Talk:Turkmenistan–Afghanistan–Pakistan–India Pipeline

Feasibility
"the overall feasibility is questionable since the southern part of the Afghan section runs through territory which continues to be under de facto Taliban control."

o.k. how is it that "the overall feasibility is questionable since the southern part of the Afghan section runs through territory which continues to be under de facto Taliban control" when in 1998 the Taliban gave the green light to continue with the project through Taliban controlled territory.

My personal opinion to your question would be that in 1998 the Taliban would have gotten a big slice of that pie. That is not the case now...

Citations Missing
"Building the pipeline was cited by some critics of the Bush administration as a motivation for the invasion. Some people have even said that if you take a map of U.S. military bases in Afghanistan and a map of the proposed pipeline they are very close together, suggesting that bases are positioned to protect natural gas interests"

I am removing this segment because:

1. It does not identify who "some critics" are

2. It is not sourced at all

3. It does not identify who "some people" are

I think this may be original research or skepticism. If not, it should still not be in the article, because it does not cite its sources. Once someone adds the necessary citations (if they exist), I will be happy to add it back in. --Chopin-Ate-Liszt! 20:35, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Information from the Central Asia-China gas pipeline
Following information was added by the anon user to the Central Asia-China gas pipeline article:

Actually it belongs here, but I am not sure how to incorporate this into existing text. There is also no reference(s). Beagel 17:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia's silence about the role of this pipeline as a motive for the Afghanistan war
Saith Wikipedia:

"The new deal on the pipeline was signed on 27 December 2002 by the leaders of Turkmenistan, Afghanistan and Pakistan."

Wasn't this deal made possible by the war against the Taliban? Wasn't this the real motive for the ongoing war there? Didn't Cheney's Halliburton have hopes of getting the contract to build the pipeline? Why is this article silent about all this, when there are sources out there that could back this up?

India / Halliburton
Why is there no mention of the meaning of the acronym "TAPI" in this article? India isn't even mentioned. A casual reader might assume the name meant Trans-Asian Pipeline instead of Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India pipeline.

Addressing the previous entry: It does appear that overt political sensitivity (or some creative editing?)has factored into the lack of transparency about the role of certain large multinational corporations in this and other oil-and-gas development projects.

Can we hope to find more frank-and-honest discussions once Wikipedia has reached its fundraising goal? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.204.201.62 (talk) 20:20, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Please Re-investigate the "Unreliable Source?" Template beside the reference for Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed
Please re-investigate the "Unreliable Source?" template beside the reference for the author Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed and the publisher New Internationalist. Thank you. The guidelines for that template state "Add this template only after a good faith attempt to verify the reliability of the source in question." Please make another such "attempt" because I have recently improved the citations in the article on Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed. Thank you. After you have had time to make that second "attempt," I will, in good faith, remove the template from this article.

In particular, please see the reference for this statement: His research on international terrorism was officially used by the 9/11 Commission in Washington DC.

Boyd Reimer (talk) 15:16, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Map
Could anybody create a map of the pipeline? One possible source may be http://i1.tribune.com.pk/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/map1-640x480-640x480.jpg. Beagel (talk) 18:17, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, maps very much needed. Could WP contact the following User who created good maps for other pipelines in the area? 173.210.125.42 (talk) 14:57, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Thomas_Blomberg

History not complete -- UNOCAL Northern Pipeline
The history is basically wrong, or I should say it is grossly incomplete. The proposed Northern pipe line was a UNOCAL project that began in the 1970s, not the 1990s. The people who actually owned the country's resources defended themselves against UNOCAL and other corporate-based resource stealers, they successfully kept destroying parts of the pipe line as it was going in, and ultimately their defense of their country was successful, the corporate criminals ere driven off and the UNOCAL Northern pipe line was stalled.

The issue was (and still is) greatly complex because governmental rule in the region is fractured, and religious occultism drives a great deal of behavior in the country. While some governmental leaders were taking bribe money, narcotics, and "relocation services" to posh life styles in other countries in exchange for open and complete access to pipe line regions, other governmental leaders actually defended their country from foreign corporate take overs, not only of the land and access rights along UNOCAL's proposed line, but also of regional cheaply-accessed oil, bauxite, you name it (countless other minerals that were and remain "undeveloped.")

The regional defense of Afghanistan by its citizens stalled UNOCAL and the United States in the 1970s however that didn't entirely stop UNOCAL and the Carter regime, the effort to put UNOCAL's pipe line through required greater commitment by the United States which we finally saw culminate with the Bush regime's war crimes launched against the people of Afghanistan, the successful (for now, any way) removal of citizens willing and capable of destroying parts of the Northern pipeline as it's going in.

Some fairly detailed summary timeline for UNOCAL's Northern pipeline are offered here: http://www.ringnebula.com/Oil/Timeline.htm

So the history shown here is woefully incomplete. I expect that the missing history is because too many people feel that the actual history of the UNOCAL Northern pipeline is not a neutral POV, that the truth about the lengthy history behind the war crimes, about the UNOCAL line itself, and the United States' involvement are unsavory enough that there are no "neutral" points of view that people would agree to. Damotclese (talk) 21:36, 17 December 2012 (UTC)