Talk:Afghanistan
|
This geography related article has not received a brainstar for quality. Please consider expanding the article appropriately. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information. |
| ||
|
| ||||
TAPI[edit]
Is it fair to put down the TAPI project as a conspiracy theroy? Prior to 9/11 it was hardly a secret that US energy companies were interested in doing infrastructure work on the pipeline and were looking at energy concessions in Turkmenistan, but that the failure of the Taliban to secure the entire country was the only real stumbling block. IMHO, saying western involvement in A/stan for the pipeline is a "conspiracy" is kinda like saying sexing up the Iraq WMD dossier was a "conspiracy". While both are conspiratorial they are probably the most widely known sooper seekrets in the world (along with Israels dodgy subs and DRCs five finger discounts on uranium fuel rods). --
00:32, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
- To say that the only reason to invade was for TAPI would verge on conspiracy; to point out that the invasion had, in principle, the effect of making TAPI a realizable project would not be. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 00:45, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
- As far as I know, the project ended under Clinton and was never resurrected when we took control of the country. See [1] and search 'pipeline'. TKEtoolshedFrag Out! 01:05, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
- Stalled rather than ditched, I think. Project was taken up the Asian Development Bank in 2002, has US backing and everyone is currently trying to get the show back on the road. Actually, current ideas about bringing the Taliban back on board could be just what is needed to make some headway. Note the plan has changed a bit though. Current plan is for the mainline to run through A/stan and P/stan to India rather than a port in Pakistan. [2], [3][4]. I think the new wording is good though. Makes the point without getting into hysteria terretory. -- 08:39, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
- But even if people are still seriously considering it, I don't think there's any reason to believe America is in that country for any reason other than a truly misguided belief that Afghanistan is actually a threat against this country and that we can bring it into the modern world by conquest and occupation. TKEtoolshedFrag Out! 22:10, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
- Stalled rather than ditched, I think. Project was taken up the Asian Development Bank in 2002, has US backing and everyone is currently trying to get the show back on the road. Actually, current ideas about bringing the Taliban back on board could be just what is needed to make some headway. Note the plan has changed a bit though. Current plan is for the mainline to run through A/stan and P/stan to India rather than a port in Pakistan. [2], [3][4]. I think the new wording is good though. Makes the point without getting into hysteria terretory. --
- As far as I know, the project ended under Clinton and was never resurrected when we took control of the country. See [1] and search 'pipeline'. TKEtoolshedFrag Out! 01:05, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
- To say that the only reason to invade was for TAPI would verge on conspiracy; to point out that the invasion had, in principle, the effect of making TAPI a realizable project would not be. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 00:45, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
new status[edit]
given that afghanistan is now once more under the control of the taliban, shouldnt this article be updated? 96.241.209.54 (talk) 20:58, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- No, the situation is still developing quickly. Like I said, I'll get to it when I feel the time is right.
Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 21:00, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
Perfect travel brochure for Afghanistan[edit]
"If you want to see beautiful landscapes, visit cultural sites and want a hastened death- Visit Afghanistan today"!
I think that it works. --Non-Binary EAS Creator (talk) 01:05, 17 February 2022 (UTC)