[QB]robertB -- you were laughed at because your ideas are laughable: characatures of militia reactionary-ideologue x-file silliness brought on by reading to much independent press mallarcky, psuedo 'information' from the gun toting fringe.
I am open to anyone who will point out any post which seems to be "out there" or x-file like in nature. It seems close to 70% of what I have read on this post that the gov KNEW of this attack, yet you say it was an oversight. I disagree with you on the aspect of my ideas being laughable due to the point that the cases I pointed to are real events and were mishandled in a gross fashion by the ATF and FBI. Please do not point a finger at my laughable ideals until you point a critical finger at your beleiving all the gov tells you in the news. And the inference of the "gun toting fringe" is implying an ignorant and prejudicial outlook at gun owners as a whole. Not all gun owners are irresponsible or criminals or paranoid. My eyes are open to ALL possibilities in this matter of overlooking/disregarding vital intelligence info, but I am not walking blindly buying into all that the gov has to say either. And who might be the "independent press" you are refering too? Last I heard, all newspapers are independent, are they not?
In some cases it is.The American government was threatening the Taliban before September 11,and members and ex-members of the board of Unocal were involved.You just don't want to see the facts.
this little 'terrorist' scheme was merely triggered during the bush admin... hell, it was waiting fer big oil to get back into the white house... did someone say unocal? hehee, good clue. cute little 'temporary re-fueling base' in kyrgystan(how much you wanna bet it becomes permanent?)
yer faithful correspondent,posting from aboard the SS Condi Rice somewhere in the Caspian Sea...
y'all really wanna know what's worth starting a war over? and taking hits on a couple of big buildings?
5 trillion in untapped oil reserves..
and
6.6 trillion cubes of natural gas...
aboard the SS Condi,
cuss
p.s. it's a big game(wink to bobby). here's how it's played. herd a terrorist into a country bordering the caspian, hell, it doesn't have to be real close. let him network fer a few years, make friends.. do something bad(or frame him fer something bad, or allow it to happen) and boom! ya got yer reason to go in and kick butt(aka establishing protection fer a 1000 mile pipeline routed around iran) ...and the kicker, the russians love it! they want the region stabilized bad. They just don't have the money to do it. but even Drillings and Tailings, an oil trade publication, doubts ties to lee harvey bin-laden... i dunno kids. i didn't want shrubby in there but i'm biased(i grew up in oil country and those of you from the old AI saw me stump against him very hard). and i don't know what to believe anymore... aboard this greasy old tanker.
[ 05-17-2002: Message edited by: little cuss ]</p>
<strong>... did someone say unocal? hehee, good clue...</strong><hr></blockquote>
Not a good clue. Why do so many people believe that all that central Asian oil and gas is just waiting for a pipeline built across Afghanistan? When the Unocal proposal for such a pipeline was dropped the world didn't just stop. Alternate routes were green lighted instead. So the pipeline crosses the Caspians and Turkey - a steadfast ally - instead of Afghanistan. What do we care? We're not in Kabul because of big oil, cuss.
<strong>yer saying stripping shari'a power wasn't important?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Personally, I'm very much in favor of such a thing and I'd be surprised if there weren't plenty of people in our government who feel the same way. But you don't need to build a trans-Afghanistan pipeline to get there.
Wow. What a cluster-fvck of a thread. You know, I think Fran and Samantha CLEARLY ought to make themselves available for Tom Ridge and his troops. With ingenious insights like "In the minds of military planners, 3000 lives [doesn't mean much]...." and "The CIA and FBI clearly need to be investigated", they are sure to benefit the Office of Homeland Security.
A. Samantha: how in THE HELL could you possibly have ANY clue what goes on in the minds of the "military planners" you speak of?? Do you have even a modest understanding of our military-industrial complex? Let's start with the basics, name some of these "planners" other than the ones we see on the news every day. Can't name any huh? Hmmm. Well, why don't you tell me about their latest budget proposals, which clearly must show some indication of the shady dealings they're invested in. Can't do that either? Hmmm. OK. Well I guess since it's all you have, just keep assuming the information you get from [our] pathetic media outlets is accurate and in the correct context.
