…and speaking of oil, just when we were barely getting used to Big Oil and Iraq hitting the front pages of American newspapers in tandem, here comes Afghanistan! Who now remembers that delegation of Taliban officials, shepherded by Unocal ("We're an oil and gas company. We go where the oil and gas is…"), back in 1999, that made an all-expenses paid visit to the U.S. There was even that side trip to Mt. Rushmore, while the company (with U.S. encouragement) was negotiating a $1.9 billion pipeline that would bring Central Asian oil and natural gas through Afghanistan to Pakistan? Oh, and who was a special consultant to Unocal on the prospective deal? Zalmay Khalilzad, our present neocon ambassador to the U.N., George W. Bush's former viceroy of Kabul and then Baghdad, and a rumored future "Afghan" presidential candidate.

Those pipeline negotiations only broke down definitively in August 2001, one month before, well, you know… and, as Toronto's Globe and Mail columnist Lawrence Martin put it, "Washington was furious, leading to speculation it might take out the Taliban. After 9/11, the Taliban, with good reason, were removed -- and pipeline planning continued with the Karzai government. U.S. forces installed bases near Kandahar, where the pipeline was to run. A key motivation for the pipeline was to block a competing bid involving Iran, a charter member of the 'axis of evil.'"

Well, speak of the dead and not-quite-buried. It turns out that, in April, Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and India (acronymically TAPI) signed a Gas Pipeline Framework Agreement to build a U.S.-backed $7.6 billion pipeline. It would, of course, bypass Iran and new energy giant Russia, carrying Turkmeni natural gas and oil to Pakistan and India. Construction would, theoretically, begin in 2010. Put the emphasis on "theoretically," because the pipeline is, once again, to run straight through Kandahar and so directly into the heartland of the Taliban insurgency.

Pepe Escobar of Asia Times caught the spirit of the moment perfectly: "The government of Afghan President Hamid Karzai, which cannot even provide security for a few streets in central Kabul, has engaged in Hollywood-style suspension of disbelief by assuring unsuspecting customers it will not only get rid of millions of land mines blocking TAPI's route, it will get rid of the Taliban themselves." Nonetheless, as in Iraq, American (and NATO) troops could one day be directly protecting (and dying for) the investments of Big Oil in a new version of the old imperial "Great Game" with a special modern emphasis on pipeline politics.

There has been a flurry of reportage on the revived pipeline plan in Canada, where -- bizarrely enough -- journalists and columnists actually worry about such ephemeral possibilities as Canadian troops spending the next half century protecting Turkmeni energy. If you happen to live in the U.S., though, you would really have no way of knowing about such developments, no less their backstory, unless you were wandering the foreign press online.

To put the lack of coverage here in perspective, consider Nick Turse's latest piece on the Iraq/Big Oil story that did, at last, hit the mainstream news here (only a few years late in the Great Game). Turse offers further leads for mainstream reporters finally ready to pursue the story wherever it leads, even back into an ignored, and oily, past. Let's hope Afghanistan's pipeline gets similar attention one of these days. Tom

Comments (63)

1. More bad news from Iraq today! Oh God, when will this ever end! Anybody got any purple kool-aid?

   "From The Sunday Times July 6, 2008 Iraqis lead final purge of Al-Qaeda Marie Colvin in Mosul

   American and Iraqi forces are driving Al-Qaeda in Iraq out of its last redoubt in the north of the country in the culmination of one of the most spectacular victories of the war on terror.

   After being forced from its strongholds in the west and centre of Iraq in the past two years, Al-Qaeda's dwindling band of fighters has made a defiant "last stand" in the northern city of Mosul. "

   A huge operation to crush the 1,200 fighters who remained from a terrorist force once estimated at more than 12,000 began on May 10.

   Operation Lion's Roar, in which the Iraqi army combined forces with the Americans' 3rd Armoured Cavalry Regiment, has already resulted in the death of Abu Khalaf, the Al-Qaeda leader, and the capture of more than 1,000 suspects.

   Posted by pontificus at 07/07/2008 @ 1:51pm

2. One can only hope that this information is true. The next president, McCain or Obama should in the interest of national security do everything they can to ensure the supply of oil to the US.

   But the leftists who hate oil will rise up in protest. Of course they also will continue to use plastic, drive cars, light and heat their homes, fly on airplanes, and ride on buses. All while hypocritically cursing oil and the oil companies.

   Posted by lvliberty1 at 07/07/2008 @ 1:53pm

3. Build the pipeline and stop the handwringing. Eventually the Afgan army will be able to control or defeat the Taliban barbarians. The oil is needed.

