Author Topic: Hmmmm............  (Read 1537 times)

Offline Fatty

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3885
      • http://www.fatdrunkbastards.com
Hmmmm............
« Reply #45 on: January 29, 2002, 06:14:52 PM »
Well Creamo, the reason they are hiding it is because it contains technology that enables engines to run for weeks on a glass of urine.  Unfortunately the govt is in the pocket of big oil companies which stand to lose trillions, so they'll never let the technology out.

Offline Fatty

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3885
      • http://www.fatdrunkbastards.com
Hmmmm............
« Reply #46 on: January 29, 2002, 06:15:44 PM »
Oh yeah, and they are actually behind the Afganistan theories, because it draws attention away from their secret alien gizmos.

Offline Toad

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 18415
Hmmmm............
« Reply #47 on: January 29, 2002, 06:27:04 PM »
Weazel, am I supposed to be suprised that the government of the US is interested in ensuring an adequate supply of oil to the US economy?

Am I supposed to be suprised that the US government would consult and work with large US oil companies to accomplish this?

Am I supposed to be surprised that the US government would work with just about any other government that wasn't openly hostile to achieve these type of goals?

Am I supposed to believe that this same type of thing has NOT gone on in every US government administration since 1776?

You want me to believe that only a Bush administration would do something like this?

Before you answer, you might want to do a google search on what some previous administrations supported in Afghanistan.  :)

Hint: The Taliban captured the Afghan capital of Kabul in 1996 and, by 1998, had virtually eliminated the opposing northern alliance. And just when did Unocal FIRST take an interest in the Taliban?
If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen!

Offline Kieran

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4119
Hmmmm............
« Reply #48 on: January 29, 2002, 06:53:09 PM »
Quote
Gee, where are all the republican hand wringers shouting attack the issue, not the messenger?


C'mon. Do you really need me to point out that Grun is over the top here? :)

Offline midnight Target

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 15114
Hmmmm............
« Reply #49 on: January 29, 2002, 07:14:52 PM »
Weazel,

Far be it from me to defend Bush, but this story is the worst kind of propaganda babble. There is no evidence at all in there, only circumstantial associations. O'neill wasn't "Head of the FBI", he was supposedly a deputy director. And I have tried to find any info on him on the web, and the story you cite is the only one?

Then they say this:
 
Quote
Brisard and Dasquie also reveal that the Taliban were not really ultra-orthodox in their diplomatic approach, because they actually hired an American public relations' expert for an image-making campaign in the US. It is, of course, not known whether the Pakistanis helped the Taliban secure the services of a professional image-maker. What is, however, revealed in the book is that Laila Helms, a public relations professional, who also doubles up as an authority on the way the US intelligence agencies work, was employed by the Taliban. Her task was to get the US recognise the Taliban regime. Prior to September 11, only three countries - Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and UAE - recognised the Taliban regime. Helms' familiarity with the ways of US intelligence organisations comes through her association with Richard Helms, who is her uncle a former director of the CIA and former US ambassador to Tehran.


Using Laila Helms as some kind of tie in to the Government in laughable. Look up Laila. She is a Tali-cheerleader, and has been for some time. She even stated that her Uncle thinks she is nuts. Saying she is familiar with the intelligence service due to her association with Richard Helms is at best a fabrication. Why stoop to this kind of drivel?

Offline GRUNHERZ

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 13413
Hmmmm............
« Reply #50 on: January 29, 2002, 07:21:25 PM »
Im not trying to debate you. We all know youre nutz and that it's pointless.

Offline Elite_Duck

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 3
Hmmmm............
« Reply #51 on: January 29, 2002, 07:58:21 PM »
You write "Prior to September 11, the US government had an extremely benevolent understanding of the Taliban regime. The Taliban was perceived "as a source of stability in Central Asia that would enable the construction of an oil pipeline across Central Asia" from the rich oilfields in Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan, through Afghanistan and Pakistan, to the Indian Ocean"...Not from what I've read, note the following article was written months prior:


The article below was taken from this link->  India joins anti-Taliban coalition - Jane's International Security News

India joins anti-Taliban coalition
15 March 2001

By Rahul Bedi



India is believed to have joined Russia, the USA and Iran in a concerted front against Afghanistan's Taliban regime.

Military sources in Delhi, claim that the opposition Northern Alliance's capture of the strategic town of Bamiyan, was precipitated by the four countries' collaborative effort.

The 13 February fall of Bamiyan, after several days of heavy fighting, threatened to cut off the only land route from Kabul to Taliban troops in northern Afghanistan. However, media reports indicate that Taliban forces recaptured the town on 17 February.