B. Fran...just a few questions for you too, since you obviously don't think beyond what is required to make useless accusations. WHO, precisely should investigate the FBI and CIA? WHAT is it they are looking for? And HOW do you propose they will miraculously arrive at the truth, without anyone [involved] getting to them first, thus ensuring whatever we end up with is re-spun, finger-pointing crapola?
An Investigtion. That's great Fran. Call Ken Starr [so we can] throw the most bureaucratic solution we have (formal investigation with media trimmings and all) at a bureaucratic agency (no, two of them ... no, three - don't forget the NSA) and see what we get out of it.
Get this through your heads: we as a nation WILL NOT UNDERSTAND EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED for years. Only time will yield the answers, because getting the truth requires all the current inside players to retire first, cover their asses accordingly, and then they get the 60 Minutes / Nova interview in 2007. See how this works? No one is going to shed light on their own screw ups until they can no longer be held accountable for them. Reality sucks, huh?
Also, I think the comments made (by an intelligent person whose name escapes me) about the American public being hypocritical in their accusations is SPOT ON. People are unwilling to put up with the inconveniences required for [real] security. THAT is the root problem we face - not secret FBI documents or shady CIA power-brokers. No one is willing to give up anything to get their bullet-proof security; they just want it yesterday- as if the government can go to Amazon.com and buy it. People are so clueless sometimes it baffles even a jaded bastard like me.
Today, Central Asian Oil is transported along two routes: north through Dagestan and Chechnya to Novorossisk, and a second route west to the Georgian port of Supsa. Transport fees have ensured the safety of the pipelines in war-torn Chechnya.
The existing pipelines are only capable of getting a small fraction of the area's oil and gas wealth to market. Central Asian republics are anxious to sell more oil. Americans, Europeans, and Russians are anxious to buy more, especially from countries that do not belong to OPEC. Investors from Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates are also anxious to begin transporting more oil out of Central Asia. Only secure pipelines are lacking. The most promising routes have been identified:
1. Russia favors a northern route. Kazakhstan would expand its existing pipelines to link them with the Russian network of pipelines. Azerbaijan would build a pipeline from Baku to Novorossisk. Critics worry about the pipeline's path through Chechnya and charge that if the project was successful, Russia would enjoy too great a control over Central Asian oil.
2. Azerbaijan, Turkey, Georgia, and the United States favor a western route. According to one variation, oil and gas would flow to the Georgian port of Supsa. From there, it would be shipped through the Black Sea and the Bosporus to Europe. and then ship it through the Black Sea and the Bosporus to Europe. Turkey has expressed worries about tanker traffic in the Bosporus, and worries about the damage an accident there might do to Istanbul. According to the Turkish variation on the western route, a pipeline should run from Baku to the port of Ceyhan on the Turkish Mediterranean coast. At over US$3 billion, the cost of constructing such a pipeline may turn out to be too expensive.
3. The most direct, and cheapest, route is to south, across Iran to the Persian Gulf. Iran already has an extensive pipeline system, and the Gulf is a good exit to Asian markets. U.S. sanctions on Iran block this option.
4. Despite the staggering costs it would take to construct, China is willing to construct an oil pipeline across Kazakhstan to China.
5. The American oil company Unocal has proposed the construction of oil and gas pipelines from Turkmenistan through Afghanistan to Pakistan and later to India. Afghanistan's long war has prevented this project from moving forward. If some degree of stability returns to Afghanistan, the project may be resurrected.
_________________________________________________
and to the above i say... 'may be resurrected' my ass... i'll bet anything unocal is there... freshly dusted off schematics and blueprints in hand.