   Posted by pyeatte at 07/07/2008 @ 1:55pm

4. Posted by Maskbeta at 07/07/2008 @ 1:36pm

   Hey MASK, looks like I was right and you were wrong (again). Iraq will not be an issue in 2008, because we won. The only thing to watch is Obama covering his ass after 4 years of COMPLETELY WRONG predictions of failure.

   The difference between my view of the world and yours is that mine has predictive power, and yours has none. Like many cults, the liberal philosophy is self-consistent, but when it comes to correlation with reality, it utterly fails. One day, you will see that, if you are lucky; if not, you will die as ignorant as you are today.

   Posted by pontificus at 07/07/2008 @ 1:55pm

5. Of course, Nichols still blathers on about pipelines operated by the worldwide, omnipotent, and omniscient right wing conspiracy. See, he says, there is a BIG PIPELINE after all! This proves all of our leftist paranoid fantasies (he says)!

   The same conspiracy, I might add, that has somehow all the basic laws of economics in its favor. The same conspiracy that manages to raise the cost of oil, just at the same time the Democrats in America have pretty much put an end to any new domestic oil production! And the domestic oil companies are reaping huge profits! How, the studiously and staunchly ignorant ask, could such a thing happen? Basic economics? Nay! It's all a vast right wing conspiracy!

   Posted by pontificus at 07/07/2008 @ 1:59pm

6. pointi-When did we win and what did we win in Iraq?

   Posted by i'm nobody at 07/07/2008 @ 2:00pm

7. ponti-If you study the history of the area you'll discover that others thought that they won,too just to find out how patient these people are and how they'll fake defeat until they attack,again.

   Posted by i'm nobody at 07/07/2008 @ 2:01pm

8. too just to find out how patient these people are and how they'll fake defeat until they attack,again.

   Posted by i'm nobody at 07/07/2008 @ 2:01pm

   How do dead men fake defeat?

   Posted by lvliberty1 at 07/07/2008 @ 2:10pm

9. lvliberty-You aren't even close to killing them all and they are getting new recruits everyday.By the way.The fact that people on the left use oil because it what is available does not make any hypocrites.Many who did not like horses continued to ride them until automobiles became more available,but that did not make them hypocrites..

   Posted by i'm nobody at 07/07/2008 @ 2:19pm

10. How do dead men fake defeat? Posted by lvliberty1 at 07/07/2008 @ 2:10pm

    Uhhh they aren't dead. If you can't remember. We forgot about them after Saddam became our target instead other person who actually planned and carried out the murder of 4,000 Americans. More proof that Bush doesn't give damn about America only his agenda. He managed to put the capture and trial of Osama the person who attacked America on the back burner compared to the non-threat of Saddam.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/07/2008 @ 2:33pm

11. If war supporters would get informed then they would discover that AQ is putting it's focus and energy into Pakistan and not Iraq.Pakistan has nuclear weapons and events in Pakistan are,all,but being ignored by America making it wide open for take over.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 07/07/2008 @ 2:34pm

12. The fact that people on the left use oil because it what is available does not make any hypocrites.Many who did not like horses continued to ride them until automobiles became more available,but that did not make them hypocrites.. Posted by i'm nobody at 07/07/2008 @ 2:19pm

    Hypocrites rarely understand what a hypocrite is. He doesn't understand that there are no other options for those of us who don't WANT to use oil therefore we HAVE to use oil.

    I pose you a hypothetical. LVL. Would it be hypocritical if the only food available to you were potatoes so the potato farmers beat their employees and treated them badly. If you protested the employees treatment but kept buying potatoes because there was no other food available and you need the potatoes to live does that make you a hypocrite?

    I think a rudimentary understanding of the word hypocrite would equate to a no. I would love to not use oil, sadly I have no alternatives right now. If I want to go somewhere far and fast I have to fly. If I need to haul things somewhere I have to drive. And everything is made out of plastic now-a-days. I have no choice but to use them unless I want to live in the woods and not work. But then you would say I was a moocher and not paying taxes. So there is no way to win.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/07/2008 @ 2:40pm

13. Uhhh they aren't dead. If you can't remember. We forgot about them after Saddam became our target instead other person who actually planned and carried out the murder of 4,000 Americans. More proof that Bush doesn't give damn about America only his agenda. He managed to put the capture and trial of Osama the person who attacked America on the back burner compared to the non-threat of Saddam.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/07/2008 @ 2:33pm

    What nonsense. The planner of 9/11, Kalik Sheik Mohammad is on trial right now at Gitmo. Those that carried out 9/11 have been dead now since that day (perhaps an oversight on your part).

    We invaded Iraq nearly a year and a half after we entered Afghanistan. We did not divert any troops from there for the Iraq War. There are more US and NATO troops in Afghanistan since 2003 than were there during the invasion.

