ANSWER TO A READER: "WHY WE INSIST U.S. ACTIONS RISK NUCLEAR WAR!"
[Posted 9 July 2002]

Interview with Barry Lane of UNOCAL Oil can now be read at
 http://emperors-clothes.com/interviews/lane.htm
=======================================

TO EMPEROR'S CLOTHES:

Dear Jared Israel,

Thank you for your political research altogether (non-intercepting war airplanes on September 11 etc.) Thank you also for your thesis on world hegemonic plans of the US elite. But why do you insist on the formulation: It's not the oil? There could be oil and gas interests in connection with the striving for world hegemony, couldn't it? Like the Nazis wanted the oil behind the Caucasus for their domination of Europe? And: It could be private interests too - Rice (Exxon), Cheney (Halliburton). Alexander's Gas and Oil frequently cites articles about the plans concerning the former Unocal gas pipeline through Afghanistan. In addition: an Argentine oil firm was interested before Unocal won a fight decided be a Texan judge (Bridas).

Thanks again,
Thomas Immanuel Steinberg
Germany

***

Dear Thomas Immanuel Steinberg,

Thank you for your appreciation. Everyone who tells me I'm wrong these days starts by appreciating me, which is most kind.

Let me deal with your two points.

First, the comparison with the Nazis.

It is flawed because you are comparing apples and oranges. The Nazis in World War II were a rebellious attack dog making a desperate move to seize world power. They and their overextended allies took on the biggest forces in the world, the Soviet Union, England and the U.S., not to mention China.

The Nazis were overextended and had a weak raw materials base. Yes they were desperate, and not just for oil.

The US/Euro Empire is *not* fighting World War III and it is not in desperate straits regarding oil.

It is consolidating control by means of the systematic devastation of potentially hostile populations, hence its otherwise inexplicable use of terrorist violence in the Balkans, e.g. against Macedonia, which was pro-NATO before NATO unleashed the KLA to destroy it!

The US/Euro Empire is not desperate for oil. But it is pressed for time.

It so far has been able to whip up mass support for its actions through political theater disseminated via unprecedented control of unimaginably powerful mass media.

Through NATO and by other means it has moved into Central Asia as the latest phase in its encirclement of Russia. This is not being done at somebody's whim. The leaders of this empire know their hegemonic moment is limited unless they crush the potential opposition, namely the nuclear-armed former Soviet States, reduce them to decimated protectorates incapable of teaming up with China. Thus NATO has moved with machine-like persistence into position from the Baltic all the way to Central Asia. A noose around the neck of Russia.

And now we have US Special Forces training local military troops in the former Soviet Republic of Georgia, which has an anti-Russian government. This is justified as part of a fight against terrorism, though Russian military people have told Emperor's Clothes that Georgia is sponsoring the terrorists. Indeed, this is no secret.

Mr. Brzezinski has laid it out: Russia must be broken up into several pieces. With NATO forces ringing Russia, and NATO having a doctrine that permits intervention on its periphery in cases of human rights violations, and the US/Euro Empire organized to create and denounce supposed human rights abuses, it will be a cinch to launch one, two, three or many wars in and around Russia, just as NATO did with Kosovo and Macedonia, both of which have been devastated.

Now if these arguments are factually sound, and nobody has shown they are not - and moreover let me say, senior Russian military people agree - if we are correct about this then the "it's-about-the-pipelines" argument, which says the US is motivated by the business-as-usual of petty profit-making and a quest for raw materials, is a cruel diversion.

Given the reality, which is potentially catastrophic, it is like shouting, "Don't worry, it's just a small fire," in a burning theater with a gas tank next door.

Second, I do not *insist* on the above formulation. Rather I and others have presented a case that US/European policy is moving the world towards nuclear war: hell on earth.

Given what is at issue, I '*insist* the discussion be conducted with the most scrupulous attention to facts .

You say "couldn't this or that be true"? Yes, this or that *could* be true. The question is what *is* true? The stakes are terribly high; therefore the answers must be based on rigorous study.