People are unwilling to put up with the inconveiences required for good security. That is EXACTLY the root problem we face. No one is willing to give up anything to get their bullet-proof security; they just want it yesterday- as if the government can go to Amazon.com and buy it. People are so clueless sometimes it baffles even a jaded bastard like me.</strong>
I really despise this line of thought. We should never ever give up our freedoms. Proposing that we must give something up to be safe is intellectually low balling the capabilities of what we are and what we are capable of. It's about an unimaginative course of action and argument I can think of.
It was most definitely in the purview of the FBI, CIA and NSA to figure out this plot. The information was there. The line between Sept 11 not happening and happening is merely competence. Merely for the law enforcement and security agencies to do their job, what they are paid to do. All it takes is for one link in the chain of the events to be broken. Just one, and none of it involved giving up our freedoms but following through on detective work. Nearly every government agency has been poisoned by a virulence of apathy and ineptness created by entrenched political and managerial cultures (with Congress and the Executive office at the top), so it really can't and shouldn't be blamed on any person or group.
When James Woods, the actor James Woods, <a href="http://www.snopes2.com/rumors/woods.htm"; target="_blank">knew and understood</a> what was going down better than our own FBI did or cared to know a month before Sept 11, then something is frelling wrong with it. I'd be damned to think I would have to give up my freedoms when people paid to assure them can't be bothered to do their jobs.
Today, Central Asian Oil is transported along two routes: north through Dagestan and Chechnya to Novorossisk...</strong><hr></blockquote>
Exactly. The CPC (Caspian Pipeline Consortium) went ahead and built their pipeline. It isn?t expected to reach it?s capacity until 2015. The first tankers were loaded in Novorossiisk in October and November 2001. As your post noted, Turkey is concerned about tanker traffic through the Bosporus. So from Novorossiisk other oil transit options are being considred.
[quote]<strong>... Azerbaijan, Turkey, Georgia, and the United States favor a western route. According to one variation, oil and gas would flow to the Georgian port of Supsa. From there, it would be shipped through the Black Sea and the Bosporus to Europe.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Or it could be sent through Russia?s new Baltic Pipeline System or via other pipeline proposals through Bulgaria, Romania or Ukraine.
[quote]<strong> ... According to the Turkish variation on the western route, a pipeline should run from Baku to the port of Ceyhan on the Turkish Mediterranean coast. At over US$3 billion, the cost of constructing such a pipeline may turn out to be too expensive.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Whatever. Construction is slated to beging this summer.
think they'll go through with it now that a new option is open spliffy? i would fer safety's sake, but uh, we're not really talking about them are we? we're looking fer our own way now ain't we?
and the pakistanians would love to return Karachi to it's former greatness...whatever the cost or alliances. here's some pre 911 stuff...
If Adolf Hitler came back today, they’d send a limousine, anyway. The Clash.
If news falls into print and no one cares enough to read it, does it make a sound?
Pay attention: Afghanistan is at war with itself. The lower part of the country is occupied by the Taliban, who are the bad guys. The upper part is controlled by the rebel army of Ahmad Shah Massoud, who, for all intents and purposes, are the good guys. The outcome of this small, forgotten civil war could decide the fate of democracy and political stability throughout Central Asia. If the Taliban win, the United States will be partially to blame.
For the past five years, the radical Taliban militia has been trained, funded and openly backed by the government of Pakistan; in particular, the Inter-Services Intelligence agency (ISI), the equivalent of the CIA. Pakistan’s goals are two-fold: 1) to install a friendly puppet regime in Afghanistan (its neighbor to the north) in order to provide strategic depth in the event of nuclear war with India (its rival to the south), and 2) to complete construction of a gas pipeline running from the oil-rich Caspian Sea through Afghanistan and into the port city of Karachi, a multi-billion dollar venture.
Who knows what has more weight, oil pipelines or democratic values? Ahmad Shah Massoud, 1998.
For the past two decades, Pakistan has received billions of dollars in military hardware and logistics support from the U.S. government. By proxy, a significant portion of the armaments find their way into Taliban hands.
