This video from the USA is called The Oil Factor – Why are we in Afghanistan? O-I-L.
From the Globe and Mail in Canada:
Pipeline opens new front in Afghan war
Canadian role in Kandahar may heat up as allies agree on U.S.-backed energy route through land-mine zones and Taliban hot spots
June 19, 2008 at 2:30 AM EDT
OTTAWA — Afghanistan and three of its neighbouring countries have agreed to build a $7.6-billion (U.S.) pipeline that would deliver natural gas from Turkmenistan to energy-starved Pakistan and India – a project running right through the volatile Kandahar province – raising questions about what role Canadian Forces may play in defending the project.
To prepare for proposed construction in 2010, the Afghan government has reportedly given assurances it will clear the route of land mines, and make the path free of Taliban influence.
In a report to be released Thursday, energy economist John Foster says the pipeline is part of a wider struggle by the United States to counter the influence of Russia and Iran over energy trade in the region.
The so-called Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India pipeline has strong support from Washington because the U.S. government is eager to block a competing pipeline that would bring gas to Pakistan and India from Iran.
Remember Bush apologists going hysterical whenever someone in the peace movement said: “No blood for oil“? As, “of course” the war had nothing to do with oil, and everything with Bush’s deep love for “anti terrorism”, human rights, women’s rights, etc. etc.?
Well, purely technically speaking, this is not blood for oil. It is Canadian soldiers’ and Afghan civilians’ blood for the Afghan gas profits of Unocal corporation and other oil and gas capitalists.
Turkmenistan is a dictatorship … well never mind. In Pakistan, Bush’s crony Musharraf is still the dictator … never mind. In Afghanistan, foreign occupation, warlords, drug lords, and fundamentalist theocracy like during the Taliban days rule … never mind.
Unocal in Burma: here.
Canadian media spin on Afghan war: here.
Is it possible that the enviros are the cause of the oil war?
No Blood For Oil or No Drilling For Oil?
Hi M. Simon, first, I am glad that you agree that this is indeed an oil war. And that all the propaganda by the US Bush administration about the war being about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, the Twin Towers in New York City, women’s rights in Iraq, torture in Abu Ghraib under Saddam Hussein, etc. etc., was indeed just bulls*** about non-causes of the war.
Were the environmentalists the cause of this oil war? you ask. I’d consider that extremely improbable. In order to be “a” cause of the Iraq oil war, let alone “the” cause (there is really a complex of causes for the Iraq war, also including neo-conservative ideology, military industry special interests, etc.), the environmentalists should have had strong influence on the Bush administration which started that war. They never had such influence. The main influence on the Bush administration’s environmmental policies were fundamentalist anti scientific Christians claiming that Judgment Day will be very soon, so f*** the environment; and global warming denialists (today even John McCain, in words, tries to dissociate himself somewhat from them) funded by corporations like ExxonMobil.
However, you might ask: environmentalists oppose, eg, oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska. By making it impossible for Big Oil to get their hands on that Alaskan oil, don’t they goad Big Oil to get oil elsewhere, eg, by war in Iraq?
No. Even if Big Oil would get their hands on that Alaskan oil, that would just be a marginal part of United States annual oil consumption. The aim of Big Oil is not to provide consumers in the United States with as much and as cheap oil as possible. Their aim is maximum control and maximum profits for themselves. They might have bought oil from Saddam Hussein (as they had done earlier, and as some of them were continuing to do in the 1990s and up to 2003, busting UN sanctions). However, they prefered direct control of the oil. Hence (as an important factor in a complex of causes), the Iraq war. Hence, the recent news about privatizing Iraqi oil.
McCain runs into opposition over offshore oil plan
Tue Jun 24, 2008 5:00pm EDT
By Steve Holland
SANTA BARBARA, California (Reuters) – Republican presidential candidate John McCain on Tuesday ran into opposition in environmentally conscious California to his policy switch in favor of U.S. offshore oil drilling.
McCain appeared with California’s popular Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger at the Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History to promote his ideas on how to wean the United States from foreign oil and reduce greenhouse gas emissions blamed for global warming.
Outside the museum, a group of protesters took issue with McCain over backing offshore oil drilling, chanting “Get oil out” and holding up such signs as, “Not off our coast” and “We can’t drill our way out of the energy crisis.”
Inside, during a round-table discussion, McCain heard complaints from a panelist, Michael Feeney, executive director of the Land Trust for Santa Barbara County. Feeney did not specifically mention McCain, who will face Democrat Barack Obama in the November presidential election.
Santa Barbara was the site of a major oil spill in 1969.
“It makes me nervous to think about those who are proposing to drain America’s offshore oil and gas reserves as quickly as possible in hopes of driving down the price of gasoline,” Feeney said.
