet factions. Yes, we supported anti-Soviet groups. But can you provide evidence that we supported the Taliban over other anti-Soviet groups?
Because there's a lot of evidence that's inconsistent with that idea: We had a grand jury convene against bin Laden in 1996, when he was already in Afghanistan with the Taliban. So we didn't like the Taliban even back then. Then we bombed Afghanistan in 1998. We also imposed sanctions on them in 1999. Doesn't sound to me like we supported them. Lots of prominent American citizens (like the Lenos) and politicians were talking about how bad the Taliban were even as they were taking power around 1997.
At the very least, your timing is wrong if you're suggesting we didn't do anything until 2001.
I KNOW the pipeline was NOT possible. It was not possible BECAUSE of the taliban...
... Furthermore, your document dates from 98...</strong><hr></blockquote>
Right. That's how long the project has been DEAD.
Hmmm. The pipeline was not possible BECAUSE of the Taliban and yet the US chose not to intervene. Obviously the Afghan pipeline was no longer something that was being seriously pursued. And yet you make it central to the US's motives. From my first reply to you I knew this was a waste of time... Indulge in name calling if it makes you feel clever. I should have left this alone when I first said I was done with you.
earlier in this thread I have pointed to evidence the US supported the taliban over other factions, most notably the Northern Alliance.
As to my timeline in my previous post, it wasn't pinpoint accurate, I know, I was trying to make a point, not getting exact dates; and though there might be a few months difference between my timeline and what happened, the general idea is unchanged. I know the US sent a couple of Tomahawks on Afghanistan after the USS Cole attack. Relations were heating up at that point, but my point remains.
[quote] Hmmm. The pipeline was not possible BECAUSE of the Taliban and yet the US chose not to intervene. Obviously the Afghan pipeline was no longer something that was being seriously pursued. And yet you make it central to the US's motives. From my first reply to you I knew this was a waste of time...<hr></blockquote>
because things cannot change in 3 years?
I've not made it central to the US' motives. Yet again you fail to see the scope of what happened. I know very well there are thousands of things that have influenced the US foreign policy throughout the years, most of which we can't even begin to fathom. You're the only one capable of saying en empire came down because it was called evil...All I'm saying is this pipeline was one of the major issues that influenced the US policy, Afghanistan's natural ressources have attracted the Soviet Union during the Cold War, and now the US.
Anyways, the debate has drifted far, far away from where it should have. You've failed to demonstrate any level-headedness whatsoever regarding the US foreign policy. And this is exactly why I posted in the first place. Even ScottH has returned to his calm, level-headed state... And you get to vote...
Comments
I'm surprised there weren't more world leaders talking about how we "deserved" it.
<hr></blockquote>
You're right: On 11 September Chirac must have been warming up some real good crocodile tears:
You guys talk about Europe as if it were one place. Here's a more nuanced look: an assessment of the Campaign Against Terror, dated 1 October, by the US Dept of State:
[quote]NATO COUNTRIES
Â*
In general, reaction across the political spectrum to the Bush administration's "calm and methodical" behavior in the wake of the attacks has been notably positive.Â* The president's speech before Congress, his calls for Americans to shun anti-Muslim behavior and the executive order freezing terrorists' assets all appear to have reassured commentators that the U.S. was acting in a responsible manner.Â*
Â*
Nevertheless, while praising the Bush administration's "astute diplomatic footwork" and public relations strategy thus far, uncertainty appeared to be on the rise about future U.S. plans and whether Washington could achieve its ambitious goal of defeating terrorism.Â* A majority of commentators--mainly writing in, but not limited to, liberal to center-left dailies in West European capitals--argued that the U.S. must now set out clear aims and objectives, consulting closely with coalition allies.Â* Many also demanded the U.S. produce hard evidence that Usama bin Laden masterminded the attacks.Â* At the same time, more conservative analysts--most notably in Britain, Canada and East European capitals--viewing the attacks as an assault on all democracies, were unrelenting in their calls for a military reprisal.Â* Cynics--a distinct minority, mostly in the Greek press--continued to blame U.S. policies for fostering anti-Americanism and fueling international terrorism.
