http://www.pritzkermilitarylibrary.org/eve...haniel-fick.jsp

Does mostly reflect my own opinions and reflections abt my own participation.


Edit :added a description

Thanks 'maxi' will also follow up with the read...wishing you could be just as reciprocatory regarding respective recommendations as well.

Yeah,I see your point,I will try to heed your advice..

At the very least...the google version of 'The New American Century' (55 minute mark) has the info correlating Nato military bases overlapping the path for the purposed pipeline...what's your take on this as fact or fiction?

P.S. '...dealing our way out of the situation with such a ruthless and deadly enemey' is a chicken or the egg causality dilemma...definitely looking forward to the read.

Certainly a captivating view that one,I warched it several times just to be absolutely clear,and paused on the maps etc..
I wish they had used other sources than second hand material i.e the publc media,but I disgress.
I have seen several layouts of this pipeline,but that have been from media,only once or twice have I heard it mentioned in the line of duty,and that would be something that falls under the "field rumour" category,the two most prominent layouts are A: one that goes via RC(S) (Regional Command South) trough RC(W) up to the Italian AOR(Area of Responsibility)..this wouldnt be practically Impossible,given the present security situation.(They have problems even establishing an electric grid in this area,let alone a pipeline)
B: the one that goes almost in its entirety trough RC(N) ,our AOR and I noticed Mazar e Sharif,thats where Camp Marmal,a large German Bundeswher complex,(where our HQ and main base Camp Nidaros is situated within the complex,as well as RC(N) HQ).
As Lt.Fick in the video I posted,I am far down the food chain so I can only offer my personal assesment and hypothezise a little..

While I never heard from any superiors about this pipeline,something that makes sense to me personally, as it wouldnt be our ressponsibility in ISAF to render any aid to building this pipeline as it would be a violation of our mandate,wich is to provide security and stability and aid with the reconstruction,wich falls under so called PRT's(Provincial Reconstruction Team) consisting of engineer troops,mainly from Sweden in our AOR..

There are also a minimal US. Presense(even though ISAF troops are under American command and COMISAF is Gen. Mchcrystal) in RC(N,something there would be if there was to be build an American funded pipeline non related to our ISAF mandate wich than again would have to fall under OEF mandate.(Operation Enduring Freedom).
However there is no secret that a pipeline have been in the planning stages for some time..
But do I believe the whole OEF/ISAF mission was mounted solely for that purpose..no I do not.

Why?..because that would have to involve both NATO and the UN in this conspiracy on such a high level that in my opinion just isnt feacable.(You have to remember OEF included most of NATO and were sanctioned by the UN right from the get-go in 2001,before anything ISAF even existed).
And everyone know how "easy" it is for the UN the agree on something,even many NATO nations operates with multiple caveats,or "de-facto caveats" layed on them by their respective politicians.

NATO is just to complex an alliance to take part in any conspiracy of any sort...there's too much politicical diversion among its member nations,and if that goes for NATO/ISAF,what about the UN then?
H

Thats my take and thank you for the input..feel free to post anything else that comes to mind..

Thanks for taking the time 'maxi' but...John Foster's Canadian foreign policy alternative paper 'A Pipeline Through a Troubled Land' (2008) is a primary info source. It confirms an actual (non-conspiracy) overlapping relationship for ISAF Nato Bases with the proposed TAPI pipeline's path and therefore mirrors a co-op relationship of foreign policy with big business (btw it also legitimizes Mazzucco's POV with non-nut credibility): i.e. "[B]y following an ancient trading route from Central to South Asia. It [TAPI] will run from the Dauletbad gas field in Turkmenistan along the main highway through Herat [Regional Command West / lead nation Italy], Helmand [Britian] and Kandahar [Regional Command South/ lead nation The Netherland] in Afghanistan, through Quetta and Multan in Pakistan: to Fazilka in India..." Foster's conclusion also included an appeal for disclosure and honesty..."Since Afghanistan is perceived to be an energy bridge, why don't our leaders say so? Our troops, our citizens and our democracy deserve an explanation." We the people of the IASF participating nations were never informed / included in this hidden agenda of oil-terior motives. We are all fodder in this financial food chain and the conspiracy label is indicative of the same dismissive dynamic of disinformation.