India is believed to have supplied the Northern Alliance leader, Ahmed Shah Massoud, with high-altitude warfare equipment. Indian defence advisors, including air force helicopter technicians, are reportedly providing tactical advice in operations against the Taliban.

Twenty-five Indian army doctors and male nurses are also believed to be treating Northern Alliance troops at a 20-bed hospital at Farkhor, close to the Afghan-Tajik border. The Statesman newspaper quoting Indian officials said the medical contingent is being financed from Delhi.

Several recent meetings between the newly instituted Indo-US and Indo-Russian joint working groups on terrorism led to this effort to tactically and logistically counter the Taliban.

Intelligence sources in Delhi said that while India, Russia and Iran were leading the anti-Taliban campaign on the ground, Washington was giving the Northern Alliance information and logistic support. Oleg Chervov, deputy head of Russia's security council, recently described Taliban-controlled Afghanistan as a base of international terrorism attempting to expand into Central Asia. Radical Islamic groups are also trying to increase their influence across Pakistan, he said at a meeting of Indian and Russian security officials in Moscow. "All this dictates a pressing need for close co-operation between Russia and India in opposing terrorism," he said.

Military sources indicated that Tajikistan and Uzbekistan are being used as bases to launch anti-Taliban operations by India and Russia. They also hinted at the presence of a small Russian force actively assisting Massoud in the Panjsher Valley. "The situation in Afghanistan cannot be ignored as it impinges directly on the 12-year old Kashmir insurgency," an Indian military official said, adding that the Northern Alliance's elimination by the Taliban would be "disastrous" for India.

Offline mrsid2

  • Parolee
  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1081
Hmmmm............
« Reply #52 on: January 29, 2002, 08:30:01 PM »
I wouldn't be surprised if this thing turned out to be the next watergate..  I hear one of the leaders of Enron already put a bullet to his brain. Or had it put..

Bush has been in the leash of the oil industry since day one. Pulling out of the Kioto agreement showed that clearly to the whole world. It's no secret that the money is the only single power running america, as we have seen already in the several discussions on this board.

Offline Fatty

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3885
      • http://www.fatdrunkbastards.com
Hmmmm............
« Reply #53 on: January 29, 2002, 08:39:42 PM »
What are you talking about?
Quote
Bush has been in the leash of the oil industry since day one.

Yeah, he really went to the wall for Enron didn't he.

And do you mean the Kyoto treaty that about 3 countries had ratified, and just a couple of years ago zero United States senators voted for when it came up for ratification here?  Yeah, he really went against the will of the people when he said he wasn't sending it back to the Senate, seeing as it was so close the first time.


If you mean we are a mean old free market system, then yeah.  I wouldn't advise visiting, we eat babies too.

Offline weazel

  • Parolee
  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1471
Hmmmm............
« Reply #54 on: January 29, 2002, 08:56:31 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by GROINHURTZ
Im not trying to debate you. We all know youre nutz and that it's pointless.


...mumble...babble...idiot... leftist..liberal...mumble...b abble...idiot... leftist..liberal...

PS:
One of the rights we enjoy as Americans is freedom of speech.... of course you were brought up listening to people like ol' Slobodan Milosevic and probably think I should be made to shut up. :rolleyes:

And I'm not NUTTZ, his textures are much better than mine.

I didn't write it midnight target, I copied it from a page.
« Last Edit: January 29, 2002, 09:57:41 PM by weazel »

Offline hazed-

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2467
      • http://combatarena.users.btopenworld.com
Hmmmm............
« Reply #55 on: January 29, 2002, 09:59:07 PM »
Another political diddlyup. what a suprise eh?

I dont think its time to start pointing accusing fingers at Bush for trying to establish peaceful relations with a government of a  region and secure the oil in that region.What the diddly do you think our western society runs on? fairy piss?
You can bet your bellybutton the french were/are trying to do exactly the same only they havent got the same clout as the US

ANY president would probably try to do exactly what the bush administration tried to do in afghanistan if this is true.All those who claim their elected official would say no to oil companies on some moral issue over the taliban before sept 11 is living in a dream world.

Offline Toad

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 18415
Hmmmm............
« Reply #56 on: January 29, 2002, 10:22:22 PM »
Gosh, Weazel.. didn't your web search turn up anything? Mine did.

That's the problem with these sweeping generalizations that apportion blame without much support...

It Was CLINTON After Afghan Oil!!!