Â*
In the second and third weeks after the attacks, writers focused on how U.S. coalition-building could change the geopolitical landscape. Â*Concern grew that in an effort to forge new alliances with sometime foes--Pakistan, Russia, China, Iran, Sudan, Syria were named--the U.S. would overlook certain human rights and nonproliferation issues.
<hr></blockquote>
Full text <a href="http://usinfo.state.gov/admin/005/wwwh1o01.html"; target="_blank">here</a>.
<strong>Europe was internally outraged at the way the U.S. acted in regards to 9/11. Of course, the leaders gave tacit support, but that was a thinly-veiled sheepshow.</strong><hr></blockquote>
That is a flat out lie. I actually think there is more internal US sceptisim against the attack on Afghanistan than European. Almost everyone I know recognised 911 as an attack against US and it had the right to defend itself against those who did it. Would our government offer ground troops, military ships and fighter planes to help in the war one month before the election to parliarment if it hadn´t the support of the population? Only one party (the most left winged) with about 6-7 seats out of 179 was against it.
What european leaders said in september was not "Its their own fault". No they basically said three thing over and over and over again.
- This is an outrageous attack on US. Of course they have every right to hit back on those who did this and their supporters and we are morally obligated to assist according to article five and we will do that.
- Internal security must be secured. Laws must be passed allowing police and agencies to operate more freely (I disagree with a lot of the legislation that have been pushed forward under this hat but that is what they said)
- We must identify the source of terrorism and work to stop it.
Now the disagreement between Europe(ans) and US is how we do the last thing not on the attack on Afghanistan. Bush et al seems to think #1 and #3 is the same thing and that you somehow can bomb or scare the source of terrorism away while "we" think that the source of terrorism is rooted in much more fundamental conditions and you have to deal with them to get rid of it.What you obviously fail to see is the difference between a war against an identified enemy Al Quada and its supporter Taliban and then a war against anything Bush declares as evil. It is two different things at least for me and also what I read out of any of the reactions from european politicians.
<strong>
n the second and third weeks after the attacks, writers focused on how U.S. coalition-building could change the geopolitical landscape. Â*Concern grew that in an effort to forge new alliances with sometime foes--Pakistan, Russia, China, Iran, Sudan, Syria were named--the U.S. would overlook certain human rights and nonproliferation issues.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I partly disagree with that analysis. One of the positive things that was hoped by at least parts of the press was if US was to cooperate with Iran (using landing strips, getting supplies or at least using air space) in the fight against Taleban and getting more normal relations to it this way. Unfortunetly it wasn´t nessesary.
[quote]Originally posted by groverat:
<strong>
If the EU is against the United States doing what is necessary to protect her citizens, then I fail to see what purpose the EU's criticisms serve.</strong><hr></blockquote>
We are not against security but "we" disagree strongly on how to obtain it. Will calling Iran and NK evil make it more secure for us or at least for US citizents? Will an attack on those countries do it? I don´t think so and nobody have explained to me how this is suppose to work. I just don´t buy the "well the Iranian population will see this as support for their fight for freedom" unless you hope for a revolution. The best authority on NK is SK in my book and they were pissed when Bush cancelled the sunshine policy. What are the goals to that? Starve the country to death or hope for a revolution?
I need some goals for this policy to be able to understand it.
[ 02-16-2002: Message edited by: New ]</p>
<strong>
I partly disagree with that analysis. One of the positive things that was hoped by at least parts of the press was if US was to cooperate with Iran (using landing strips, getting supplies or at least using air space) in the fight against Taleban and getting more normal relations to it this way. Unfortunetly it wasn´t nessesary.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You mean fortunately it wasn't necessary. We don't want to have to compromise with them.
Why would the US want to make nice with the current government in Iran?