    Also, if and when we get Bin Laden, there will be no trial. Our military people read also. They see they way the left is trying to stop them from being victorious. Bin Laden will die during his capture.

    Posted by lvliberty1 at 07/07/2008 @ 2:42pm

14. That pipeline (across Afghanistan) has been a bauble hard-fought over in the Great Game for a very, very long time.

    Personally, I believe that for the nearer future, that the "security situation" in Afghanistan and Pakistan is going to be so severe that no serious construction of any pipeline will take place. The bulk of the US military is occupying Iraq, which has developed and undeveloped oil fields both and a history as a functioning oil producer, near to coastal ports, and Iraq is still not producing oil anywhere near what it was capable of prior to the US invasion and occupation. Afghanistan on the other hand has resisted major foreign occupation quite effectively for a very, very, very long time - much longer than the US has been around - and any pipeline through it had best be impervious to any form and amount of conventional explosive and the pipeline workers made of bullet-resistant steel because Afghanis will not tolerate the pipeline.

    And Pakistan? The very idea of treating that country as stable enough to make lasting pipeline deals is ludicrous.

    Posted by Zero at 07/07/2008 @ 2:46pm

15. lvliberty-No troops in Afghanistan are seeing the left trying to make them lose,but I'm not surprised to see you use the words the left since you try and make everything a left/ right issue including such silly things as views on the constitution,views on the Bible,oil etc. where there aren't any real differences in views that are based on being a lefty or righty.Your goal is to divide.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 07/07/2008 @ 2:50pm

16. The fact that people on the left use oil because it what is available does not make any hypocrites.Many who did not like horses continued to ride them until automobiles became more available,but that did not make them hypocrites.. Posted by i'm nobody at 07/07/2008 @ 2:19pm

    Hypocrites rarely understand what a hypocrite is. He doesn't understand that there are no other options for those of us who don't WANT to use oil therefore we HAVE to use oil.

    I pose you a hypothetical. LVL. Would it be hypocritical if the only food available to you were potatoes so the potato farmers beat their employees and treated them badly. If you protested the employees treatment but kept buying potatoes because there was no other food available and you need the potatoes to live does that make you a hypocrite?

    I think a rudimentary understanding of the word hypocrite would equate to a no. I would love to not use oil, sadly I have no alternatives right now. If I want to go somewhere far and fast I have to fly. If I need to haul things somewhere I have to drive. And everything is made out of plastic now-a-days. I have no choice but to use them unless I want to live in the woods and not work. But then you would say I was a moocher and not paying taxes. So there is no way to win.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/07/2008 @ 2:40pm

    That really is a false argument.

    No one is forced to fly or drive a car. No one is forced to use plastic. Your own argument demonstrates the fallacy of your position.

    "If I want to go somewhere far and fast I have to fly. If I need to haul things somewhere I have to drive."

    You could choose not to go fast or not go at all out of your convictions. You could choose to sell what you have, do with less, or even make what you need. But they are all choices, not necessity.

    You're too young to remember the Hippie days. We used to make candles for lighting, travelled little (except to concerts) raised our fruits and veggies, made our own clothes. Didn't have TV's, VCR's, DVD players, no home theater systems, no microwave ovens, etc. Those were choices we made out of a sense of conviction. I imagine there are others here who can provide similar testimony.

    I know dedicated environmentalists who do not use those things. They make sacrifices and changes to adapt their lives to their belief system.

    Posted by lvliberty1 at 07/07/2008 @ 2:52pm

17. lvliberty-Most of those that planned 9/11 are quite safe and planning on taking over Pakistan.Your Bush has not harmed AQ to any degree that matters.In fact,he may have done them a favor by taking away Afghanistan and letting them play in Pakistan.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 07/07/2008 @ 2:54pm

18. Also, if and when we get Bin Laden, there will be no trial. Our military people read also. They see they way the left is trying to stop them from being victorious. Bin Laden will die during his capture. Posted by lvliberty1 at 07/07/2008 @ 2:42pm

    Actually the left has been pushing for the resurgence of an effort in Afghanistan and getting out of Iraq. If you could read you would know that. Or if you weren't just working off of BS partisan opinions with no facts to back them up you would know that.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/07/2008 @ 2:57pm

19. They see they way the left is trying to stop them from being victorious.----Posted by lvliberty1 at 07/07/2008 @ 2:42pm

    Curious, LVLIB....what power exactly does "the left" have that prevents our soldiers from "being victorious"?

    And why has it worked so well for the last 6 years?!?!?!?

