Afghanistan and Oil

[M.Dancer]

So the WW2 Allies are 'super rogues' now, eh?

You would have prefered the Iranians joined the Axis? Dealt that final death blow to the Soviets? Is that the world you'd have liked to be part of?

Iran was far from innocent...except in your eyes and other revisionists....eh.

Eyeball has been the unquestiong friend of anti western dictators for years.....don't spoil it for his by suggesting the persians, by being allies to the Nazis, could have ended the soviet dream.

[Oleg Bach]

Hey even if it was feasable to get natural gas or oil though or out of Afghanistan...It would be impossible to keep such a delivery system operational....Imagine the sabatoge? It would be endless - so it's not about oil...it must be about dope.

[DogOnPorch]

Eyeball has been the unquestiong friend of anti western dictators for years.....don't spoil it for his by suggesting the persians, by being allies to the Nazis, could have ended the soviet dream.

It shows...lol. Stalin was in no mood to have a potential threat on his flank in November 1941. As for interference, the Allies in the Persian Corridor built highways and airports that Iranians continue to enjoy to this day. Much like here in Western Canada.

Hey even if it was feasable to get natural gas or oil though or out of Afghanistan...It would be impossible to keep such a delivery system operational....Imagine the sabatoge? It would be endless - so it's not about oil...it must be about dope.

I agree you'd have to be nuts to want to invest in Afghanistan. If it is about poppies...well, we need some folks growing the stuff. There's a general shortage of morphine and its ilk.

Edited September 16, 2009 by DogOnPorch

[Oleg Bach]

It shows...lol. Stalin was in no mood to have a potential threat on his flank in November 1941. As for interference, the Allies in the Persian Corridor built highways and airports that Iranians continue to enjoy to this day. Much like here in Western Canada.

I agree you'd have to be nuts to want to invest in Afghanistan. If it is about poppies...well, we need some folks growing the stuff. There's a general shortage of morphine and its ilk.

No synthetic can match the power of the poppie. High grade pharma product is very important to the aging western population. It provides relief and keeps the person mobile longer. As far as addiction - It does not matter much when you are in your 70s. I would safely say that it has always been about the legal and illegal drug trade. What other thing of value do the Afghans have in that God forsaken dried up rock pile of a nation? Getting back to Morphine ...it is still a wonder drug when used properly. As I mentioned - it does prolong the life of an aging person - it keeps them mobile...with mobility comes strengthening...BUT prolonged useage constipates you....nothing worse than drugged up old people who can't poop!

[waldo]

It should also be noted...again...that the US did not put the Shah on the throne. Stalin and Churchill did.

Historical revisionism abounds. The Americans didn't put the Shah on the throne. He had been monarch since his daddy was removed from power for dealing with Nazis in 1941.

This is just wrong. The US didn't 'install' the Shah as 'dictator' in 1953.

But he wasn't put on the throne by the Americans...Stalin and Churchill put him on the throne.

it appears the Dog has a bone stuck in his craw

subtle and accepted inference don’t appear to be your (or Dancer’s) strong suit… and your stating the obvious over and over borders on tedium. Yes, after Britain and the USSR invaded Iran and exiled Reza Shah, they subsequently allowed a conditional succession to the throne by his son, Mohammad Shah… conditional to his vow to act as a constitutional monarch in deference to parliamentary government power. He never had the power… but realized power in 1953 when the U.S. led, CIA influenced coup overthrew the Iranian government.

[DogOnPorch]

Tedious. The point is that the Shah didn't appear suddenly out of Kermit Roosevelt's magic briefcase. Nor were CIA agents in dark sunglasses rounding up poor Mr Mosaddeq. The actual dirty deed was done by Iranians...who must have thought Mosaddeq was not the right fellow to be leading Iran in a dangerous Cold War world.

As mentioned...if you want skullduggery...the fellow that ended up leading the coup was one of the same fellows accused of hanging with the Nazis in WW2. Former Nazi sympathizers were better than Commie sympathizers, I guess.

[waldo]

Tedious. The point is that the Shah didn't appear suddenly out of Kermit Roosevelt's magic briefcase. Nor were CIA agents in dark sunglasses rounding up poor Mr Mosaddeq. The actual dirty deed was done by Iranians...who must have thought Mosaddeq was not the right fellow to be leading Iran in a dangerous Cold War world.

just to be perfectly clear... are you following the Dancer line that the U.S./CIA played no role in the overthrow of the Iranian government?

