Gość: V.C. IP: *.czestochowa.cvx.ppp.tpnet.pl 28.10.01, 01:24 Już drugi raz słyszę taki news i jestem zaskoczony . Odpowiedz Link Zgłoś czytaj wygodnie posty
Gość: WallSt Polacy wszystko wiedza najlepiej... IP: *.3.252.64.snet.net 28.10.01, 01:31 Odpowiedz Link Zgłoś
Gość: P@P@J Re: Polacy wszystko wiedza najlepiej... IP: *.o1.com 28.10.01, 02:24 Gość portalu: WallSt napisał(a): Wlasnie, ty takze zaliczasz sie do tych wszystko wiedzacych, nawet twoj nickname swiadczy o tym zes MUNDRALA. Odpowiedz Link Zgłoś
Gość: WallSt Re: Polacy wszystko wiedza najlepiej... IP: *.1.252.64.snet.net 28.10.01, 02:43 Ouch Odpowiedz Link Zgłoś
Gość: Wall@St A co mozna sadzic o twoim nickname? IP: *.1.252.64.snet.net 28.10.01, 02:44 Odpowiedz Link Zgłoś
Gość: V.C. Re: W Afganistanie jest ropa naftowa ? IP: *.czestochowa.cvx.ppp.tpnet.pl 28.10.01, 01:45 "Polityczny Atlas Swiata" podaje na s.112 , że "znajdują się tu złoża węgla kamiennego , gazu ziemnego , rudy żelaza , metali nieżelaznych , soli kuchennej i boksytów " . Nie ma ani słowa o ropie . Odpowiedz Link Zgłoś
Gość: Vist ___Mapa .___ IP: *.wroclaw.sdi.tpnet.pl 28.10.01, 08:26 Gość portalu: V.C. napisał(a): > Już drugi raz słyszę taki news i jestem zaskoczony . www.heritage.org/library/categories/forpol/bg1132map01.gif W lewym dolnym rogu mapki, mały napis (sic!) Wielkie złoża ropy odkryto ostatnio w środkowej Azji. pzdr Vist___________________________/ Odpowiedz Link Zgłoś
Gość: Mag Re: ___Mapa .___ IP: 64.95.214.* 30.10.01, 22:42 Mape zaladowalam i co ? I nic. Jedyny znaczek na Afganistanie, to linia w sraczkowatym kolorze. Wg legendy ta linia to "proposed pipeline". Na dodatek ten przyszly rurociag afganski jest podlaczony tylko do dwoch pol wydobywczych gazu (biale znaczki wiez wiertniczych) na terenie Turkmenistanu. Ropy nigdzie nie ma, poza Morzem Kaspijskim (czarne znaczki wiez wiertniczych). Aby ten gaz doprowadzic do portu w Pakistanie, wcale nie trzeba budowac rurociagu przez zrujnowany Afganistan; mozna pojsc przez Iran, ktory wprawdzie jest republika islamska, ale jest stabilny i chetnie zalapie nowy biznes. A to ze mapa jest zrobiona przez Departament Stanu - przepraszam, ale kazdemu wolno. Rosjanie tez pewnie taka maja. Odpowiedz Link Zgłoś
Gość: Vist¸ ___Mapa_to_mapa._____A_gdzie_ropa ?_ IP: *.wroclaw.sdi.tpnet.pl 30.10.01, 22:58 Gość portalu: Mag napisał(a): > Mape zaladowalam i co ? I nic. Jedyny znaczek na Afganistanie, to linia w > sraczkowatym kolorze. U Ciebie też jest sraczkowata ... > Wg legendy ta linia to "proposed pipeline". Na dodatek ten przyszly rurociag > afganski jest podlaczony tylko do dwoch pol wydobywczych > gazu (biale znaczki wiez wiertniczych) na terenie Turkmenistanu. Ropy nigdzie > nie ma, poza Morzem Kaspijskim (czarne znaczki wiez wiertniczych). Aby ten gaz > doprowadzic do portu w Pakistanie, wcale nie trzeba budowac rurociagu przez > zrujnowany Afganistan; A cóż rurociągowi przeszkadza ruina ? Afganistan zrujnowany, ale "nasz"... > mozna pojsc przez Iran, ktory wprawdzie jest republika > islamska, ale jest stabilny i chetnie zalapie nowy biznes. A to ze mapa jest > zrobiona przez Departament Stanu - przepraszam, ale kazdemu wolno. > Rosjanie tez pewnie taka maja. Malować mapy ? Każdy może. Ale jak mapa już jest, to można nie bombardować np. przyszłego rurociagu ? Ciekawe, czy jak namalują mapę innego obszaru, czy też potem tam przylecą ? I jeszcze... po co komu wieże wiertnicze ) Wystarczy ropa. ) Vist¸______________________/ Odpowiedz Link Zgłoś
Gość: Blong Re: ta mapa jest dowodem ... IP: *.zabkowska.sdi.tpnet.pl 30.10.01, 23:08 ze nie o rope w tym konflikcie chodzi. Gdyby teoria o bombardowaniu z powodu ropy byla poprawna to po pierwsze musialaby byc jakas nafta na terenie Afghanistanu i jej tam nie ma. Po drugie planowane trasy transportu sa tez w Iranie /bardzo nieprzyjaznym USA/ a jego nikt nie bombarduje ani nie ma zamiaru bombardowac. A po trzecie rurociag mozna wybudowac i w innym miejscu omijajac Afghanistan /wlasnie przez Iran bo przeciez jest tam wedlog tej mapy tez plan budowy nastepnego jak pisalem wyzej/. Odpowiedz Link Zgłoś
Gość: Vist¸ _ A_ropa_?_______W_rurociągu._ :-))) IP: *.wroclaw.sdi.tpnet.pl 31.10.01, 00:30 Gość portalu: Blong napisał(a): > ze nie o rope w tym konflikcie chodzi. Tylko o rurociąg ? Bez ropy ? )) Vist¸___________________/ Odpowiedz Link Zgłoś
Gość: . Potrzebujesz nowa klawiature Vist! IP: 204.52.178.* 31.10.01, 18:21 Twoja sie zacina. Odpowiedz Link Zgłoś