Feeney also said he opposed McCain’s plan to jump-start the building of new nuclear reactor plants for meeting America’s rising energy demands.
Obama, too, criticized McCain’s proposal to encourage the building of 45 new nuclear reactors by 2030. He said it lacked a plan for waste storage and was among several energy-strategy ideas that Obama said were “not serious energy policies.”
Obama spoke in Nevada, a state where proposals to build a nuclear waste disposal site at Yucca Mountain have generated strong opposition. He also took aim at McCain’s plan to allow more offshore U.S. oil drilling.
“It doesn’t make sense for America,” the Illinois senator said. “In fact, it makes about as much sense as his proposal to build 45 new nuclear reactors without a plan to store the waste some place other than right here at Yucca Mountain.”
“EUROPEANS ARE DOING IT”
McCain contested Feeney’s remarks on nuclear plants.
“The technology is there. The Europeans are doing it. It’s safe,” McCain said.
In his prepared speech opening the discussion, McCain did not list offshore drilling but did cite the need for more domestic energy production.
“When people are hurting, and struggling to afford gasoline, food, and other necessities, common sense requires that we draw upon America’s own vast reserves of oil and natural gas,” he said.
In recent days he has said offshore drilling should be determined by the individual states involved.
Schwarzenegger, who also opposes offshore oil drilling, made no comment about it at the event.
The U.S. energy crisis has taken center stage in the presidential campaign as Americans, accustomed to inexpensive fuel, struggle to pay for $4-a-gallon gasoline that has not only made the daily commute to work more expensive but also increased the price of goods and services on down the line.
McCain believes he has a chance to win Democratic-leaning California in the November election and is courting independent voters to help him.
But Democrats are trying to use his policy reversal on offshore drilling to portray him as a Republican who, if elected president, would simply continue the policies of unpopular President George W. Bush.
McCain said if he defeats Obama, the federal government will no longer just preach the virtues of energy efficiency.
“Our federal government is never shy about instructing the American people in good environmental practice. But energy efficiency, like charity, should begin at home,” he said.
McCain, an Arizona senator, said he would propose “to put the purchasing power of the United States government on the side of green technology.”
He would require the 60,000 cars and trucks purchased every year by the federal government — except for military vehicles — be flexible-fuel capable, plug-in hybrid, or cars fueled by clean natural gas.
“If our great goal is to move American transportation toward lower carbon emissions, then it should start with the federal fleet,” he said.
(Additional reporting by Caren Bohan, editing by David Wiessler)
(To read more about the U.S. political campaign, visit Reuters “Tales from the Trail: 2008” online at blogs.reuters.com/trail08/)
The oil is going to come from somewhere. If you want to take the pressure off the ME it would be wise to drill in America.
I was always under the impression that the left was for the poor. Yet here we have policies from those with Real Compassion™ that hurts the poor around the world. Until the world is off the oil standard we are going to need that oil to raise standards of living of the poor around the world. Drill & pump. Help the poor.
From you friendly Republican who thinks that cheap energy is the salvation of mankind.
Have you seen this?
Fusion Report 13 June 008. A lot of right wingers are working on this. We do have a KOS Kid (Roger Fox) as well. Look up his fusion stuff. BTW McCain was looking at this last August. Some one needs to whisper in Obama’s ear. Maybe show him how the outfit can benefit.
Google – McCain A Fusion President – and read the Classical Values post.
Hi M. Simon, you certainly do not help any poor people anywhere with an Iraq war, which McCain wants to continue for a hundred years. McCain admits it has already cost the lives of “hundreds of thousands” of people (in fact: over a million people); most of them people who either were already poor at the time of the 2003 invasion; or who subsequently became poor. And all those gas guzzling military planes, military vehicles, etc. cause a lot of the energy problem.
The USA does not have enough oil reserves for its present oil consumption even if its last nature reserve would be destroyed by drilling. Either there has to be a shift to alternative energy resources. Or oil should be bought (not grabbed at by aggressive wars) abroad. Or both.
Pingback: Afghan pipeline and war | Dear Kitty. Some blog
Pingback: Woman pilot flees Afghanistan | Dear Kitty. Some blog
Pingback: Trump’s war for profits in Afghanistan | Dear Kitty. Some blog
Pingback: German trade unions oppose NATO’s higher military expenses | Dear Kitty. Some blog
Pingback: Militarized university in Florida, USA | Dear Kitty. Some blog
Pingback: New York Times regrets its Afghan warmongering | Dear Kitty. Some blog
Pingback: ‘Endless Afghan war, based on untruths’ | Dear Kitty. Some blog
Pingback: Canadian Afghan war veteran kills family, himself | Dear Kitty. Some blog
Pingback: Afghan war, after eighteen bloody years | Dear Kitty. Some blog