In 1996, as Taliban troops captured the Afghan capital of Kabul, forcing Massoud to retreat north, the American corporation UNOCAL (a partner in the pipeline venture) invited a Taliban delegation to Washington and lobbied the White House to grant them diplomatic recognition. In return, the delegates promised to end the harvesting of opium poppies in southern Afghanistan.
Three years, one billionaire Arab terrorist, dozens of missile strikes, tons of smuggled opium and a choir of women’s rights activists later, President Clinton imposed economic sanctions on the Taliban, barring any American business from conducting commerce with the militia.
Too little, too late.
The Taliban (and their Pakistani backers) are responsible for the massacre of over 5,000 civilians in northern Afghanistan. In their recent offensive north of Kabul, they have pursued a scorched earth policy, burning opposition-governed towns and forcibly relocating residents. (It is therefore ironic that the Taliban’s women’s rights abuses have received more media scrutiny than their other, arguably more serious, crimes.)
Analysts estimate that thousands of Pakistani and Arab fighters are active in Taliban ranks. Over the past several years, Massoud’s forces in the north have captured hundreds of foreign mercenaries in battle, including Arab nationals linked to Osama Bin Laden and intelligence officers in Pakistan’s armed forces. Moreover, the recent series of terrorist bombings in Russia and the armed uprisings in Dagestan and Chechnya have substantiated western fears of a Taliban spillover throughout the region.
After years without a coherent foreign policy toward Afghanistan, the U.S. government is realizing the consequences of its indifference. Nearly two-thirds of the world’s opium harvest is grown under Taliban jurisdiction. Osama Bin Laden, one of the FBI’s Most Wanted men, has been sheltered by the Taliban since 1996.
Recently, the United Nations Security Council officially condemned Pakistan for its support of the Taliban. The State Department has also threatened sanctions against both Pakistan and its longtime ally, China, in response to heightened instability in Central Asia.
Although economic sanctions will do little to stop the current wave of Taliban brutality in northern Afghanistan, they are a step in the right direction toward forcing Pakistan to withdraw its support of the militia. American-backed sanctions, coupled with recent victories by the Afghan opposition and growing popular discontent in the south, could quickly lead to a Taliban disintegration.
The U.S. government claims it is truly interested in bringing Bin Laden to justice, ending opium harvesting (which the Taliban subsidizes to fund its war effort) and restoring human rights and civil liberties in Afghanistan. However, America has done nothing substantial to prove its commitment, such as establishing closer ties to Massoud’s embattled opposition government, which has publicly condemned the Taliban for their draconian policies toward women and sheltering of international terrorists.
This December will mark the twentieth anniversary of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. For the past two decades, the scheming and manipulation of foreign entities (including the U.S.) has left the country in ruins and the entire region on the brink of political collapse. Mere sanctions against the Taliban’s benefactor (Pakistan) and condemnations from human rights groups will not be able to undo the damage of two decades of war. However, without them, there is little hope that Central Asia will see peace well into the next millennium.
<strong>think they'll go through with it now that a new option is open spliffy?</strong><hr></blockquote>
I keep acquiring nicknames from you. <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
As for whether they?ll go through with the Baku pipeline or not, I?d say it?s more likely they will. The project has financial momentum behind it. Oil is already flowing to Novorossiisk. It has to go somewhere from there.
<strong>but finanicial wisdom would prevail... and there's about six ways to skin that cat. the cheapest skinjob is in downtown Karachi.</strong><hr></blockquote>
All things being equal, yes. But not when the other guy has a big headstart.
[quote]<strong>p.s. i now dub thee... bukkake breath!</strong><hr></blockquote>
<img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" /> I'm not getting the reference.
Comments
[QB]robertB -- you were laughed at because your ideas are laughable: characatures of militia reactionary-ideologue x-file silliness brought on by reading to much independent press mallarcky, psuedo 'information' from the gun toting fringe.
