Reply #3: Nope. [View All]

[talkinghand]

As I recall, the amount of oil and gas in the area was supposedly "overestimated," precluding further development of the resources there.

I think we can safely assume that the ability to back our tankers up to the convenient supply lines coming out of Iraq due to our "adventures" there has rendered the exploitation of Afghani gas and minerals unnecessary for now.

I read it costs $1 a barrel to product Iraqi oil. This is easy pickens -- no oil company in its right mind is finding it necessary to spend billions on unwieldy projects such as the proposed Unocal pipeline.

Looks to me like the present administration took the shortcut here -- getting even more out of the deal than had the U.S. relied on the overtaking of Afghanistan alone.

The occupation of Afghanistan, in addition to the ouster of the Taliban/Al Queda factions, also provides a nice pincer effect on Iran -- when combined with the Iraqi occupation. I won't be surprised if the overthrow of Iran is next on the list.