    Posted by Maskbeta at 07/07/2008 @ 2:48pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    lvliberty-No troops in Afghanistan are seeing the left trying to make them lose,but I'm not surprised to see you use the words the left since you try and make everything a left/ right issue including such silly things as views on the constitution,views on the Bible,oil etc. where there aren't any real differences in views that are based on being a lefty or righty.Your goal is to divide.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 07/07/2008 @ 2:50pm

    Let's see, the left's demand to impose for the first time in our history, Habeas on enemy prisoners in war. Added to that the move to put any trials in a US civil court rather than military tribunal. These moves place greater danger on our troops, they would cause them to have to leave the field of battle in order to testify, they actually increase the likelihood that rather than take prisoners, US troops would just kill potential prisoners rather than subject the US and themselves to that weakening of our defense.

    As to the timing Mask, it is only recently that the left has had some success in weakening the ability of our troops. BTW, I also get this from talking to Marines who have been in both places.

    And IM, the fact that you continue to spin that there are no significant differences between right and left on these issues merely shows you to be dishonest. I don't divide, unlike you, I'm just honest about the divide.

    Posted by lvliberty1 at 07/07/2008 @ 3:13pm

20. I know dedicated environmentalists who do not use those things. They make sacrifices and changes to adapt their lives to their belief system. Posted by lvliberty1 at 07/07/2008 @ 2:52pm

    You need to gain an understanding of the English language. This is not a false argument. It is an exaggeration. Your answer to the problem of oil is the same possible answer the problem of the potatoes. However if you don't want to live on the fringes of society you have to accept certain aspects. I live in a city. A massive city at that which means I have no choice but to drive to certain places. I ride my bike 18 miles every day of the week so that I don't have to drive. However there are certain things I can't help. For instance let's say I want to buy a piece of furniture for my apartment? Or I want to go 100 or so miles. Even the hippies had their hippy vans. The hippies all backed down on certain things when it came to what they viewed as normative behavior. Yes we could all live in hippy communes but then you get called moochers by people like you, because you don't work therefore you don't pay taxes. I want to have a normative life and achieve normal goals however that doesn't at the same time require that I throw away my morals. Some of us recognize that life is not black and white there is a grey to be accounted for. Besides how many of those hippies you speak of are still hippies?

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/07/2008 @ 3:30pm

21. lvliberty-Few on the left or right have ever read the Bible or constitution and those that have do not have views that go down left/right lines.This is the case in the real world as can be seen from my own family and many other people families who have different political views,but very similar religious views and views on the constitution that do not go along political lines.I used to belong to the NRA, when I lived in Montana, and tried to get my Army lifer conservative dad to join,but he did not agree with my interpretation of the second amendment and would not join the NRA...The left has not weakened our troops in any way and you know it.It would be their command structure that has weakened them.Only they have the power to do that.The war in Iraq should not have been fought,but since it was it should have been won easily and quickly.We are the United States of America.We are the baddest nation the world has ever seen and we got bogged down in some tiny third world nation and it was not because of the left.The guy who ordered the attack on our nation is still running lose in a country called Pakistan and not Iraq!!!!!!!!You have weakened my country and have made us into something to laugh at.We ain't bad no more.We're weak and it's the fault of those in charge.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 07/07/2008 @ 3:32pm

22. AND (maybe a negative, but worth it) actually BOOSTED Bush's approval ratings and not left him with a legacy as one of the worst Presidents in American history. Posted by Maskbeta at 07/07/2008 @ 3:10pm

    Yeah. But wouldn't you rather bang sticks around and play war for stupid selfish agendas, effectively destroying the last vestiges of credibility that America had and becoming a huge drain on the economy which will be paid off by kids because someone was dumb enough, or smart enough if you look at it from a PR perspective, to put the war on a credit card instead of paying for it by raising taxes. Typical of Bush to want to wage a war that he doesn't want to pay for. I guess that makes him a commernist.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/07/2008 @ 3:35pm

23. I hate hippies by the way.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/07/2008 @ 3:41pm

24. lvliberty-Few on the left or right have ever read the Bible or constitution and those that have do not have views that go down left/right lines.This is the case in the real world as can be seen from my own family and many other people families who have different political views,but very similar religious views and views on the constitution that do not go along political lines.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 07/07/2008 @ 3:32pm

    We have very different friends and relations.

    Most of my friends and relations read the Bible daily. Yes I know some who don't, but not many. I also know that we are not the majority.

    As to the constitution, I at least discuss the constitution weekly with my friends and family.

    And indeed, it is my experience with those I know that they have distinct difference in understanding both the bible and the constitution. I'm fortunate in not having very many family members (except a couple of cousins in Virginia and Florida) who are to the left at all. I have a brother who for decades was certainly a leftist, but he has become disenchanted with the left and it's attack on Christians.