I am open to anyone who will point out any post which seems to be "out there" or x-file like in nature. It seems close to 70% of what I have read on this post that the gov KNEW of this attack, yet you say it was an oversight. I disagree with you on the aspect of my ideas being laughable due to the point that the cases I pointed to are real events and were mishandled in a gross fashion by the ATF and FBI. Please do not point a finger at my laughable ideals until you point a critical finger at your beleiving all the gov tells you in the news. And the inference of the "gun toting fringe" is implying an ignorant and prejudicial outlook at gun owners as a whole. Not all gun owners are irresponsible or criminals or paranoid. My eyes are open to ALL possibilities in this matter of overlooking/disregarding vital intelligence info, but I am not walking blindly buying into all that the gov has to say either. And who might be the "independent press" you are refering too? Last I heard, all newspapers are independent, are they not?
For me, the answer is that they're stupid.
[ 05-17-2002: Message edited by: BuonRotto ]</p>
Give me a break!
"It's a conspiracy!"
<hr></blockquote>
In some cases it is.The American government was threatening the Taliban before September 11,and members and ex-members of the board of Unocal were involved.You just don't want to see the facts.
[ 05-17-2002: Message edited by: Rick1138 ]</p>
yer faithful correspondent,posting from aboard the SS Condi Rice somewhere in the Caspian Sea...
cuss
p.s. wake up white people.
5 trillion in untapped oil reserves..
and
6.6 trillion cubes of natural gas...
aboard the SS Condi,
cuss
p.s. it's a big game(wink to bobby). here's how it's played. herd a terrorist into a country bordering the caspian, hell, it doesn't have to be real close. let him network fer a few years, make friends.. do something bad(or frame him fer something bad, or allow it to happen) and boom! ya got yer reason to go in and kick butt(aka establishing protection fer a 1000 mile pipeline routed around iran) ...and the kicker, the russians love it! they want the region stabilized bad. They just don't have the money to do it. but even Drillings and Tailings, an oil trade publication, doubts ties to lee harvey bin-laden... i dunno kids. i didn't want shrubby in there but i'm biased(i grew up in oil country and those of you from the old AI saw me stump against him very hard). and i don't know what to believe anymore... aboard this greasy old tanker.
[ 05-17-2002: Message edited by: little cuss ]</p>
<strong>... did someone say unocal? hehee, good clue...</strong><hr></blockquote>
Not a good clue. Why do so many people believe that all that central Asian oil and gas is just waiting for a pipeline built across Afghanistan? When the Unocal proposal for such a pipeline was dropped the world didn't just stop. Alternate routes were green lighted instead. So the pipeline crosses the Caspians and Turkey - a steadfast ally - instead of Afghanistan. What do we care? We're not in Kabul because of big oil, cuss.
halting the possibility of another aramco(albeit shari-styled) wasn't the crux of all this?
you sure?
cuss
c'mon, look at the map... the game is on again... they've just made the route a lot shorter.
they've got protections on the old, long route in place until they get it built...
steaming out to sea,
cuss
We're not in Kabul because of big oil
<hr></blockquote>
Oh yes we are. Why do you think we are going to Iraq as well?
[ 05-17-2002: Message edited by: Rick1138 ]</p>
<strong>yer saying stripping shari'a power wasn't important?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Personally, I'm very much in favor of such a thing and I'd be surprised if there weren't plenty of people in our government who feel the same way. But you don't need to build a trans-Afghanistan pipeline to get there.
<strong>We're not in Kabul because of big oil
Oh yes we are. Why do you think we are going to Iraq as well?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Umm, how about something that even vaguely resembles an argument?
[ 05-17-2002: Message edited by: spaceman_spiff ]</p>
<strong>i'd love to get into this with you specimen...</strong><hr></blockquote>
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
A. Samantha: how in THE HELL could you possibly have ANY clue what goes on in the minds of the "military planners" you speak of?? Do you have even a modest understanding of our military-industrial complex? Let's start with the basics, name some of these "planners" other than the ones we see on the news every day. Can't name any huh? Hmmm. Well, why don't you tell me about their latest budget proposals, which clearly must show some indication of the shady dealings they're invested in. Can't do that either? Hmmm. OK. Well I guess since it's all you have, just keep assuming the information you get from [our] pathetic media outlets is accurate and in the correct context.