[M.Dancer]

just to be perfectly clear... are you following the Dancer line that the U.S./CIA played no role in the overthrow of the Iranian government?

Way to misrepresent what my position is...

Are you taking the eyeball line? That an anti democratic thug is ikay as long as he is anti western?

[kuzadd]

There have been many articles, accusations and innuendos about the importance of Afghanistan as it relates to a pipeline for oil......and that America's thirst for oil is driving the war. There is a gross misconception that the US is reliant on "Middle East" oil. In fact, the US produces about 40% of it's oil domestically. Of the 60% that is imported, only about 20% comes from the Middle East - far less than 15% of total consumption. I don't doubt that there are greedy commercial interests in the Middle East but the actual need for oil from that area is relatively small - and shrinking as conservation and alternative sources take hold. There are also large reserves - recently expanded - in the Gulf of Mexico. Alaska is another growing source. And of course, Canada - by far the biggest supplier of oil to the US - could provide more.

Link: http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petrole...ent/import.html

um, yeah, no need for the energy, which is of course why they negotiated with the Taliban originally for the TAP pipeline to be built, which is now the TAPI pipeline.

btw TAPI stands for Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, Pakistan and India

While they may not need it for domestic use??? I mean, who says they won't in the future?

Once Canada is sucked dry.

They could use it to 1) make money for their american oil companies 2) use it for favour or punishment against other countries.

Control a countries energy supply/control the country

Taleban in Texas for talks on gas pipeline

Read:Zbigniew Brzezinski

The Grand Chessboard

American Primacy And It's Geostrategic Imperatives

You will begin to understand....

Edited September 16, 2009 by kuzadd

[waldo]

it appears the Dog has a bone stuck in his craw

subtle and accepted inference don’t appear to be your (or Dancer’s) strong suit… and your stating the obvious over and over borders on tedium. Yes, after Britain and the USSR invaded Iran and exiled Reza Shah, they subsequently allowed a conditional succession to the throne by his son, Mohammad Shah… conditional to his vow to act as a constitutional monarch in deference to parliamentary government power. He never had the power… but realized power in 1953 when the U.S. led, CIA influenced coup overthrew the Iranian government.

Tedious. The point is that the Shah didn't appear suddenly out of Kermit Roosevelt's magic briefcase. Nor were CIA agents in dark sunglasses rounding up poor Mr Mosaddeq. The actual dirty deed was done by Iranians...who must have thought Mosaddeq was not the right fellow to be leading Iran in a dangerous Cold War world.

just to be perfectly clear... are you following the Dancer line that the U.S./CIA played no role in the overthrow of the Iranian government?

Way to misrepresent what my position is...

M.Dancer, you disavowed U.S. involvement, stating, "The Shah ousted a dictator who made an unconstitutional power grab... using 100% Persian troops". I offered you a quote and video link with Obama acknowledging (to the Iranians) that the U.S. played a role in the overthrow of a democratically-elected Iranian government... and you called Obama a fool.

For many years, Iran has defined itself in part by its opposition to my country, and there is indeed a tumultuous history between us. In the middle of the Cold War, the United States played a role in the overthrow of a democratically-elected Iranian government.

of course, Obama's statement recognizing the U.S./CIA involvement in the overthrow of the democratically-elected Iranian government was no grand revelation... it's simply a formal acknowledgment of that involvement... the involvement you disavow.

so... clearly... I didn't misrepresent anything you've stated.

Edited September 16, 2009 by waldo

[M.Dancer]

M.Dancer, you disavowed U.S. involvement, stating, "The Shah ousted a dictator who made an unconstitutional power grab... using 100% Persian troops". I offered you a quote and video link with Obama acknowledging (to the Iranians) that the U.S. played a role in the overthrow of a democratically-elected Iranian government... and you called Obama a fool.

so... clearly... I didn't misrepresent anything you've stated.

It's one thing to be duped by the misrepresentation of history by those whose goal is to undemine the west....it's quite another thing to misread what I clearly wrote.

This has nothing to do with Muslims and everything to do with an ally of the west, faced with an undemocratic, unconsitutional ueupage of power, asking and getting aid.