My country's current conservative government represent corporate Canada and Harper our PM hails from the oil rich province of Alberta. Needless to say Foster's disclosure hit the headlines with a fury. The conservative party took the issue of Afghanistan off the agenda in the last election, calling for a 2011 withdrawal; otherwise they would have been flushed from power. Today's CTV poll (25/10/09) has a 57% public approval rating for immediate troop withdrawal and only a 10% approval rating for extending the mission beyond 2011. It would be interesting listing/comparing public opinion polls from every Nato nation involved in this conflict. My guess; they would all indicate a high disapproval rating and yet our NATO minister's are now in Bratislava talking-up large troop increases.

Foster also dealt with the conflict's causality dilema in his article: i.e. "When the Taliban [were] governing Afghanistan, two consortia vied for the right on the [pipeline] project, one led by Unocal (an American firm) and the other by Bridas (an Argentinean firm)...U.S. negotiations with the Taliban broke down in August 2001, just before the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 [!]. Shortly after [post invasion], the U.S. ousted the Taliban, with the assistance of the Northern Tribes [aka drug lords]. In December 2001, Hamid Karzai [ex-Unocal employee] was appointed interim president...[he is still president. steeped in accusations of corruption and election fraud]." Is it any wonder why the 'enemy' is pissed aka ruthless / deadly and being so disruptive ["a mess" was your decription for RC(S)]. The pipeline's proposed pathway through Pakistan is also the location of Taliban hot spots...both Quetta and Multan. When reading Benazir Bhutto 'Reconciliation: Islam, Democracy, and the West' (2008) I was surprised to learn..."Elements from within the Pakistani intelligence service had actually created the Taliban in the 1980's" and today along with Saudis and Chechens, are the current 'brains' behind this 'situation'.
http://www.policyalternatives.ca/documents...oubled_Land.pdf

P.S. The (unspoken) competition between America's TAPI pipeline and Iran's IPI pipeline could partially account for the latest friction between these two countries and depending on the outcome could also forecast future foreign policy aka big business 'situational' conflicts.

Ok,I have to admit you have some valid points,however if I understand you correctly..you are an intelligent person asling questions and demanding answers,and by no means there is nothing wrong with that.
I will go further in depth on this subject in later posts.
Howver fist some critisism,I percieve "conspiracy theorists" to be somewhat selective about what factual sources to regard as credible,and tend to ignore other sources that does not fit their theories..

You give up ths source http://www.policyalternatives.ca/documents...oubled_Land.pdf as "evidence" if you will,but this is at best circumstansial.

What I am wondering is why people ignore for example this: ISAF tactical directive or dismiss it completely?(that clearly states our objectives)
Or this ISAF official mandate statement.
Why is the information in the two latter sources any less worth than the sources stated first?

There are no directly contradictory information between those three documents are there?
I would like you or anyone to produce something that directly contradict our mission statement and implicates it to be a "conspiracy" solely mounted to establish the TAPI pipeline in question..(preferably from first hand sources and not the media)

Im sorry if my formulations are bad,but I hope you get what im hinting at..
Thank you.(and I will try to go further in depth in a later post)

Yes indeed, you are understanding me correctly, I am an intelligent person wanting questions answered (astute vs a stupe). Chomsky's recent posted talk from 'Democracy Now' underlines the 'striking gap between public opinion and [so-called] public policy [i.e. politicians currently talking troop increases contradicts public opinion polls favoring withdrawal]. He emphasized our democratic right to know vs censorship and concealment. We are also marginalized or ridiculed if we attempt to get up off of our couch of complacency. How aware are you of a similarly dismissive intent behind your usage of the conspiracy label for anything outside a military conceptual framework. We are both being played as pawns although your perspective certainly has far more deadly immediacy than mine. Our civilian 'take' regarding public policy is intentionally excluded from the who/what/where/when/why questions whereas the military 'take' is not that much better (where/when). We both deserve this information just as much as we deserve a participating input into policy. I would recommend Howard Zinn 'A People's History' for an historical perspective on the growth of America's foreign policy into the business of big business, and I'm not talking A.J.'s befuddling buffoonery [as an aside Chomsky now 80, John Pilger at 70 and Howard Zinn is 87...these men are the great grand dads for today's social and political activism].