B. Fran...just a few questions for you too, since you obviously don't think beyond what is required to make useless accusations. WHO, precisely should investigate the FBI and CIA? WHAT is it they are looking for? And HOW do you propose they will miraculously arrive at the truth, without anyone [involved] getting to them first, thus ensuring whatever we end up with is re-spun, finger-pointing crapola?
An Investigtion. That's great Fran. Call Ken Starr [so we can] throw the most bureaucratic solution we have (formal investigation with media trimmings and all) at a bureaucratic agency (no, two of them ... no, three - don't forget the NSA) and see what we get out of it.
Get this through your heads: we as a nation WILL NOT UNDERSTAND EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED for years. Only time will yield the answers, because getting the truth requires all the current inside players to retire first, cover their asses accordingly, and then they get the 60 Minutes / Nova interview in 2007. See how this works? No one is going to shed light on their own screw ups until they can no longer be held accountable for them. Reality sucks, huh?
Also, I think the comments made (by an intelligent person whose name escapes me) about the American public being hypocritical in their accusations is SPOT ON. People are unwilling to put up with the inconveniences required for [real] security. THAT is the root problem we face - not secret FBI documents or shady CIA power-brokers. No one is willing to give up anything to get their bullet-proof security; they just want it yesterday- as if the government can go to Amazon.com and buy it. People are so clueless sometimes it baffles even a jaded bastard like me.
[ 05-17-2002: Message edited by: Moogs ]</p>
Central Asian Oil and Gas Pipelines:
Today, Central Asian Oil is transported along two routes: north through Dagestan and Chechnya to Novorossisk, and a second route west to the Georgian port of Supsa. Transport fees have ensured the safety of the pipelines in war-torn Chechnya.
The existing pipelines are only capable of getting a small fraction of the area's oil and gas wealth to market. Central Asian republics are anxious to sell more oil. Americans, Europeans, and Russians are anxious to buy more, especially from countries that do not belong to OPEC. Investors from Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates are also anxious to begin transporting more oil out of Central Asia. Only secure pipelines are lacking. The most promising routes have been identified:
1. Russia favors a northern route. Kazakhstan would expand its existing pipelines to link them with the Russian network of pipelines. Azerbaijan would build a pipeline from Baku to Novorossisk. Critics worry about the pipeline's path through Chechnya and charge that if the project was successful, Russia would enjoy too great a control over Central Asian oil.
2. Azerbaijan, Turkey, Georgia, and the United States favor a western route. According to one variation, oil and gas would flow to the Georgian port of Supsa. From there, it would be shipped through the Black Sea and the Bosporus to Europe. and then ship it through the Black Sea and the Bosporus to Europe. Turkey has expressed worries about tanker traffic in the Bosporus, and worries about the damage an accident there might do to Istanbul. According to the Turkish variation on the western route, a pipeline should run from Baku to the port of Ceyhan on the Turkish Mediterranean coast. At over US$3 billion, the cost of constructing such a pipeline may turn out to be too expensive.
3. The most direct, and cheapest, route is to south, across Iran to the Persian Gulf. Iran already has an extensive pipeline system, and the Gulf is a good exit to Asian markets. U.S. sanctions on Iran block this option.
4. Despite the staggering costs it would take to construct, China is willing to construct an oil pipeline across Kazakhstan to China.
5. The American oil company Unocal has proposed the construction of oil and gas pipelines from Turkmenistan through Afghanistan to Pakistan and later to India. Afghanistan's long war has prevented this project from moving forward. If some degree of stability returns to Afghanistan, the project may be resurrected.
_________________________________________________
and to the above i say... 'may be resurrected' my ass... i'll bet anything unocal is there... freshly dusted off schematics and blueprints in hand.