Gość: Shamick Re: W Afganistanie jest ropa naftowa ? IP: 208.62.38.* 30.10.01, 22:11 jsli ma to niby uzurpowac iz USA nie moze sie doczekac aby swoje rece na te rope polozyc to musze powiediec iz nie dziwota iz Polska biedna ...USA moze dostac tansza rope, o wiele tansza. Koszt polityczny i ludzki i pieniezny zrobil by te rope najdrozsza pod naszym sloncem! Gość portalu: V.C. napisał(a): > Już drugi raz słyszę taki news i jestem zaskoczony . Odpowiedz Link Zgłoś
Gość: toler Czy o rope tez chodzi?....Oczywiscie IP: *.CUSTOMER.DSL.ALTER.NET 30.10.01, 22:55 America's Pipe Dream The war against terrorism is also a struggle for oil and regional control By George Monbiot. Published in the Guardian 23rd October 2001 "Is there any man, is there any woman, let me say any child here", Woodrow Wilson asked a year after the First World War ended, "that does not know that the seed of war in the modern world is industrial and commercial rivalry?". In 1919, as US citizens watched a shredded Europe scraping up its own remains, the answer may well have been no. But the lessons of war never last for long. The invasion of Afghanistan is certainly a campaign against terrorism, but it may also be a late colonial adventure. British ministers have warned MPs that opposing the war is the moral equivalent of appeasing Hitler, but in some respects our moral choices are closer to those of 1956 than those of 1938. Afghanistan is as indispensable to regional control and the transport of oil in central Asia as Egypt was in the Middle East. Afghanistan has some oil and gas of its own, but not enough to qualify as a major strategic concern. Its northern neighbours, by contrast, contain reserves which could be critical to future global supply. In 1998, Dick Cheney, now US vice-president but then chief executive of a major oil services company, remarked, "I cannot think of a time when we have had a region emerge as suddenly to become as strategically significant as the Caspian." But the oil and gas there is worthless until it is moved. The only route which makes both political and economic sense is through Afghanistan. Transporting all the Caspian basin's fossil fuel through Russia or Azerbaijan would greatly enhance Russia's political and economic control over the Central Asian Republics, which is precisely what the West has spent ten years trying to prevent. Piping it through Iran would enrich a regime which the US has been seeking to isolate. Sending it the long way round through China, quite aside from the strategic considerations, would be prohibitively expensive. But pipelines through Afghanistan would allow the US both to pursue its aim of "diversifying energy supply" and to penetrate the world's most lucrative markets. Growth in European oil consumption is slow and competition is intense. In South Asia, by contrast, demand is booming and competitors are scarce. Pumping oil south and selling it in Pakistan and India, in other words, is far more profitable than pumping it west and selling it in Europe. As the author Ahmed Rashid has documented, the US oil company Unocal has been seeking since 1995 to build oil and gas pipelines from Turkmenistan, through Afghanistan and into Pakistani ports on the Arabian Sea. The company's scheme required a single administration in Afghanistan, which would guarantee safe passage for its goods. Soon after the Taliban took Kabul in September 1996, the Telegraph reported that "oil industry insiders say the dream of securing a pipeline across Afghanistan is the main reason why Pakistan, a close political ally of America's, has been so supportive of the Taliban, and why America has quietly acquiesced in its conquest of Afghanistan." Unocal invited some of the leaders of the Taliban to Houston, where they were royally entertained. The company suggested paying these barbarians 15 cents for every thousand cubic feet of gas it pumped through the land they had conquered. For the first year of Taliban rule, US policy towards the regime appears to have been determined principally by Unocal's interests. In 1997 a US diplomat told Rashid "the Taliban will probably develop like the Saudis did. There will be Aramco [a US oil consortium which worked in Saudi Arabia], pipelines, an emir, no parliament and lots of Sharia law. We can live with that." US policy began to change only when feminists and greens started campaigning against both Unocal's plans and the government's covert backing for Kabul. Even so, as a transcript of a congress hearing now circulating among war resisters shows, Unocal failed to get the message. In February 1998, John Maresca, its head of international relations, told representatives that the growth in demand for energy in Asia and sanctions against Iran determined that Afghanistan remained "the only other possible route" for Caspian oil. The company, once the Afghan government was recognised by