    I consider myself blessed that I don't have many encounters with people on the left.

    Posted by lvliberty1 at 07/07/2008 @ 3:45pm

25. I consider myself blessed that I don't have many encounters with people on the left. Posted by lvliberty1 at 07/07/2008 @ 3:45pm

    Ahh a true man of God. Ever judgmental, ever self-righteous, ever hell-bound.

    Partisan as ever hey LVL? A true sign of someone who is politically worthless because you vote along your party not for any true ideals. You will believe in propaganda said to you as long as it's from the right. People like you make me sad.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/07/2008 @ 3:52pm

26. lvliberty-I consider myself blessed because I have encounters with all types of people and have had close relationships with so many different types of people.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 07/07/2008 @ 3:53pm

27. lvliberty-I consider myself blessed because I have encounters with all types of people and have had close relationships with so many different types of people. Posted by i'm nobody at 07/07/2008 @ 3:53pm

    LVL doesn't like anyone with a dissenting opinion. In his mind anyone who does not agree with him should be purged from this Earth.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/07/2008 @ 3:58pm

28. lvliberty-I was unaware that the left was attacking Christians.You make that claim,but can never back it up.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 07/07/2008 @ 3:58pm

29. On top of that though LVL is full of shit. He says he is blessed to not interact with people on the left. Then he comes online and spends free time blogging on the Nation. If he didn't want to interact with those on the left he wouldn't be here. Of course we all know LVL is full of shit so no news there. He just wants to give off more of sanctimonious, holier than thou, righteous BS attitude.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/07/2008 @ 4:00pm

30. lvliberty-I was unaware that the left was attacking Christians.You make that claim,but can never back it up. Posted by i'm nobody at 07/07/2008 @ 3:58pm

    That's a common trend for LVL haven't you noticed? Most of his claims are based in nothing but supposition and subjectivity. Rarely does he present an objective fact.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/07/2008 @ 4:01pm

31. Ccc-He comes to a strange blog for someone who does not want to have encounters with left wingers.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 07/07/2008 @ 4:02pm

32. Ahh a true man of God. Ever judgmental, ever self-righteous, ever hell-bound.

    Partisan as ever hey LVL? A true sign of someone who is politically worthless because you vote along your party not for any true ideals. You will believe in propaganda said to you as long as it's from the right. People like you make me sad.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/07/2008 @ 3:52pm

    Wrong again. I have voted 3rd party in 3 of the last 5 elections.

    And it is not self righteous to prefer the company of people you agree with. Or do you and liberals and progressives not employ the same preferences?

    Aren't most of your friends more liberal than conservative?

    Posted by lvliberty1 at 07/07/2008 @ 4:07pm

33. I hate hippies by the way.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/07/2008 @ 3:41pm

    I'm not surprised.

    Did you catch that Frosty?

    Posted by lvliberty1 at 07/07/2008 @ 4:07pm

34. lvliberty-I was unaware that the left was attacking Christians.You make that claim,but can never back it up.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 07/07/2008 @ 3:58pm

    Really? Try going back to the threads on this site alone for the past 3 years and see how many vitriolic attacks were posted against anyone who is an evangelical Christian or from some, any Christian period.

    Posted by lvliberty1 at 07/07/2008 @ 4:09pm

35. On top of that though LVL is full of shit. He says he is blessed to not interact with people on the left. Then he comes online and spends free time blogging on the Nation. If he didn't want to interact with those on the left he wouldn't be here. Of course we all know LVL is full of shit so no news there. He just wants to give off more of sanctimonious, holier than thou, righteous BS attitude.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/07/2008 @ 4:00pm

    I'm sorry, perhaps you are not understanding of the difference between personal interaction in a social setting and anonymous impersonal blogging.

    Or if I engage in a formal debate somewhere, it is not a personal interaction.

    Posted by lvliberty1 at 07/07/2008 @ 4:12pm

36. lvliberty-Places such as this is where people attack each other, just like you do,but that does not mean that the left is attacking Christians.People on here,simply,express different views in an attack like manner or in what you perceive as an attack.Not the same thing as attacking Christians.You come on a left wing blog and attack "the left" or,at least, those that you think are on the left and people respond in a like manner and you do,very much,come across as self righteous and that always ruffles feathers.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 07/07/2008 @ 4:28pm

37. Okay, so let's get that "theory" straight...

    "Our troops in Afghanistan are more likely to lose, because they're more likely to KILL enemy combatants than try to capture them, because they see on Fox News that us durn liberals want us to not treat those combatants to endless detention with no trial!"?

    I see.

    You're bananas.

    Posted by Maskbeta at 07/07/2008 @ 4:20pm

    Closer to restating my position than your usual but still distorted. I said you place them in greater danger.