Either you failed to understand what I wrote or you are deliberatley misrepresenting what I wrote.

[waldo]

Either you failed to understand what I wrote or you are deliberatley misrepresenting what I wrote.

I see... you've once again flippy/floppy'd back to involvement in the form of "aid"... who asked for the "aid"... who was asked to provide the "aid"... who provided the "aid"..... and exactly what was that "aid"?

simple questions to help clarify the "misunderstanding"

[M.Dancer]

I see... you've once again flippy/floppy'd back to involvement in the form of "aid"... who asked for the "aid"... who was asked to provide the "aid"... who provided the "aid"..... and exactly what was that "aid"?

simple questions to help clarify the "misunderstanding"

Please do not ascribe your inability to read and comprehend simple english on a flip flop. My position has been the same from before you joined this board.

Who asked for aid was the Shah. Who gave aid was the US and the UK.

And I have already asked you to provide the info as to what that aid entailed and unsurprisingly you have so far been unable.

Why not detail in minutae exactly what that aid was, given all the leg work was done by Iranians.

[DogOnPorch]

just to be perfectly clear... are you following the Dancer line that the U.S./CIA played no role in the overthrow of the Iranian government?

Sure the Americans were involved...just not in the way folks generally think. They provided the money and logistics...not to mention shuffling the Shah back and forth out of potential harms way when it appeared the coup was going to fail. I'm sure both Dancer and I agree on this.

The coup was still carried out by Iranians...led by this guy...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fazlollah_Zahedi

Obama was a fool to apologize to the current Iranian government for this...to a friendly government/country I could understand. But it kind of legitimizes the current bunch of dick-heads if you ask me...you know...the one gunning down protesters in the streets.

[DogOnPorch]

um, yeah, no need for the energy, which is of course why they negotiated with the Taliban originally for the TAP pipeline to be built, which is now the TAPI pipeline.

btw TAPI stands for Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, Pakistan and India

While they may not need it for domestic use??? I mean, who says they won't in the future?

Once Canada is sucked dry.

They could use it to 1) make money for their american oil companies 2) use it for favour or punishment against other countries.

Control a countries energy supply/control the country

Taleban in Texas for talks on gas pipeline

Read:Zbigniew Brzezinski

The Grand Chessboard

American Primacy And It's Geostrategic Imperatives

You will begin to understand....

Everything is a James Bond novel to kuzadd...

[waldo]

Please do not ascribe your inability to read and comprehend simple english on a flip flop. My position has been the same from before you joined this board.

Who asked for aid was the Shah. Who gave aid was the US and the UK.

And I have already asked you to provide the info as to what that aid entailed and unsurprisingly you have so far been unable.

asked me - that's rich - you're the one who has weaseled back, twice now, from your original proclamation that the U.S. played no role in the overthrow of the Iranian government... calling Obama a fool for acknowledging same. The form of your weaseling, stated "aid", puts the onus on you to validate the nature/circumstances of that aid... Dog's already helped you out a bit, suggesting money and logistics, uhhh.... subject to your/his caveats concerning "no CIA agents in dark sunglasses", and that, "the Shah and 100% Persian troops did it all"

[M.Dancer]

asked me - that's rich - you're the one who has weaseled back, twice now, from your original proclamation that the U.S. played no role in the overthrow of the Iranian government...

Feel free to find such proclamation.

I will happily accept your humble, heartfelt apology when you admit you can't.

calling Obama a fool for acknowledging same.

That's not why I called him a fool.

The form of your weaseling, stated "aid", puts the onus on you to validate the nature/circumstances of that aid...

Sorry, you are making the claim that the CIA overthrough the (cough) democratic regime..the onus is on you.

Dog's already helped you out a bit, suggesting money and logistics,

That was dog helping you.

Edited September 16, 2009 by M.Dancer

[eyeball]

Way to misrepresent what my position is...

Are you taking the eyeball line? That an anti democratic thug is ikay as long as he is anti western?

Talk about misprepresentation - so you actually have a quote of me that says "an anti democratic thug is ikay as long as he is anti western" do you?

Bullshit you do.

[M.Dancer]

Talk about misprepresentation - so you actually have a quote of me that says "an anti democratic thug is ikay as long as he is anti western" do you?

Bullshit you do.

No that's a learned analysis of years of reading your posts. Take Mossy as an example. You think he's peachy...