<strong>
Massood was already dead, and with him the only adversary to the Taliban.</strong><hr></blockquote>
<strong>... I don't think your congressional testimony from a guy in a leather coated office stands any credibility when compared to the testimony of Massood.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Let's see. You allege that our policy is driven by our desire to build a pipeline across Afghanistan but it doesn't matter to you that Assistant Secretary for Policy, U.S. Department of Energy said otherwise? And he took this position because there was an alternate route available that didn't present the same investment risks as the Afghan route. This is of no consequence? Think whatever you want to think. Make as little sense as you want. I have better things to do than to argue with you anymore.
[ 02-16-2002: Message edited by: roger_ramjet ]</p>
They did agree on Article 5 of NATO, and nobody I know or heard of had the balls to go against that. Europe doesn't hate the US. Europe just doesn't approve all actions, and this is what you don't understand.
[quote] No, on Sept 11 Massoud wasn't already dead. He lingered for five days after the initial attack (which was on Sept. 9) in a hospital in Tajikistan, cared for by Russian army surgeons, before dying of his wounds. And he obviously wasn't the only adversary (just the most formidable) to the Taliban. The Taliban are no longer in power, are they? <hr></blockquote>
Again, like a child, you discuss semantics. Massood being dead or close to dead doesn't change anything. Does it? He died in the end.
Now to discuss your "argument" regarding the pipeline:
[quote] In other words, by this testimony it's obvious that the Afghan option wasn't very high on the list. <hr></blockquote>
Well, how shall I put it... It seems to me you do infact suffer from a sever case of attention span disorder. If you had read the document, instead of picking a paragraph out of context, you would have noticed the entire document you pointed me to insisted on the importance of Aghanistan to the pipeline for UNOCAL and CentGas.
here are a few interesting exerpts:
[quote] The second option is to build a pipeline south from Central Asia to the Indian Ocean. One obvious route south would cross Iran, but this is foreclosed for American companies because of U.S. sanctions legislation. The only other possible route is across Afghanistan, which has of course its own unique challenges. The country has been involved in bitter warfare for almost two decades, and is still divided by civil war. From the outset, we have made it clear that construction of the pipeline we have proposed across Afghanistan could not begin until a recognized government is in place that has the confidence of governments, lenders, and our company.
Â*Â*Last October, the Central Asia Gas Pipeline Consortium, called CentGas, in which Unocal holds an interest, was formed to develop a gas pipeline which will link Turkmenistan's vast Dauletabad gas field with markets in Pakistan and possibly India. The proposed 790-mile pipeline will open up new markets for this gas, traveling from Turkmenistan through Afghanistan to Multan in Pakistan. The proposed extension would move gas on to New Delhi, where it would connect with an existing pipeline. As with the proposed Central Asia oil pipeline, CentGas can not begin construction until an internationally recognized Afghanistan Government is in place.
Â*Â*Â*Â*The Central Asia and Caspian region is blessed with abundant oil and gas that can enhance the lives of the region's residents, and provide energy for growth in both Europe and Asia. The impact of these resources on U.S. commercial interests and U.S. foreign policy is also significant. Without peaceful settlement of the conflicts in the region, cross-border oil and gas pipelines are not likely to be built. We urge the Administration and the Congress to give strong support to the U.N.-led peace process in Afghanistan. The U.S. Government should use its influence to help find solutions to all of the region's conflicts.
Mr. MARESCA. First, on the question about Afghanistan, of course we're not in a phase where we are negotiating on a contract because there is no recognized government really to negotiate with. However, we have had talks and briefings with all the factions. It is clear that they all understand the significance for their country of this pipeline project, and they all support it, all of them. They all want it. They would like it to start tomorrow. All of the factions would like it to start tomorrow if we could do it.
<hr></blockquote>
The involvement of the company in Afghanistan, coupled with the fact that a route through Iran is not viable, clearly demonstrates that YOU, my friend, are not
a) capable of reading a document
b) capable of having an unbiased opinion
c) Are very stubborn on irrelevant issues.
Anything else?