    I know you are not unintelligent so try and actually think it through. If you subject enemy combatants for the first time in history to civilian courts, you will place troops in danger by requiring capturing troops to come back to the US and testify in court. That places the unit in jeopardy first of all. Secondly, you will open up the scummy defense attorneys for the terrorists (traitors like Lynn Stewart and Ron Kuby) who will demand to know what intel the troops had that made them take on those "poor victims of US military imperialism."

    This is part of a central argument that shows the actions of the left by intent and unintentional (I credit some as being naive), to destroy both our ability to defeat terrorism and to further take down the US as the sole remaining world power.

    I don't see much in your arguments the past few years Mask that would lead me to believe you want the best for our troops or our country.

    Posted by lvliberty1 at 07/07/2008 @ 4:30pm

38. Aren't most of your friends more liberal than conservative? Posted by lvliberty1 at 07/07/2008 @ 4:07pm

    No actually. I have quite a few conservative friends. My friends kind of run the gamit. Agreeance on politics isn't the basis of a friendship for me. Just like I have very very religious friends and friends who hate religion and everywhere in between. I prefer to interact with people of all walks of life not just those like me.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/07/2008 @ 4:38pm

39. lvliberty-Your argument was quite weak.By the time an terrorist suspect was questioned in Afghanistan,evidence gathered,and then brought back and then brought to trail a fair amount of time would have elapsed.He would have no current knowledge about the troops.An enemy combatant should be in a POW camp in Afghanistan.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 07/07/2008 @ 4:38pm

40. I'm not surprised. Did you catch that Frosty? Posted by lvliberty1 at 07/07/2008 @ 4:07pm

    Funny because I guarantee you if I had said I loved hippies you would have said the same thing because hippies are supposed to be indigenous of the left. I dislike anyone who has a superiority complex. Who thinks they have a right to tell you how you are supposed to live and who call your way of life wrong. This includes most hippies, not all. The reason I can say I dislike hippies is because most people who call themselves hippies are no actually such. The ones who truly have the idea down are the ones who don't need to belong to a group. They do things out of their own ideals not because they subscribe to some prefab set of morals.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/07/2008 @ 4:41pm

41. lvliberty-I was unaware that anyone was suggesting that we bring every person that is captured in Afghanistan back here for trial.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 07/07/2008 @ 4:43pm

42. This is part of a central argument that shows the actions of the left by intent and unintentional (I credit some as being naive), to destroy both our ability to defeat terrorism and to further take down the US as the sole remaining world power.

    Posted by lvliberty1 at 07/07/2008 @ 4:30pm

    Yes LVL. Keep repeating your kookie paranoid conspiracy theory. You are as bad as the UFO nuts.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/07/2008 @ 4:44pm

43. berty-I was unaware that anyone was suggesting that we bring every person that is captured in Afghanistan back here for trial. Posted by i'm nobody at 07/07/2008 @ 4:43pm

    They aren't once again LVL makes things up in order to make some contrived and generally false point, based on subjectivity.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/07/2008 @ 4:57pm

44. Wrong again. I have voted 3rd party in 3 of the last 5 elections. And it is not self righteous to prefer the company of people you agree with. Or do you and liberals and progressives not employ the same preferences? Aren't most of your friends more liberal than conservative? Posted by lvliberty1 at 07/07/2008 @ 4:07pm

    Some of us actually have this crazy thing where politics and religion don't rule our lives. We believe that two people of different ideologies can be friends. Hell two people of different ideologies can still be good people. You believe that the left is just a bunch of evil people but the rest of us who are intelligent enough and lack that certain self-righteousness can see that you don't all have to belong to some prefab moral code in order to be good people.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/07/2008 @ 4:59pm

45. lvliberty-I was unaware that anyone was suggesting that we bring every person that is captured in Afghanistan back here for trial.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 07/07/2008 @ 4:43pm

    Where have you been? That is precisely the argument made by the lawyers for the Gitmo prisoners and has been stated repeatedly by the Nation writers

    Posted by lvliberty1 at 07/07/2008 @ 8:08pm

46. i've been harping about this pipeline for years.

    why do you think canadians are dying in kandahar.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 07/07/2008 @ 8:53pm

47. here's a ditty i composed a while back:

    --------to the tune of yellow rose--------

    There's some TALIBAN IN TEXAS,

    That UNOCAL'S going to see,

    Nobody could ever miss them,

    With their keys to the Casp'an Sea.

    They are guesting them in Sugarland

    With the finest Texas beds,

    Who really cares if later,

    They try to shoot off all our heads?

    You may talk about your Baathists,

    And sing of Khomeini,

    But the TALIBAN OF TEXAS

    are the only ones for me.

