Where is that damn Afgani Pipeline?

Discussion in 'Middle East - General' started by Comrade, Jun 28, 2004.

  1. Comrade
    Offline

    Comrade Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Messages:
    1,873
    Thanks Received:
    167
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Seattle, WA.
    Ratings:
    +167
    If you haven't heard by now that the real reason for the invasion of Afganistan was because of the desire for a US company (Unocal) to build a gas pipeline, well thank god for Michael Moore.

    What's most important about his film is that mainstream America is being introduced to this conspiracy theory for the first time.

    And I've seen more people this weekend bring up the pipeline as Bush's "motive for 9-11" than evern before. Seeing the movie seems to make some feel smarter but acting like this theory is not already three years old sure makes them seem stupid.

    Just for example...

    http://news.messages.yahoo.com/bbs?...cy&sid=37138459&mid=323&thr=323&cur=323&dir=d

    "Why'd we go to Afghan?UnocalGasPipeline
    by: inkpresspaper (43/M/Roanoke) 06/28/04 06:18 pm
    Msg: 323 of 421
    4 recommendations

    Our puppet was a Unocal Corporate officer. Just a little side job for some the Unocal gas pipeline...Bush had entertained the Taliban in Texas when he was the Guv. You can't make it up how corrupt the Bushes are!!!!
    Indict teh Neocons!


    This theory is of course nothing more than a way to establish a motive for 9-11 which links to Bush, either through negligence (because he's stupid) or intention (because he's evil).

    That's all there is to it, but it still takes two hours of edited film and commentary to contrive it.


    I've seen many reviews of the film, but I haven't found a single one which addresses the most salient point of Moore's attack on Bush. Bush's decision to carry the war on the Taliban and Al-Qauda to Afganistan is based upon the desire to build a pipeline.


    I mean that's supposed to be the whole point, so where is it, the pipeline?


    Per Truthout: (I'm sticking to leftist sources for this argument)

    "Some say" 9-11 was triggered by Bush's dire need for the pipeline even though Clinton was in power. "Intense speculation" is another kind of source leftist readers take for granted.

    The single Unocal reference in 1998 is the only fact throughout, a company since then now completely out of the picture.


    The last part about the "done deal" (report is from 2002) is typical lying leftist crap, as if Unocal or some other company is actually behind the pipeline project? No, of course not.


    Moore began his F9-11 script around this period, and he incorporated this popular leftist bullshit about the pipeline in his film, among a host of other theories.


    "Truthout" (keeping to honest leftist sources here) insists in headlining the news from the end of 2002 as the "US Project" as if it's Secured/Backed/Financed/or owned by the U.S.




    The failed Unocal bid is brought up here and as you can read, is the sole connection to any the "Agreement on US 3.2 Billion Gas Pipeline Project" in 2002. It's a time warp from 1998.

    ..........

    See, it's really not funded at all.

    Oh, despite the original study. See how they are supposed to be liars now. Maybe they really don't want to, after all...

    Through Pakistan... wow, that's a real stable money maker, lol!

    Whatever U.S. funding or interest was in 1998 is gone. Unocal bowed out and never came back.


    For no reason at all, except general liberal faith, the U.S. is funding/securing/constructing/profiting from a new pipeline plan signed on in 2002.


    And at this stage we find M.M. starting to shoot his "documentary". In 2002 the Afgan pipeline was pretty much the standard liberal fare.


    So now that the "pipeline deal with the U.S." has existed for for two years and Moore has finally released his film based on this premise, how about showing your viewers a real pipeline project, fatass?


    Does Moore dig up any report of US involvement, funding, planning, or construction since 9-11, government or private, since 2002? He can't. His whole theory is crap.


    They say the whole point of Bush's war on terror after 9-11 was to build the pipeline. And the thing about that theory, especially if it's been years since some U.S. involvment, is to point to a damn pipeline, after all.

    After three years of saying this crap over and over again, some asinine 20 minute standing ovation from the French and the American box office success still leaves the movie begging to point to a pipeline. Which nobody bothered to look for.


    Moore's film is based on the stale theory, and aside from Unocal in 1998 not one single US company or government agency is behind the all important Afgan pipeline. Given the whole premise of 9-11 was based on it, I'd say that's kind of important.


    This is the most recent 2004 report:


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


    Unocal in 1998 is obligatory to all of these reports. That's only done to introduce the "Bush connection" (forever and ever, it seems)



    Knock yourselves out guys. Supposedly its still a U.S. pipeline even if nobody has agreed to build it yet.


    So India can get their oil delivered through Pakistan... wow, that's not exactly a risk free, stable money maker.


