• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Hamid Karzai's murky history

D

dot23

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Aug 21, 2001
Messages
1,097
I was reading this article and it mentions his prior engagement as a 'consultant' for a large oil company who were lobbying for a large afghan pipeline. Not only that but he's an ex-CIA man! the world keeps gettin' smaller evry day. Oh, he's the new afghan leader if you didn't know!

I'll come back and comment more when I've got time ;)
 
Interesting article, but where does it say Karzai is ex-CIA?
 
ah - I read that in another (bbc or guardian) article in the last month. He went in to stir unrest on behalf of them amongst the pashtuns and his CIA background was mentioned in this context.

If I can be bothered I'll try and find the link otherwise try and find out for yourself.
 
Sounds like the Taliban too... since taliban reps were invited to Texus for talk and entertainment........ just a case of hes Our Head bastard...
 
Seems like the American government has a sever case of generative Bipolar disorder (i love you *smack*). Maybe their just trying to confuse everyone up to their own level :confused:

Still, on the plus side oil'll run out in 30 years so all this rubbish will stop, and they'll... oh wait, they'll try and comandeer the windiest places in the world (watch out mongolia!).
 
Oil won't run out. But I don't see why America doesn't bet more on alternative energy sources. It could make them more independent after all. Make the oil sheiks loose their power.
 
since when X? I've been told for as long as I can remember that our supplies will tail off towards the middle of this century - is this a UL? Also agree - if wind/wave/solar power was perfected then a) no more fighting over territory (.'. cheaper) b) continuous supply c) we could all be mates again :)

maybe the US govt is secretly run by ayrabs :eek!!!!:


NB. That was not, i repeat not a rascist comment, but a sarcastic remark. any grievances should be forwarded to: mr g w bush, white house capitol hill us.
 
Not towards the middle of the century. In 10 years. That's what they've said for the past 50 years. "In 10 years all the oil resources will have run out". It so far hasn't happened and doesn't look like it will. We keep finding new oil and better ways to extract it. The oil price has been the same all the time, the only alterations have been artificial. You don't have to worry. Except for the awful air you get in big cities.
 
I think everyone in Afghanistan, with a Ak-47 and more than 6 followers ended up as a consultant for Unocal, so I wouldn't say Karzai's history is any more murky than most, but it is obvious that America's not going to spend all that time and money installing a leader who wasn't favourable to their interests.
There's a few things I don't understand about the whole deal thought. These oil fields are in the Caspian Region, and more in Siberia, so why is it so important to have a pipeline in Afghanistan?
 
I could never quite figure that part out either chats - maybe there's been a long term paln to install an (2nd) american proto state in that area for a long time and they realised they'd need the oil fo all those chrysler mountain goats :)
 
The CIA setting up a puppet government? No way. That could never happen.
 
Xanatic said:
Not towards the middle of the century. In 10 years. That's what they've said for the past 50 years. "In 10 years all the oil resources will have run out". It so far hasn't happened and doesn't look like it will. We keep finding new oil and better ways to extract it. The oil price has been the same all the time, the only alterations have been artificial. You don't have to worry. Except for the awful air you get in big cities.
Click to expand...

It's been true so far, but logically there can only be a finite supply of oil, and we are continuing to use/burn it so at some point we should reach the point where we have either run out, or there isn't any suitably extractable amount. The debate is over when, not if.

On a related subject, you might be interested to know that the worlds reserves of uranium are only sufficient for ~100 years of fission power (unless we build breeder reactors and allow reprocessing plants to operate.) I only discovered this recently and was somewhat taken aback by this. We're rapidly reaching the point where we *really* need to have a serious debate about energy.
 
Firstly, those who say oil is going to run out in 20-30 years have been saying that for even longer. Technology continues to improve in both exploration for and exploitation of oil, plus the massive reserves remaining in Saudi and now discovered in the Caspian region will keep those 5 litre V8s going for quite some time yet. The US, in a bid to reduce the influence of OPEC on the oil price, is opening up its protected wilderness reserves for more prospecting, so a good deal more could turn up there. I think a more credible threat to oil rather than it running out is the middle east situation getting so dire that a future administration throws its hands up in the air and decides to stop being dependent on foreign oil altogether and promotes fuel cell technology and other alternatives.
Regarding this pipeline, it's always fraught with difficutlies, particularly as the terrain is not the friendliest to pipelines, not to mention the habit of locals in other parts of the world of tapping the line for their own use. I guess the only logical reason for putting a line there is that apart from the Black Sea it's the only way out of the Caspian region whilst bypassing the Middle East altogether. Why have an alternative to the Black Sea? Control over an oil outlet in a US friendly port perhaps? I'm just speculating here. Maybe Bush doesn't quite trust Putin yet, but expect to see some energy-related partnerships with Russia as the US looks outside the Middle East to keep their 4x4s going.
 
I really can't understand why alternative energy is not properly researched and developed. In America, Australia and Africa there's huge potential for wind and solar power, with large tracts of low population / high wind / heat. Imagine if the cornfields of Idaho were interpsersed with wind turbines, or our UK shores were ringed by underwater wave power generators. BP (boo!) has at least made a nod towards renewable energy ((mostly as a face saving excercise to deflect attention from human rights abuses elsewhere) why don't others follow suit? Similarly great research has been done in Germany and the states into solar powered cars, and energy efficient battery cars (most of which has come to nought due to pressure from oil companies).

It's just barking! Why don't all these oil companies pool their resources, squeeze out oil barons and become independant of oil for good? The combined efforts of governments, large oil multinationals and scientists could easily solve this problem. Maybe the issue is that the oil companies realise that it would be too cost effective and the public would start to question why they paid so much for electricity when these machines would be almost self sustaing.

Who knows - any ideas out there?

[edit]
just thought I'd add this link: Energy review urges greener focus [/edit]
 
Look at a place like Africa. They could lease out the Sahara desert to people with solar cells and live off the money for the next hundred years. You don't have to put much solar cells into Sahara to get all the energy you need.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top