    (my most sincerest apologies to all the wonderful texas roses.)

    Posted by frosty zoom at 09/11/2007 @ 01:37am

    Posted by frosty zoom at 07/07/2008 @ 8:55pm

48. The Telegraph reported that Unocal had promised to start building the pipeline and paying the Taliban immediately, with the added inducements and a donation of £500,000 to the University of Nebraska for courses in Afghanistan to train 400 teachers, electricians, carpenters and pipefitters.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 07/07/2008 @ 8:57pm

49. "Habeas on enemy prisoners in war. Added to that the move to put any trials in a US civil court rather than military tribunal. These moves place greater danger on our troops, they would cause them to have to leave the field of battle in order to testify, they actually increase the likelihood that rather than take prisoners"

    Actually, the US government hasn't treated them as prisoners of war, that's why habeas applies. Further, why would a military tribunal also not require US soldiers to testify. Finally, most of the detainees weren't taken in the field by US troops, they were turned in by Afghanis or Pakistanis, so you're not looking at US military witnesses to a detainee being taken on the battlefield.

    "We invaded Iraq nearly a year and a half after we entered Afghanistan. We did not divert any troops from there for the Iraq War."

    Also not true. Troops from the 5th Special Forces group were pulled from Afghanistan for deployment to Iraq in 2002. The preparation for going into Iraq also diverted CIA specialists. http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2004-03-28-troop-shifts_x.htm

    Posted by brunowe at 07/07/2008 @ 9:09pm

50. Posted by brunowe at 07/07/2008 @ 9:09pm

    BRUNOWE, thanks to you I now understand what it means to be 'educated beyond one's intelligence'.

    Posted by pontificus at 07/07/2008 @ 10:12pm

51. Posted by brunowe at 07/07/2008 @ 9:09pm

    What a brilliant idea. Let's give terrorists all the rights of US citizens, including those terrorists caught under arms on the battlefield. An idea so stupid only a liberal could think of it.

    Posted by pontificus at 07/07/2008 @ 10:15pm

52. Pontificus, I rather doubt you understand any phrase that has more than one polysyllabic word. Incidentally, you are again assuming that all those detainees in Gitmo are terrorists, an inaccurate conclusion.

    Further, personnel who are caught under arms on the battlefield are the ones least likely to benefit from this since the case against them is the strongest.

    Posted by brunowe at 07/07/2008 @ 10:39pm

53. UNOCAL guesting the Taliban in Texas? Wrong!

    Try California.....San Francisco? Safe & far away place from bitter people in bitter places clinging to guns and religion.

    Posted by 2HAPPY at 07/07/2008 @ 10:38pm

    Thursday, December 4, 1997

    Taleban in Texas for talks on gas pipeline

    The 1,300km pipeline will carry gas across Afghanistan's harsh terrain

    A senior delegation from the Taleban movement in Afghanistan is in the United States for talks with an international energy company that wants to construct a gas pipeline from Turkmenistan across Afghanistan to Pakistan.

    A SPOKESMAN FOR THE COMPANY, UNOCAL, SAID THE TALEBAN WERE EXPECTED TO SPEND SEVERAL DAYS AT THE COMPANY'S HEADQUARTERS IN SUGARLAND, TEXAS.

    Unocal says it has agreements both with Turkmenistan to sell its gas and with Pakistan to buy it.

    The Afghan economy has been devasted by 20 years of civil war But, despite the civil war in Afghanistan, Unocal has been in competition with an Argentinian firm, Bridas, to actually construct the pipeline. Last month, the Argentinian firm, Bridas, announced that it was close to signing a two-billion dollar deal to build the pipeline, which would carry gas 1,300 kilometres from Turkmenistan to Pakistan, across Afghanistan. In May, Taleban-controlled radio in Kabul said a visiting delegation from an Argentinian company had announced that pipeline construction would start "soon". Kabul The radio has reported several visits to Kabul by Unocal and Bridas company officials over the past few months. A BBC regional correspondent says the proposal to build a pipeline across Afghanistan is part of an international scramble to profit from developing the rich energy resources of the Caspian Sea. With the various Afghan factions still at war, the project has looked from the outside distinctly unpromising. Last month the Taleban Minister of Information and Culture, Amir Khan Muttaqi, said the Taleban had held talks with both American and Argentine-led consortia over transit rights but that no final agreement had yet been reached. He said an official team from Afghanistan, Pakistan and Turkmenistan should meet to ensure each country benefited from any deal. However, Unocal clearly believes it is still in with a chance - to the extent that it has already begun training potential staff. It has commissioned the University of Nebraska to teach Afghan men the technical skills needed for pipeline construction. Nearly 140 people were enrolled last month in Kandahar and Unocal also plans to hold training courses for women in administrative skills. Women face working restrictions under Taleban rule Although the Taleban authorities only allow women to work in the health sector, organisers of the training say they haven't so far raised any objections. The BBC regional correspondent says the Afghan economy has been devastated by 20 years of civil war. A deal to go ahead with the pipeline project could give it a desperately-needed boost. But peace must be established first -- and that for the moment still seems a distant prospect.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 07/08/2008 @ 12:15am

