Is Enron Behind The War In Afghanistan?

Discussion in 'History & Past Politicians' started by Margot2, Oct 10, 2015.

  1. Margot2

    Margot2 Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2013
    Messages:
    73,644
    Likes Received:
    13,766
    Trophy Points:
    113
    There is a lot of evidence for a pipeline for ENRON being the motive for Bush's war in Afghanistan... so WHY are will still there? If Rand Paul opposes our involvement there, perhaps he should tell the truth and say why.

    Excerpt:


    FORWARD:
    From: The Daily Brew: http://www.thedailybrew.com/

    The Motive

    For years, US oil interests have been trying to build a pipeline across Afghanistan to access the oil and gas around the Caspian Sea; efforts that have continued past the 9-11 attacks.


    Source: "Unocal Still Pushing Afghan Pipelines", Indymedia, 1 Oct 2001
    http://www.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=69078&group=webcast
    REPRINT: Women living under muslim laws, 23 Oct 2001
    http://www.wluml.org/english/new-archives/wtc/at-stake/unocal.htm


    Enron was a key player in this game. Way back in 1996, Enron had cut a deal with the president of Uzbekistan for joint development of the nation's natural gas fields.


    Source: Houston Chronicle, Date: Tuesday June 25, 1996, Section: Business, Page: 4, Edition: 3 STAR

    Enron had also done the feasibility study for the pipeline.


    Source: "Afghanistan, the Taliban and the Bush Oil Team," by Wayne Madsen, democrats.com, Jan 2002
    http://globalresearch.ca/articles/MAD201A.html


    For a time, the Taliban appeared to be a potential partner. They had even visited Sugarland, Texas to talk things over.


    Source: "Taliban in Texas for talks on gas pipeline," BBC News, 4 Dec 1997


    http://news6.thdo.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/west_asia/newsid_37000/37021.stm

    The Crime


    Unfortunately, the talks broke down, and by late last summer, the US Government was threatening to commence war against Afghanistan (an attack which would have violated every precept of international law).


    Sources:

    "US `planned attack on Taliban'," George Arney, BBC News, 18 Sep 2001
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/south_asia/newsid_1550000/1550366.stm

    BBC's George Arney Audio of report on US intentions to invade Afghanistan before Sept 11th (above citation)

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/1550000/audio/_1550366_afghan01_arney.ram


    At least twice, Bush conveyed the message to the Taliban that the United States would hold the regime responsible for an al Qaeda attack. But after concluding that bin Laden's group had carried out the October 2000 attack on the USS Cole, a conclusion stated without hedge in a Feb. 9 briefing for Vice President Cheney, the new administration did not choose to order armed forces into action.


    Source: "A Strategy's Cautious Evolution, Before Sept. 11, the Bush Anti-Terror Effort Was Mostly Ambition", by Barton Gellman, Washington Post, 20 January 2002

    PART I: http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A8734-2002Jan19?language=printer

    PART II: http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A8802-2002Jan19?language=printer


    Simultaneous with making, but not following through on these threats, Bush took a number of actions to make the US decidedly more vulnerable to a terrorist attack. He ordered the Naval strike force, which Clinton placed in the Indian Ocean on 24 hour alert so he could hit Osama as soon as he had solid intelligence, to stand down. Bush threatened to veto the Defense Appropriations Bill after Democrats tried to move $600 million out of Star Wars and into anti-terror defense.

    Bush opposed Clinton's anti-money-laundering efforts, which were designed to stop al Qaeda's money. Bush abandoned Northern Alliance leader Ahmed Shah Massoud, or as the two-star general Donald Kerrick told the Washington Post, reflecting on his service to both President Clinton and President Bush: Clinton's advisors met nearly weekly on how to stop bin Laden and al Qaeda. "I didn't detect that kind of focus" from the Bush Administration. So Cheney has strong -- but bad -- reasons to oppose an inquiry into 9-11.


