August 2008

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
          1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31            

« The army and their opponents | Main | On free speech »

March 26, 2008

Comments

dirigible

So the US supported the Taliban for the oil;

When, according to the paragraph you quote, the Taleban could provide a safe environment to build the pipeline.

and it overthrew the Taliban for the oil.

When likewise they no longer could.

Dropping this variable makes the argument self-contradictory. Which is fun to see being done to rather than by conspiracyists for a change. ;-)

Oliver Kamm

I think you miss my point - not that the conspiracy theory is incoherent, but that it's compatible with any evidence.

dirigible

Yes you are right. My apologies for mis-reading you.

gray

Good post Oliver

This ranks with the "invasion would create millions of refugees" and other canards. It also goes back to the "Bosnia was about the mining concessions" and the other tripe that was passed.

pregethwr

There is also the problematic fact that the oil pipeline isn't going to be built; They thought about a gas pipeline but that looks dodgy now as well.

Sigivald

As pregethwr beat me to saying, I suppose the best argument against this always-dubious theory is the post facto one; the Taliban are gone, and the US has great influence with the current Afghan government, yet there is still not even a hint of a pipeline's construction.

And yet for a shockingly large number of people, Unocal's having once looked into the idea is the linchpin for all future American (or possibly even all Western) activity in the country, and perhaps the entire region.

sackcloth and ashes

Oliver, just for the record, can you give us the reference for the 'Guardian' story about Pilger's libel case in 1990 (the one concerning Cambodia and the SAS)? I'm not doubting its veracity, it's just I've seen Pilger's original claim quoted elsewhere and would like to be able to scotch it.

Oliver Kamm

Re: that libel case. The Times reported on 6 July 1991 that the case had been settled after "very substantial" damages had been accepted by the plaintiffs: "Desmond Browne, QC, for Mr Pilger and Central Television, said his clients had not intended to allege the two men trained the Khmer Rouge to lay mines, but they accepted that was how the programme had been understood."

sackcloth and ashes

Thanks for that. Have a good weekend.

sackcloth and ashes

Thanks. Have a good weekend.

The comments to this entry are closed.