People are unwilling to put up with the inconveiences required for good security. That is EXACTLY the root problem we face. No one is willing to give up anything to get their bullet-proof security; they just want it yesterday- as if the government can go to Amazon.com and buy it. People are so clueless sometimes it baffles even a jaded bastard like me.</strong>
I really despise this line of thought. We should never ever give up our freedoms. Proposing that we must give something up to be safe is intellectually low balling the capabilities of what we are and what we are capable of. It's about an unimaginative course of action and argument I can think of.
It was most definitely in the purview of the FBI, CIA and NSA to figure out this plot. The information was there. The line between Sept 11 not happening and happening is merely competence. Merely for the law enforcement and security agencies to do their job, what they are paid to do. All it takes is for one link in the chain of the events to be broken. Just one, and none of it involved giving up our freedoms but following through on detective work. Nearly every government agency has been poisoned by a virulence of apathy and ineptness created by entrenched political and managerial cultures (with Congress and the Executive office at the top), so it really can't and shouldn't be blamed on any person or group.
When James Woods, the actor James Woods, <a href="http://www.snopes2.com/rumors/woods.htm"; target="_blank">knew and understood</a> what was going down better than our own FBI did or cared to know a month before Sept 11, then something is frelling wrong with it. I'd be damned to think I would have to give up my freedoms when people paid to assure them can't be bothered to do their jobs.
[ 05-17-2002: Message edited by: THT ]</p>
<strong>
Central Asian Oil and Gas Pipelines:
Today, Central Asian Oil is transported along two routes: north through Dagestan and Chechnya to Novorossisk...</strong><hr></blockquote>
Exactly. The CPC (Caspian Pipeline Consortium) went ahead and built their pipeline. It isn?t expected to reach it?s capacity until 2015. The first tankers were loaded in Novorossiisk in October and November 2001. As your post noted, Turkey is concerned about tanker traffic through the Bosporus. So from Novorossiisk other oil transit options are being considred.
[quote]<strong>... Azerbaijan, Turkey, Georgia, and the United States favor a western route. According to one variation, oil and gas would flow to the Georgian port of Supsa. From there, it would be shipped through the Black Sea and the Bosporus to Europe.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Or it could be sent through Russia?s new Baltic Pipeline System or via other pipeline proposals through Bulgaria, Romania or Ukraine.
[quote]<strong> ... According to the Turkish variation on the western route, a pipeline should run from Baku to the port of Ceyhan on the Turkish Mediterranean coast. At over US$3 billion, the cost of constructing such a pipeline may turn out to be too expensive.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Whatever. Construction is slated to beging this summer.
[ 05-17-2002: Message edited by: spaceman_spiff ]</p>
and the pakistanians would love to return Karachi to it's former greatness...whatever the cost or alliances. here's some pre 911 stuff...
__________________________________________________
If Adolf Hitler came back today, they’d send a limousine, anyway. The Clash.
If news falls into print and no one cares enough to read it, does it make a sound?
Pay attention: Afghanistan is at war with itself. The lower part of the country is occupied by the Taliban, who are the bad guys. The upper part is controlled by the rebel army of Ahmad Shah Massoud, who, for all intents and purposes, are the good guys. The outcome of this small, forgotten civil war could decide the fate of democracy and political stability throughout Central Asia. If the Taliban win, the United States will be partially to blame.
For the past five years, the radical Taliban militia has been trained, funded and openly backed by the government of Pakistan; in particular, the Inter-Services Intelligence agency (ISI), the equivalent of the CIA. Pakistan’s goals are two-fold: 1) to install a friendly puppet regime in Afghanistan (its neighbor to the north) in order to provide strategic depth in the event of nuclear war with India (its rival to the south), and 2) to complete construction of a gas pipeline running from the oil-rich Caspian Sea through Afghanistan and into the port city of Karachi, a multi-billion dollar venture.
Who knows what has more weight, oil pipelines or democratic values? Ahmad Shah Massoud, 1998.