As to some poster saying the US shouldn't tie with undemocratic countries such as Pakistan:
You herlad democracy like it's some kind of St Graal. Guess what, it isn't. Not only is it now an obsolete concept, but in some countries, it can not handle itself. Without the help of Pakistan, the US would have been in a very unfomfortable position in Afghanistan. Pakistan has just gone through 20 years of corrupted democratic governments. General Muscharraf is a very good man, as can clearly be seen by his recent speeches and action. He's the best ally the US will get in the area. When the time will come, he will also stage elections. However for the time being, the stabilitty of the country and of the region is not enough for elections. Furthermore, he has the support of a large majority of the population, so your point about the country not being democratic is irrelevant. The same applies to other countries.
I deleted that statement, but as you refered to it anyway I guess i'll have to explain my point a bit more.
I said that the way the US allies itself with stategicly important partners to make short-term millitary gains, could backfire in a major way later (i.e. Iraq).
It is a bit hard to accept the "axis of evil" of the month, when the "friends" of the US, are just as bad...
About Musharaff; He might be the best ally the US has in the region, but he is also a millitary dictator who siezed power with force from a democraticly elected government. The signal the US send is clear: "If your a power hungry general who feels left out of the worlds spotlight, then go ahead! Just throw out those no-good politicians and run the show yourself. Just remember to be a friend of the US. Let us build a few bases, and you to can be a superstar of international politics.
You can't really hide behind the argument that he is a "good dictator"... thats a real dangerous path to walk down.
Very good point. The US tends to only see short-term benefit, in most of its actions (see kyoto protocol)
[quote] About Musharaff; He might be the best ally the US has in the region, but he is also a millitary dictator who siezed power with force from a democraticly elected government. The signal the US send is clear: "If your a power hungry general who feels left out of the worlds spotlight, then go ahead! Just throw out those no-good politicians and run the show yourself. Just remember to be a friend of the US. Let us build a few bases, and you to can be a superstar of international politics. <hr></blockquote>
You might want to get your facts straight. The gvt before Muscharraf (that of Nawaz Sharif) was corrupted, in fact Sharif already had gotten ousted as a PM once for charges of corruption. While General Muscharraf was outside the country, Sharif tried overturning him, and putting an armies chief that as loyal to him. Upon learning this, Muscharraf tried flying back to Pakistan. Sharif ordered the Airport authorities to prevent him from landing. Muscharraf managed to land nevertheless, with the help of loyal generals within the army. Landed with fuel left for only 2 minutes. Sharif got charged with kidnapping and other charges related to that event and the corruption issues. The seizure of power of Muscharraf was actually greeted with demonstations of joy throughout the country. So while some democracy advocates might paint the events as being "millitary dictator who siezed power with force from a democraticly elected government", the facts say otherwise.
Once again, diversity of sources and information is key.
<strong>
Anything else?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes. When it comes to attention deficits I've got nothing on you. I did not fail to notice that Unocal was invoved in Afghanistan. I specifically mentioned that fact in my post. The problem is those 5 words at the end of Mr. Maresca's statement, "... if we could do it." They couldn't. The Afghan project was all but dead by the time of this hearing. When you're looking to spend billions of dollars you can't just wish away the political instability of the region. And as you have helpfully pointed out, his testimony was that ALL of the factions in Afghanistan supported the pipeline project across the country. ALL of them. That pretty much vitiated any need to deal with Taliban to the exclusion of the other factions even if the Afghan option remained a viable choice. Finally, you mentioned that an Iran route is not viable. That wasn't the primary alternative that wasn't presented.
[ 02-16-2002: Message edited by: roger_ramjet ]</p>
you're living proof of that saying.
I KNOW the pipeline was NOT possible. It was not possible BECAUSE of the taliban, the instability of the region etc. My initial point was that the US was in negotiations with the taliban regarding that pipeline, and that it was amongst the reasons why it closed its eyes on the doings of the taliban, expecting some positive outcome of the dealings.
Furthermore, your document dates from 98, ie the taliban had JUST come to power (and don't start discussing the definition of "just" in order to convince yourself that you're right). It doesn't adress AT ALL the evolution of the issue in the 3 years that followed. But dismissing Massood's testimony for this text is quite convenient for you isn't it?
