[lbo-talk] Unocal, China and the Middle East

[Mycos]

Michael Pollak wrote:
> 
> On Sun, 26 Jun 2005, Doug Henwood wrote
> 
> responding to Mycos:
> 
>>> Now here's something you can be sure has the neocon's full attention. 
>>> Many, including myself, feel that a great deal of US behaviour in the 
>>> Middle East, particularly Afghanistan and Iraq, can be traced back to 
>>> the Unocal pipeline that is being proposed to run through those very 
>>> areas.
>>
>>
>> Oh really? Can you think of any sane businessperson that would invest 
>> billions in a pipeline across Afghanistan, one of the least stable 
>> places in the world (and with little hope for that changing in the 
>> forseeable future),
> 
> 
> Not to mention the fact that in the original plan, the Taliban was the 
> precondition for the whole pipeline deal.  Unocal (who stole the idea 
> from Carlos Bulgheroni and Bridas) based their whole business plan on 
> the idea that in the Taliban, Afghanistan finally had someone who could 
> guarantee military peace sufficiently to make it work. 

They took the opportunity presented by 9/11 to put a pipeline 
friendly government in place in Afghanistan. Hence Karzai. Someone 
mentioned that because he only controls Kabul that this is some kind 
of proof that there hasn't been an effort by the US to put in an 
*OIL* pipeline. That means nothing. We were supposed to be out of 
Iraq in 6 weeks as well. Are you seriously suggesting that because 
Karzai's power is limited, that this is what the US wants?

  9/11 and the war
> ruined this all for them. There hasn't been safety since.

It ruined the Taliban/pipeline project, but what has that got to do 
with ending the entire desire for a pipeline?
> 
> Unocal's support for the Taliban is notorious, not least from the movie 
> Farenheit 9/11, which has footage of Unocal officials being really 
> chummy with a Taliban guy in full regalia who they were taking on a tour 
> of DC (where the feminist Barbara Bick threw a burqa in his face and 
> screamed at him about the treatment of women, and he responded "You are 
> clearly a terrible woman.  Your husband must have a lot of trouble with 
> you."  And all the oilmen chuckled.)
> 
> Also btw, for the last frigging time -- the Unocal pipeline was a *gas* 
> pipeline.  Not only was the war not about oil -- not even the pipeline 
> was about oil.

The existing pipeline is gas. They want an OIL pipeline

quote: From The 1998 Congressional Record.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
U.S. INTERESTS IN THE CENTRAL ASIAN
REPUBLICS HEARING BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ASIA AND THE PACIFIC
OF THE COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL
RELATIONS HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION
FEBRUARY 12, 1998

"Unocal foresees a pipeline which would become part of a regional 
system that will gather oil from existing pipeline infrastructure in 
Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan and Russia. The 1,040-mile long 
oil pipeline would extend south through Afghanistan to an export 
terminal that would be constructed on the Pakistan coast. This 
42-inch diameter pipeline will have a shipping capacity of one 
million barrels of oil per day. The estimated cost of the project, 
which is similar in scope to the trans-Alaska pipeline, is about 
$2.5 billion."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

And finally, we're only talking the Unocal/Taliban agreement. Just 
because 9/11 ruined that little power and greed play, you think the 
whole concept of a pipeline crashed with the towers? Big Oil lives 
on and so does the US need for oil.

So once again...why do you think the US is rampaging around the 
Middle East?  To spread democracy?
-- 

Gary Williams

"Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is 
sovereign."    - John Stuart Mill

http://mycos.blogspot.com/

Todays Iraq Body Count

   Min       Max

  22563     25560