For the past two decades, Pakistan has received billions of dollars in military hardware and logistics support from the U.S. government. By proxy, a significant portion of the armaments find their way into Taliban hands.
In 1996, as Taliban troops captured the Afghan capital of Kabul, forcing Massoud to retreat north, the American corporation UNOCAL (a partner in the pipeline venture) invited a Taliban delegation to Washington and lobbied the White House to grant them diplomatic recognition. In return, the delegates promised to end the harvesting of opium poppies in southern Afghanistan.
Three years, one billionaire Arab terrorist, dozens of missile strikes, tons of smuggled opium and a choir of women’s rights activists later, President Clinton imposed economic sanctions on the Taliban, barring any American business from conducting commerce with the militia.
Too little, too late.
The Taliban (and their Pakistani backers) are responsible for the massacre of over 5,000 civilians in northern Afghanistan. In their recent offensive north of Kabul, they have pursued a scorched earth policy, burning opposition-governed towns and forcibly relocating residents. (It is therefore ironic that the Taliban’s women’s rights abuses have received more media scrutiny than their other, arguably more serious, crimes.)
Analysts estimate that thousands of Pakistani and Arab fighters are active in Taliban ranks. Over the past several years, Massoud’s forces in the north have captured hundreds of foreign mercenaries in battle, including Arab nationals linked to Osama Bin Laden and intelligence officers in Pakistan’s armed forces. Moreover, the recent series of terrorist bombings in Russia and the armed uprisings in Dagestan and Chechnya have substantiated western fears of a Taliban spillover throughout the region.
After years without a coherent foreign policy toward Afghanistan, the U.S. government is realizing the consequences of its indifference. Nearly two-thirds of the world’s opium harvest is grown under Taliban jurisdiction. Osama Bin Laden, one of the FBI’s Most Wanted men, has been sheltered by the Taliban since 1996.
Recently, the United Nations Security Council officially condemned Pakistan for its support of the Taliban. The State Department has also threatened sanctions against both Pakistan and its longtime ally, China, in response to heightened instability in Central Asia.
Although economic sanctions will do little to stop the current wave of Taliban brutality in northern Afghanistan, they are a step in the right direction toward forcing Pakistan to withdraw its support of the militia. American-backed sanctions, coupled with recent victories by the Afghan opposition and growing popular discontent in the south, could quickly lead to a Taliban disintegration.
The U.S. government claims it is truly interested in bringing Bin Laden to justice, ending opium harvesting (which the Taliban subsidizes to fund its war effort) and restoring human rights and civil liberties in Afghanistan. However, America has done nothing substantial to prove its commitment, such as establishing closer ties to Massoud’s embattled opposition government, which has publicly condemned the Taliban for their draconian policies toward women and sheltering of international terrorists.
This December will mark the twentieth anniversary of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. For the past two decades, the scheming and manipulation of foreign entities (including the U.S.) has left the country in ruins and the entire region on the brink of political collapse. Mere sanctions against the Taliban’s benefactor (Pakistan) and condemnations from human rights groups will not be able to undo the damage of two decades of war. However, without them, there is little hope that Central Asia will see peace well into the next millennium.
Yama Rahyar can be reached at [email protected]
[ 05-17-2002: Message edited by: little cuss ]</p>
<strong>think they'll go through with it now that a new option is open spliffy?</strong><hr></blockquote>
I keep acquiring nicknames from you. <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
As for whether they?ll go through with the Baku pipeline or not, I?d say it?s more likely they will. The project has financial momentum behind it. Oil is already flowing to Novorossiisk. It has to go somewhere from there.
thinkin' like a fatcat,
cuss
p.s. i now dub thee... bukkake breath!
<strong>but finanicial wisdom would prevail... and there's about six ways to skin that cat. the cheapest skinjob is in downtown Karachi.</strong><hr></blockquote>
All things being equal, yes. But not when the other guy has a big headstart.
[quote]<strong>p.s. i now dub thee... bukkake breath!</strong><hr></blockquote>
<img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" /> I'm not getting the reference.