[waldo]

That's not why I called him a fool.

Sorry, you are making the claim that the CIA overthrough the (cough) democratic regime..the onus is on you.

perhaps you could clarify exactly why you called Obama a fool... particularly in the context of the running commentary that you specifically replied to.

I was particularly impressed with your statement, "the Shah and the Iranians who valued the rule of law looked for international support to uphold the Iranian constitution." And, of course, you infer (albeit somewhat tangentially and only when pressed) that there was actually U.S. involvement in the form of something you refer to as "aid" - although you're somewhat hesitant to actually define what that aid was.

in order to satisfy your request, clarification is needed. You have several times addressed the overthrow of the government in terms of the Shah's sole initiative and his 'reaching out' to the west for assistance... please advise if that's an incorrect interpretation and update as applicable. Dog offered up a bone to somewhat elaborate on that U.S. involvement in terms of money and logistical support... that "logistical support" term lacks preciseness - lacks granularity. Perhaps you - or Dog - could elaborate further on what that entailed.

[M.Dancer]

perhaps you could clarify exactly why you called Obama a fool... particularly in the context of the running commentary that you specifically replied to.

for apolgising when no apology was warrented.

[waldo]

for apolgising when no apology was warrented.

that's it? No other nuggets to allow one to confirm your position on the Iranian government overthrow:

I was particularly impressed with your statement, "the Shah and the Iranians who valued the rule of law looked for international support to uphold the Iranian constitution." And, of course, you infer (albeit somewhat tangentially and only when pressed) that there was actually U.S. involvement in the form of something you refer to as "aid" - although you're somewhat hesitant to actually define what that aid was.

in order to satisfy your request, clarification is needed. You have several times addressed the overthrow of the government in terms of the Shah's sole initiative and his 'reaching out' to the west for assistance... please advise if that's an incorrect interpretation and update as applicable. Dog offered up a bone to somewhat elaborate on that U.S. involvement in terms of money and logistical support... that "logistical support" term lacks preciseness - lacks granularity. Perhaps you - or Dog - could elaborate further on what that entailed.

[DogOnPorch]

Perhaps you - or Dog - could elaborate further on what that entailed.

Literally...transport (besides cash for the anti-Mosaddeq forces). The Shah had high-tailed it outa there as the coup began...then needed to be lifted back. I imagine it would have been a C-97 or something similar.

[M.Dancer]

perhaps you could clarify exactly why you called Obama a fool... particularly in the context of the running commentary that you specifically replied to.

I was particularly impressed with your statement, "the Shah and the Iranians who valued the rule of law looked for international support to uphold the Iranian constitution." And, of course, you infer (albeit somewhat tangentially and only when pressed) that there was actually U.S. involvement in the form of something you refer to as "aid" - although you're somewhat hesitant to actually define what that aid was.

And take away your opportunity to prove it was the CIA who over threw the unconstitutional regime?

I asked you first since it is your claim that the CIA did the deed, please detail their work.

in order to satisfy your request, clarification is needed. You have several times addressed the overthrow of the government in terms of the Shah's sole initiative and his 'reaching out' to the west for assistance... please advise if that's an incorrect interpretation and update as applicable.

Please show where I have said or implied it was the shah's sole inititive.

Dog offered up a bone to somewhat elaborate on that U.S. involvement in terms of money and logistical support... that "logistical support" term lacks preciseness - lacks granularity. Perhaps you - or Dog - could elaborate further on what that entailed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logistics

[eyeball]

No that's a learned analysis of years of reading your posts. Take Mossy as an example. You think he's peachy...

No I just think Iran and anyone doing business with it should have been left to sort out their issues themselves. Years of reading your posts makes it crystal clear that you believe interfering in the affairs of other democratic countries and abandoning their people to some bloody regime is peachy. Its sick and it's this exact type of thinking that has contributed the most to the mess the world is in today.

This canard of your's about the quality of democracy in Iran in 1953 being the justification for intruding into another people's governance is pure bullshit. At the time many of our own democracies in the west had barely extended the vote to women and people of other ethnicities. We were in no position to be preaching about democratic standards let alone imposing them on anyone yet we did and still do - while looking the other way when the bloodthirsty governments' we enable torture and murder their own people. That's a freedom that's probaby worth hating alright.

It's no wonder things like 9/11 happen.