The TAPI pipeline is also not the be all end all, it is only one particular angle of perception towards an understanding of the big picture. I am aware of McChrystal's tactical directive update as well as its rationale, forgive the cynicism: civilian casualties (aka collateral damage) are now considered counterproductive to the cause "defeat the insurgency...fight the insurgency." With a qualifying postscript "counterinsurgencies are difficult to win." It is interesting that the name-calling has also had a not too subtle upgrade...from terrorist to insurgent: "a political effort with a specific aim..."[*]. The insugency label ("an armed rebellion against a constituted authority" wikipedia) can also be challenged, depending on the pov; the original ousted government perceive itself confronting the current puppet government's right to exist, it is therefore a power struggle for political control (Taliban/regain vs NATO/retain political power). Correspondingly the 'right' of the constituted authority is as questionable as its mercurial 'might'. Enuff now, gots to go, it's me world news programing! At the very least, we have evolved our understanding of this Afghan war well beyond any hysterical rant as the just and humanitarian war.

* http://www.terrorism-research.com/insurgency/

Hey Max I don't know if you heard much of Noam Chomsky , he is a linguist at MIT. And IMHO the most intellectual person in America. He is really a good listen you should give him some of your time.

Smarrie is so correct in his statement of Alex Jones,hes a loud mouth buffoon and has always been,he irritates me.
Hes been on our airwaves here in Austin since day one , So I'm very familiar with him.
But I have to give the guy some credit he did close down the DPS here when they started scanning fingerprints. At least he fought and did not sheep out like the rest of us. He goes so overboard.

Naom on the other hand, is just fantastic.

Ok dear,I will look onto it ...I cant stand Alex Jones myself..

I will look into it,and cynisism forgiven:)

"It's a way we [have] over here for living with ourselves. We cut 'em in half with a machine gun and give 'em a Band-Aid. It [is] a lie." (Willard)

Strike up today's humanitarian Band-Aid bluster 'Books for Freedom' targeting it's sights on Afghan women and girls..."Let's have fun, fun, fun Come on, son of a GUN of a GUN, take your stand [in Afghanistan]..."
P.S. "Karzai ['american dupe'] has made an unthinkable deal to sell Afghan women out in return for the support of fundamentalists in the August 20 election." (Brad Adams, Asia director at Human Rights Watch)
http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2009/08/13/afgh...ts-takes-effect
"[A] law that forces women to obey their husbands' sexual demands, keeps women from leaving the house -- even for work or school -- without a husband's permission, automatically grants child custody rights to fathers and grandfathers before mothers, and favors men in inheritance disputes and other legal matters. In short, the law again consigns Afghan women to lives of brutal repression."
http://www.alternet.org/story/134818/bruta...amp;pID=1178458

"Have you ever considered any real freedoms? Freedoms from the [coddled] opinion of others...even the [mollycoddled] opinions of yourself?" (Kurtz)

_________________________________________________________________________

At least ditch the re-enlistment 'duckie' dear...in the interim. The best 'maxi' and nothing but! Also requested 'One Bullet Away', the inter-library loan via the post will take 4 to 6 weeks.

I have to admit my heart did sink when I read those articles....I got a fraction of the nausiating feeling you get when in a TIC and you hear those hated and feared words.."man down".
I feel personally invested in the welfare and security of Afghan women,that their (democraticly elected,we didnt push him on them) president does something like that,its clearly against our agenda...on tjhe same site of the article you can find the COMISAF/OEF (our commander) protest this:
http://www.alternet.org/world/143564/there...#39;t_involved/

I can only hope that this is some sort of temporary horsetrading until the security situation gets better...because I really hate the sharia laws with every inch of my body..I truly tryly hate them..they have no place in the 21 century!

I can only imagine what some of my sisters in arms must feel now(the ones that cares about the overall picture),there are many soldiers that have been trough multiple hard deployments that dont know or care for that matter about the big picture.