foreign diplomats and banks, still hoped to build a 1000-mile pipeline, which would carry a million barrels a day. Only in December 1998, four months after the embassy bombings in East Africa, did Unocal drop its plans. But Afghanistan's strategic importance has not changed. In September, a few days before the attack on New York, the US Energy Information Administration reported that "Afghanistan's significance from an energy standpoint stems from its geographical position as a potential transit route for oil and natural gas exports from Central Asia to the Arabian Sea. This potential includes the possible construction of oil and natural gas export pipelines through Afghanistan." Given that the US government is dominated by former oil industry executives, we would be foolish to suppose that a reinvigoration of these plans no longer figures in its strategic thinking. As the researcher Keith Fisher has pointed out, the possible economic outcomes of the war in Afghanistan mirror the possible economic outcomes of the war in the Balkans, where the development of "Corridor 8", an economic zone built around a pipeline carrying oil and gas from the Caspian to Europe, is a critical allied concern. This is not the only long-term US interest in Afghanistan. American foreign policy is governed by the doctrine of "full-spectrum dominance", which means that the United States should control military, economic and political development all over the world. China has responded by seeking to expand its interests in central Asia. The defence white paper Beijing published last year argued that "China's fundamental interests lie in ... the establishment and maintenance of a new regional security order". In June, China and Russia pulled four Central Asian Republics into a "Shanghai Co-operation Organisation". Its purpose, according to Jiang Zemin, is to "foster world multi-polarisation", by which he means contesting US full-spectrum dominance. If the United States succeeds in overthrowing the Taliban and replacing it with a stable and grateful pro-western government and if it then binds the economies of central Asia to that of its ally Pakistan, it will have crushed not only terrorism, but also the growing ambitions of both Russia and China. Afghanistan, as ever, is the key to the western domination of Asia. We have argued on these pages about whether terrorism is likely to be deterred or encouraged by the invasion of Afghanistan, or whether the plight of the starving there will be relieved or exacerbated by attempts to destroy the Taliban. But neither of these considerations describes the full scope and purpose of this war. As John Flynn wrote in 1944, "The enemy aggressor is always pursuing a course of larceny, murder, rapine and barbarism. We are always moving forward with high mission, a destiny imposed by the Deity to regenerate our victims while incidentally capturing their markets, to civilize savage and senile and paranoidal peoples while blundering accidentally into their oil wells." I believe that the United States government is genuine in its attempt to stamp out terrorism by military force in Afghanistan, however misguided that may be. But we would be naïve to believe that this is all it is doing. 23rd October 2001 Odpowiedz Link Zgłoś
Gość: molder ..Oczywiscie jak zawsze pieniadze IP: *.sympatico.ca 31.10.01, 02:47 www.heritage.org/library/categories/forpol/bg1132.html www.guardian.co.uk/afghanistan/story/0,1284,560872,00.html news6.thdo.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/analysis/newsid_16000/16777.stm news6.thdo.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/west_asia/newsid_37000/37021.stm news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/south_asia/newsid_156000/156497.stm i nie tylko ropa, chodzi jak zawsze o kontrole. Rosja i Chiny to surowce i rynek zbytu Odpowiedz Link Zgłoś
Gość: Vist¸ __ Molder.. ____i __po__sprawie ! IP: *.wroclaw.sdi.tpnet.pl 31.10.01, 21:01 Gość portalu: molder napisał(a): www.heritage.org/library/categories/forpol/bg1132.html www.guardian.co.uk/afghanistan/story/0,1284,560872,00.html news6.thdo.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/analysis/newsid_16000/16777.stm news6.thdo.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/west_asia/newsid_37000/37021.stm news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/south_asia/newsid_156000/156497.stm > i nie tylko ropa, chodzi jak zawsze o kontrole. > Rosja i Chiny to surowce i rynek zbytu Cóż ? Wygląda na to, że poszukiwania Osamy potwrają naprawdę wiele lat ) pzdr Vist¸_____________________/ P.S. Klawiatura ? Jest O.K. Palec mi się chyba zacina ? ) Odpowiedz Link Zgłoś