    As of today an Asian bank is hunting around for investors for the project, and obviously no "U.S. pipeline" is in the making.


    Moores' tiresome 2002 conspiracy theory begs the question in 2004, and it's time to ask the essential question.


    WHERE IS THE PIPELINE?
     
  2. Palestinian Jew
    Offline

    Palestinian Jew Member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2003
    Messages:
    903
    Thanks Received:
    18
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    Fayetteville
    Ratings:
    +18
    I thought that the Afghan pipeline and Bush-Taliban connection didn't amount to much. I really liked the Iraq footage and the other Iraq material, which takes up most of the movie.
     
  3. Comrade
    Offline

    Comrade Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Messages:
    1,873
    Thanks Received:
    167
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Seattle, WA.
    Ratings:
    +167
    What impression did you have for Bush's motive in invading Iraq did you leave with?
     
  4. NightTrain
    Offline

    NightTrain VIP Member

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2003
    Messages:
    1,425
    Thanks Received:
    87
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Wasilla, Alaska
    Ratings:
    +87
    I used to work with a guy about 3 years ago who was rabidly liberal. I forget what whack-job liberal sites he got his conspiracy theories from, but he had them in his bookmarks. All of them, I think.

    We argued about the Afghani pipeline until I finally sat down (on the clock, of course :D) and pulled up some info on that project.

    Debunked that one, and didn't hear any more about it.

    Next was the way Bush trained 'in an obsolete aircraft during wartime'. I pulled up a picture of his jet (I think it was the F-102) intercepting Soviet bombers off Iceland in '72 from the USAF website.

    Debunked that one, and didn't hear any more about it.

    This went on and on, and he finally wouldn't sit down with me at the computer to debunk the latest Lib hatchet job on Bush.

    Right when I left that company, the latest thing was some sort of scam to control how oil was bought and sold internationally - it's in U.S. currency, of course! But, those Euros were moving in on our action, so THAT'S what the war was REALLY about!

    See, Iraq had a secret plan to start selling their oil for euros instead of U.S. dollars, so we had to invade to stop it. Nevermind that there was an oil embargo on, and that the theory made no sense anyway.

    I let that one go. Some people will stoop to any level to believe that there is a corrupt motive behind everything, and it became apparent to me that when you go through all the effort to show them what's really going on they'll leap to the next conspiracy theory and cling.

    He was a hell of a nice guy and smart too, but he was a liberal and absolutely hated Bush. And for that reason alone he would buy into ideas with no facts backing them, let alone common sense.
     
  5. insein
    Offline

    insein Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2004
    Messages:
    6,096
    Thanks Received:
    356
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Philadelphia, Amazing huh...
    Ratings:
    +356
    Safe to say, he was at the theater at 12:01 last Friday night.
     
  6. NightTrain
    Offline

    NightTrain VIP Member

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2003
    Messages:
    1,425
    Thanks Received:
    87
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Wasilla, Alaska
    Ratings:
    +87
    Roger that. Dammit.
     
  7. Comrade
    Offline

    Comrade Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Messages:
    1,873
    Thanks Received:
    167
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Seattle, WA.
    Ratings:
    +167
    Oh man, the scary thing is I remember exactly what you are talking about, when the Euro vs. Dollar theory was the rage with the left.


    I remember that lasted only a few months, maybe around 11/2002 to 2/2003. That was when the whole concept of currency exchange rates suddenly evaporated in the leftist universe. I remember trying to explain how Euros would still be exchanged for Dinars to purchase Iraqi oil and then still sold for dollars in the American market. And how Euroes now in Arab hands would exchange for dollars to buy any US products they already purchase.

    But that whole bizzare notion about the Euro was timed with it's issue and the left just wanted to glorify the common European currency as "mightier than the dollar". And America violently opposed its rightfull dominance. Economic rationale had nothing to do with that one.
     
  8. Palestinian Jew
    Offline

    Palestinian Jew Member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2003
    Messages:
    903
    Thanks Received:
    18
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    Fayetteville
    Ratings:
    +18
    I'm too informed for my opinion to change, but Moore's view was that we went to war for a combination of reasons: oil, revenge, and an easy victory.

    He also thinks, like me, that the war was exagerated. I have a lot of facts and statements by the Bush admin to back up my opinion, Moore didn't have much, but he did have a couple of statements made by Powell and Condi that I really liked where they basically said in the summer of 2001 that Saddam was contained.

    The Iraq stuff I was refering to that I liked were the videos Moore had of soldiers doing their job. It was really something to see how they would go on night raids and have to use flashlights when they got into suspect's houses b/c there was no electricity.

    There was also an interview with a mother of a dead soldier that did not leave an eye dry in the theatre.
     

Share This Page