Reference: Ahmed Rashid has covered the war in Afghanistan for more than 20 years. He is the author of Taliban: Militant Islam, Oil, and Fundamentalism in Central Asia (Yale University Press). He is the Central Asia correspondent for the Daily Telegraph and the Far Eastern Economic Review.



"Good intentions soon developed into an extremist position. Most notoriously, the Taliban themselves degraded the role of women in Afghan society. It was this, in particular, which turned the tide of US state department policy against the Taliban from November 1997. Up untill then, says Rashid, Washington had been courting both Omar's group and those of other warlords, in the hope of securing a trans-Asian oil pipeline that could avoid Iran. He suggests that Clinton's gladhanding of Omar may have gone further. "The US Congress had authorised a covert $20m budget for the CIA to destabilise Iran, and Tehran had accused Washington of funnelling some of these funds to the Taliban - a charge Washington has always denied."


See.. it was CLINTON! "in the hope of securing a trans-Asian oil pipeline that could avoid Iran"


Don't like that one?

UNOCAL’s once-grand plan for Afghan pipelines

"...UNOCAL, which has been publicly criticized for alleged human-rights abuses involving its Burma pipeline operation, signed an agreement in 1995 with Turkmenistan’s president for life, Saparmurat Niyazov, to build the 890-mile, $2 billion pipeline. Its goal was to transport 1.9 billion cubic feet per day of natural gas from the country’s giant Dauletabad Field into Pakistan’s energy grid. The project has been on hold for several years.

Barry Lane, a UNOCAL spokesman, says there were only two viable routes for this pipeline: Iran or Afghanistan. “And the U.S. sanctions against doing business with Iran left us only one option,” he says. Hoping to hedge its bets against Iran or future OPEC cutbacks, the Clinton administration offered backing for the projects...."

Oh MY GOSH! The Clinton Adminstration in BED with UNOCAL???

Say it ain't so, Shoeless Bill!


.... Anyway, Weazel... I take all these about the same way I took the opening post.

There's plenty of dirt out there to smear around, isn't there?
If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen!

Offline weazel

  • Parolee
  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1471
Yes Toad there is.....
« Reply #57 on: January 29, 2002, 10:52:26 PM »
But WTF can we do about the past?  

Clinton isn't president right now is he?  

One of these days you shrub supporters will get that fact straight in your minds, quit living in the past and focus your considerable brain power on the current bandit in the White House.

But thanks for being rational and thoughtful in your replies, I've  learned a lot from your posts..past and present, they sure beat the guys with the pull cord on their backs.  :D

Offline Toad

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 18415
Hmmmm............
« Reply #58 on: January 30, 2002, 08:52:34 AM »
Yeah, Bush is President now....

But let me ask you this.... did the world end because the Clinton administration was working with UnoCal and the Taliban to get that pipeline across Afghanistan?

No. And it won't end now, either.

After all, most of the "bad things" that are supposed to outrage me in your first post are present in the Clinton/UnoCal/Taliban situation as well. Government in league with big business, Government in league with evil Taliban, Big Business in league with evil Taliban... pretty much the same situation, no? And obviously, it WAS all about oil.

Yet we survived. The US is still here today and making slow steady progress towards the future.

I see nothing that is "worse" about Bush/oil/Taliban than I do about Clinton/oil/Taliban. Obviously the US needs secure supplies of oil (let's not digress into conservation, alternative energy, etc at this point). Quite obviously the US Government HAS to be involved in helping to secure that oil. It's been that way at least since the end of WW2. Every Administration puts a priority on oil; we have to face the fact that our society and economy depend upon it right now.

As for a war over oil... I totally disagree.

Had the airliner hijack/attacks not happened, the "War on Terror" would NEVER have begun. I feel pretty certain most folks understand this intrinsically.

"Bandit in the White House"? That's just a slur. Post something that actually shows he's a "Bandit".

In this example that you have posted, he's no more a "bandit" for Bush/UnoCal/Taliban than You Know Who would be for Clinton/UnoCal/Taliban. In both cases the government was trying to help secure an oil supply for the US society & economy. That makes one a bandit?

I don't recall you attacking Clinton for Clinton/UnoCal/Taliban back in '96-97.... you're not using a double standard now are you? :D
If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen!

Offline Kieran

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4119
Hmmmm............
« Reply #59 on: January 30, 2002, 09:49:32 AM »
Weazel, I believe I have tried to converse with you intelligently, despite being a "shrub" supporter. I do note the irony of your calling for adult discourse while continuing with the immature appellation.