    Source: "Democrats.com Chat with Paul Begala", 30 Jan 2002
    http://democrats.com/view2.cfm?id=5714

    Continued

    http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/oilwar1.html
     
  2. Phoebe Bump

    Phoebe Bump New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2010
    Messages:
    26,347
    Likes Received:
    172
    Trophy Points:
    0
    "We will pave your streets with gold or with bombs." Could be that Mullah Omar just didn't appreciate that kind of talk.
     
  3. Margot2

    Margot2 Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2013
    Messages:
    73,644
    Likes Received:
    13,766
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Do you remember this? I seem to remember the Saudis having a share of Unocal to build the pipeline, but they pulled out once Bush's negotiations with the Taliban failed.

    ENRON was in real deep at Dabhol with no gas source and contracts to provide electricity in India... all leveraged.
     
  4. Phoebe Bump

    Phoebe Bump New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2010
    Messages:
    26,347
    Likes Received:
    172
    Trophy Points:
    0
    One thing I'm fairly sure of - there was more to 9/11 than a couple disgruntled Arabs getting together in a Hamburg mosque to hate us for our liberties.
     
  5. Margot2

    Margot2 Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2013
    Messages:
    73,644
    Likes Received:
    13,766
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Well, Clinton did bomb Afghanistan and the Sudanese Aspirin factory in 1998.. and then the Taliban wouldn't sign off on the deal to build a pipeline across Afghanistan for ENRON... and Ken Lay did contribute $600,000 to Bush's campaign.
     
  6. Margot2

    Margot2 Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2013
    Messages:
    73,644
    Likes Received:
    13,766
    Trophy Points:
    113
    There’s two thing that are key to understanding what's going on behind this flimsy curtain.

    Chevron made a historic deal with Kazakhstan to develop the oil and gas fields in a Central Asian Country in 1993. Both Dick Cheney and Condoliza Rice have been instrumental in these dealings. The energy in this region is land locked. Afghanistan was the best route for pipelines to get the energy out to the Arabian Sea and over to Pakistan and India

    ENRON ties in because Enrons Flagship Project in Dabhol India was a huge gas fired power plant that couldn't run without natural gas from these pipeline projects. Enron was also involved in getting the energy out of Central Asian countries.

    Interesting note: a Chevron oil tanker was named "The Condoleeza Rice" until she was put in charge of the National Security Agency in 2001.

    Here's a summary of FACTS that connect September 11th to Energy

    The Importance of Afghanistan
    •Afghanistan the "best route for a critical pipeline (which Oil Companies and Enron required)
    •The Taliban being invited to Texas in 1997 to negotiate this pipeline deal.
    •Corporate and government support given to the Taliban so they could control Afghanistan and stabilize the pipeline route.

    continued.

    http://www.heartson.com/Politics/background.html#the pipeline project is international Project Number One for the Bush administration.
     
  7. Margot2

    Margot2 Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2013
    Messages:
    73,644
    Likes Received:
    13,766
    Trophy Points:
    113
  8. Margot2

    Margot2 Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2013
    Messages:
    73,644
    Likes Received:
    13,766
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Importance of Afghanistan
    Oil Companies and Current Administartion Officials Involved

    Oil Company Financing and Helping Terrorists ?

    $Multi Billion Dollar Oil Deals! Pipelines through Afghanistan at any cost?

    What Was Dick Cheney's Role ?




    dangertag.jpg (55932 bytes)
    Why were the Taliban invited to Texas in 1997 ?
    Why were oil companies and governments helping the Taliban?

    Why was was the vice president of an OIL company appointed Ambassador to Afghanistan after the US invaded?

    Why DID Enron need those pipeline running through Afghanistan?

    Why did Enron choose to support Bush in the 2000 Presidential Election?

    Why did Bush Administation officials meet with the Taliban right after the 2000 election?

    Why did Bush appoint a paid oil company consultant (Hamid Karzai) to run Afghanistan after the invasion.

    Bush administration says "Afghanistan pipeline project is international Project Number One".


    So where do we start?

    http://www.heartson.com/Politics/background.html#The Importance of Afghanistan(*)
     

Share This Page