W Afganistanie jest ropa naftowa ?

IP: *.czestochowa.cvx.ppp.tpnet.pl 28.10.01, 01:24
Już drugi raz słyszę taki news i jestem zaskoczony .
    • Gość: WallSt Polacy wszystko wiedza najlepiej... IP: *.3.252.64.snet.net 28.10.01, 01:31
      • 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.

        • Gość: WallSt Re: Polacy wszystko wiedza najlepiej... IP: *.1.252.64.snet.net 28.10.01, 02:43
          Ouch
        • Gość: Wall@St A co mozna sadzic o twoim nickname? IP: *.1.252.64.snet.net 28.10.01, 02:44
    • 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 .
    • 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___________________________/
      • 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.
        • 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 ... smile

          > 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.

          wink 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 smile)

          Wystarczy ropa.


          smile)

          Vist¸______________________/

      • 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/.
        • 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 ?

          smile))

          Vist¸___________________/
      • Gość: . Potrzebujesz nowa klawiature Vist! IP: 204.52.178.* 31.10.01, 18:21
        Twoja sie zacina.
    • 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 .

      • 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



        • 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
          • 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 smile)


            pzdr

            Vist¸_____________________/
            P.S.
            Klawiatura ? Jest O.K.
            Palec mi się chyba zacina ? smile)
Pełna wersja