54. lvliberty-Please,show the articles where the Nation writers were saying that all people captured should be brought back for trial.I was only aware of terrorist suspects being brought back for trial.I don't recall anyone saying that taliban and other such people should be brought back for trial.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 07/08/2008 @ 09:42am

55. ponti-Those captured on the battlefield are called enemy combatants and not terrorists.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 07/08/2008 @ 10:28am

56. Whether one agrees with the building of the pipeline as well as its process, the media should still be informing the public about this. That's why when some idiot still spouts "liberal media", I have to look at them as they have lost their mind. The media is neither liberal nor conservative. I'm sure people who claim to be conservative would hope that the media would be more informative as well. Oh well. We're doomed. I'm just waiting for what's next. If the american experience doesn't continue to suck, I'll be surprised. Now don't get your panties/boxers in a bunch. I'm not saying my life as an American is horrible. In fact, I'm pretty happy with life. I just wish I wouldn't be treated by those in government and media like a fucking fool. I'm tired of getting played. And if you think you're not getting played, you are. You just haven't realized it yet. Don't worry, it'll come in time. At this point, I'm so tuned out to what's going on, I just read a little online. Okay I'm rambling. Nice to see everyone again. Hope you enjoyed your fourth!

    Lvlib: While I admire your willingness to proclaim your Christianity, I don't understand (from what I read) your need for judgment. Would you not have asked for water from the Samaritan woman(hope I got the scenario right but if you're a preacher, you know what I'm talking about)? Wasn't knowing all kinds of people the kind of behavior Jesus promoted and did? Just wondering.

    Posted by k330k at 07/08/2008 @ 1:45pm

57. Lvlib: While I admire your willingness to proclaim your Christianity, I don't understand (from what I read) your need for judgment. Would you not have asked for water from the Samaritan woman(hope I got the scenario right but if you're a preacher, you know what I'm talking about)? Wasn't knowing all kinds of people the kind of behavior Jesus promoted and did? Just wondering.

    Posted by k330k at 07/08/2008 @ 1:45pm

    I don't have a need for judgment. Judgment belongs to G-d.

    As to the Samaritan woman, as with Jesus, I would certainly have accepted water from her. But you need to read further in that passage where Jesus then confronts the woman's infidelities. Most nonbelievers always want to leave out those portions of scripture.

    Posted by lvliberty1 at 07/08/2008 @ 2:41pm

58. lvliberty-The fact that Jesus mentioned her adultery tells me that He did have encounters with the unrepentant and you must remember that you aren't Jesus.He gets to mention others sins.You get to obey Jesus and not judge or condemn others and concern yourself with what you do.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 07/08/2008 @ 2:59pm

59. lvliberty-When you proclaim that others are going to hell that is being judgmental.When you say that gays are perverts that is being judgmental.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 07/08/2008 @ 3:03pm

60. Mask-When you say that someone is going to hell then you can't make that semantic distinction because that is judging and condemning..

    Posted by i'm nobody at 07/08/2008 @ 4:16pm

61. Posted by lvliberty1 at 07/08/2008 @ 2:41pm

    Well I got a bible(NIV)from my coworker and read all of John, Chapter 4 and Jesus never said anything bad to her about infidelities. In fact she told Jesus that she wasn't married. He replied, that she was telling the truth because the man she was currently involved with was not her husband even though she had been married five times before. There was no judgement or confrontation at all. He did tell her that through God, she would never be thirsty(spiritually). I don't know, Lvlib, what version of the bible you have. Regardless of the version, the sentiment and scenario should be the same. So I don't know where you got infidelities from. But hey, I'm not a leader of a flock so what do I know. Anyway, Jesus is love. God is love. Carry on.....

    Posted by k330k at 07/09/2008 @ 1:10pm

62. liverty is not only a self described preacher, he is Satan incarnate. jess read the mofo's posts.

    Posted by emile duBois at 07/09/2008 @ 3:20pm

63. If war supporters would get informed then they would discover that AQ is putting it's focus and energy into Pakistan and not Iraq Posted by i'm nobody

    That's because we are winning in Iraq.

    Posted by abell12ct at 07/10/2008 @ 10:17am