So to sum this all up, I'll let you choose between my version and yours:
Me: The US waited until the 9/11 attacks before doing anything regarding the Taliban, thus letting them violate human rights and destroy valuable international cultural property. The US helped the taliban come to power in 97 because they were long-time soviet-era allies, and the US thought they would bring stability to the region, and help them securing energy deals.
The US closed its eyes on the actions of the taliban from 97 up until somepoint in 2001 because they badly wanted the taliban to stabilize the country, and thus allow the pipelines. When it became apparent at some point during 2001 that even though the taliban had control on over 90% of Afghanistan, especially the area where the pipeline was supposed to be built, and that nevertheless the taliban didn't agree on the pipeline deal, the US got pissed. Bush gets elected and warns the taliban gvt that it better cooperate, or else.
During all this time Afghanistan was the number one training ground of terrorist extremist forces in the world.
You: The pipeline deal was off in 98, and from there on, the US was simply either acting stupid and not realizing that Afghanistan was a dangerous breeding factory for terrorists and thus doing anything about it, or the US was being a hypocrite and letting the taliban do whatever they wanted as long as they didn't do anything to US assets.
Which is it?
<strong>Me: The US waited until the 9/11 attacks before doing anything regarding the Taliban, thus letting them violate human rights and destroy valuable international cultural property. The US helped the taliban come to power in 97 because they were long-time soviet-era allies, and the US thought they would bring stability to the region, and help them securing energy deals.
The US closed its eyes on the actions of the taliban from 97 up until somepoint in 2001 because they badly wanted the taliban to stabilize the country, and thus allow the pipelines. When it became apparent at some point during 2001 that even though the taliban had control on over 90% of Afghanistan, especially the area where the pipeline was supposed to be built, and that nevertheless the taliban didn't agree on the pipeline deal, the US got pissed. Bush gets elected and warns the taliban gvt that it better cooperate, or else.</strong><hr></blockquote>After the Soviets left in 1989, there was civil war and fighting among different anti-Soviet factions. Yes, we supported anti-Soviet groups. But can you provide evidence that we supported the Taliban over other anti-Soviet groups?
Because there's a lot of evidence that's inconsistent with that idea: We had a grand jury convene against bin Laden in 1996, when he was already in Afghanistan with the Taliban. So we didn't like the Taliban even back then. Then we bombed Afghanistan in 1998. We also imposed sanctions on them in 1999. Doesn't sound to me like we supported them. Lots of prominent American citizens (like the Lenos) and politicians were talking about how bad the Taliban were even as they were taking power around 1997.
At the very least, your timing is wrong if you're suggesting we didn't do anything until 2001.
<strong>
I KNOW the pipeline was NOT possible. It was not possible BECAUSE of the taliban...
... Furthermore, your document dates from 98...</strong><hr></blockquote>
Right. That's how long the project has been DEAD.
Hmmm. The pipeline was not possible BECAUSE of the Taliban and yet the US chose not to intervene. Obviously the Afghan pipeline was no longer something that was being seriously pursued. And yet you make it central to the US's motives. From my first reply to you I knew this was a waste of time...
As to my timeline in my previous post, it wasn't pinpoint accurate, I know, I was trying to make a point, not getting exact dates; and though there might be a few months difference between my timeline and what happened, the general idea is unchanged. I know the US sent a couple of Tomahawks on Afghanistan after the USS Cole attack. Relations were heating up at that point, but my point remains.
because things cannot change in 3 years?
I've not made it central to the US' motives. Yet again you fail to see the scope of what happened. I know very well there are thousands of things that have influenced the US foreign policy throughout the years, most of which we can't even begin to fathom. You're the only one capable of saying en empire came down because it was called evil...All I'm saying is this pipeline was one of the major issues that influenced the US policy, Afghanistan's natural ressources have attracted the Soviet Union during the Cold War, and now the US.
Anyways, the debate has drifted far, far away from where it should have. You've failed to demonstrate any level-headedness whatsoever regarding the US foreign policy. And this is exactly why I posted in the first place. Even ScottH has returned to his calm, level-headed state... And you get to vote...