But those who argue that "they're-in-it-for-the-oil" are not serious about facts.

I have been reading the stuff posted by some of the leading exponents of the "it's-about-oil" and related arguments. Their documentation is deplorable. They misconstrue. They fail to quote sources, paraphrasing in a way that creates a false impression. They accept unsupported assertions about what took place during "secret meetings". They use patently flawed logic. They fabricate facts. Perhaps we need to publish material that analyzes these false methods of argument.

Sophistry and dishonest argument are harmful for two reasons. First, because we need to wake people up to the realization that what NATO is doing could lead to world war - nuclear world war - devastation for the planet. *Not* to more oil. *Not* to local wars. To World War III, for real. In other words, they and everyone around them may die.

Do you understand?

We move closer and closer to possible nuclear devastation, and the critics of US policy make up tall tales about oil.

The method of argument used by the "its-for-oil" people, and by those making certain related arguments, teaches people to accept nonsense and produces an atmosphere of demagoguery where one cannot think straight.

A good example of this is the assertion, which has been made hundreds of times, that Hamid Karzai was a UNOCAL consultant in the failed Afghan oil pipeline deal. The idea is that Karzai is now running the Afghan government to help the US get a pipeline through his country.

Some of those who have led the way with this argument have made it clear they don't even know whether UNOCAL was negotiating an oil pipeline or a gas pipeline. Well, there was no oil pipeline deal. UNOCAL was involved in a *gas* pipeline deal, and in December 1998 it dropped out of the CENTGAS *gas pipeline* consortium. They don't know this because they haven't bothered to read what's on UNOCAL's Website.

And remember, they argue that the pipeline is crucial because the US is running out of oil. But this was a *gas* pipeline.

Worse, they present no actual evidence that Afghan leader Hamid Karzai was ever a UNOCAL consultant. The only 'evidence' that exists is a statement printed in LE MONDE on December 6, 2001. But LE MONDE does not quote Karzai. LE MONDE does not quote UNOCAL. So how does LE MONDE know that Karzai worked for UNOCAL? LE MONDE does not say. LE MONDE asserts it, and poof! It is true.

I spoke to UNOCAL's public relations manager, Barry Lane. He says UNOCAL never employed Karzai. Now of course he could be lying. Anybody could be lying. But on what basis can we say that something happened when the only evidence we have is a denial by the company that was supposedly involved? * The UNOCAL interview is at
 http://emperors-clothes.com/interviews/lane.htm

And Mr. Karzai's supposed association with UNOCAL is a part of the foundation of the argument that US policy in Central Asia is aimed at building an oil (sic!) pipeline through Afghanistan! Sturdy house!

On the other hand we certainly do know that NATO and its associated NGOs et al have been moving into thousands of miles of territory around Russia and training former Soviet military people and setting up bases and sending in advisors etc., etc., at the cost of billions of dollars. They are already fighting in Georgia. They are fighting through Islamic terrorist proxy forces in Chechnya and in some of the Central Asian Republics. They are not doing these things for their health and they are most definitely not doing these things for an oil pipeline through Afghanistan.

So, what are *we* doing to stop them before they reach the stage of launching low intensity wars against Russia?

Below is a translation of the paragraph dealing with Karzai from the Le Monde article of December 6th. It will probably be the first time you get to read it.

EXCERPT FROM LE MONDE - DEC. 6, 2001

Headline: "Hamid Karzai, a wealth of knowledge about the western world"

Relevant excerpt: "As comfortable chatting crouched on a rug as he is in a living room in Washington or London, Hamid Karzai possesses a wealth of knowledge about the western world. After studying law in Kabul and India, he completed his studies in the US, where he was, for a time, consultant for Unocal, the American oil company, when it was studying the feasibility of the construction of a pipeline in Afghanistan."

"For a time."

That's it. No dates when he was supposedly employed, no explanation of how they know, no mention that UNOCAL told them it isn't true. No nothing.

It's garbage, my friend.

Best regards,
Jared

Join