Page 4 of 16 FirstFirst 12345678910111213 ... LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 238

Thread: 300

  1. #46
    Registered User
    Join Date
    23 Jan 07
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    1,587
    Obviously Iran, if that is what you are getting at.

    However, you are discussing things in terms of cause-and-effect, and i think that is great, yet the cause-and-effect theory can be apply to many nations - strong or weak (no names ofcourse), for other situations.

  2. #47
    Registered User
    Join Date
    23 Jan 07
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    1,587
    November 1997 - Unocal invited a Taliban delegation to Texas and, in early December, the company opened a training center at the University of Nebraska, to instruct 137 Afghans in pipeline construction technology.

    February 1998 - Unocal's vice president for international relations, John Maresca, told a House subcommittee hearing on U.S. interests in the Central Asian Republics that an oil pipeline "would benefit Afghanistan, which would receive revenues from transport tariffs, and would promote stability and encourage trade and economic development." Emphasizing that "the proposed Central Asia Oil Pipeline (CentGas) cannot begin construction until an internationally recognized Afghanistan government is in place," he urged the administration and the Congress "to give strong support to the United Nations-led peace process in Afghanistan."

    Until the 1998 al-Qaida embassy bombings, the Clinton administration's approach toward the Taliban was much the same as Unocal's: All parties agreed that the political stabilization of Afghanistan was crucial to the region, and was also a way to gain access to oil reserves of the Caspian Sea region. Though bin Laden had been in the country since 1996, the U.S. had not pressured the Taliban to hand him over.

    August 1998 - Embassy bombing changed everything. The Clinton administration denounced the regime and Secretary of State Madeleine Albright turned up the heat on Taliban human rights abuses. The United Nations imposed sanctions, freezing Afghanistan's foreign assets and limiting its citizens' travel. The U.S. continued to talk to the Taliban, but the emphasis was on extraditing bin Laden in exchange for international recognition; the pipeline was off the table. Unocal, which had been close to finalizing its pipeline deal before the embassy bombings, cancelled it.

    March 2001 - several Taliban officials, including Sayed Rahmattulah Hashimi, Mullah Omar's personal advisor, were invited to Washington by their U.S. lobbyist, Leila Helms, the niece of former CIA Director Richard Helms. The agenda included discussions of extraditing bin Laden as well as facilitating American companies' access to oil reserves in central Asia. The delegation met with representatives of the Directorate of Central Intelligence (DCI) and the Bureau of Intelligence and Research of the State Department.

    July 2001 - It was at the July meeting, according to Naik, that Tom Simons (former U.S. ambassador to Pakistan) suggested that Afghanistan could face an open-ended military operation from bases in Uzbekistan and Tajikistan if it didn't accede to U.S. demands. "Ambassador Simons stated that if the Taliban wouldn't agree with the plan, and if Pakistan was unable to persuade them, the United States might use an overt action against Afghanistan," Naik says. The words used by Simons were "a military operation," according to Naik. Another participant reportedly said the Taliban's choice was clear: either accept a "carpet of gold" riches from the pipeline or "a carpet of bombs," meaning a military strike.

    In statements to newspapers, Simons has offered ambiguous explanations of his statements at the July meeting. In September, he told the British Guardian: "I've known Naik and considered him a friend for years. He's an honorable diplomat. I didn't say anything like that and didn't hear anyone else say anything like that. We were clear that feeling in Washington was strong, and that military action was one of the options down the road. But details, I don't know where they came from."

    Yet in a November interview with Le Monde, Simons seemed to confirm that there had been some talk of U.S. military action. "It is true that the Taliban was asked to deliver bin Laden and form a [broader] government," Simons told Le Monde. "We said in July that we were investigating the attack against the USS Cole in Yemen, and that if there were solid evidence of the implication of bin Laden, one had to expect a military answer. One can always inflate such a declaration to see a global threat against the Taliban. But the American declaration related only to the response to the USS-Cole.

    "As for the 'carpet of gold and the carpet of bombs,' we actually discussed the need for a plan for rebuilding for Afghanistan, which would follow a political agreement," he said, adding that "It's possible that a mischievous American participant, after several drinks, may have thought it smart to evoke gold carpets and carpet bombs. Even Americans can't resist the temptation to be mischievous."

    The last known meeting between U.S. and Taliban representatives took place in August, five weeks before the Sept. 11 attacks, when U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for Central Asian affairs Christina Rocca met with the Taliban's ambassador to Pakistan Abdul Salam Zaeef.

    It would be unfair to suggest that the U.S. threat in July led to the al-Qaida strike. But while Simons doesn't admit that he personally threatened the Taliban with reprisal, he confirms that only a few weeks before Sept. 11, American diplomats warned of military action against Afghanistan if its leaders did not meet U.S. economic and political demands. It is worth asking whether, had this threat been widely known, U.S. intelligence agencies might have analyzed the information they were receiving about bin Laden's plots against the U.S. differently.

    Now the newly discovered Atef memo makes clear that in 1998, at least, al-Qaida was well informed about negotiations between the Taliban and the U.S. on the oil pipeline and other American concerns. The memo also shows that those negotiations were the Taliban's gambit to extend its power; Mullah Omar's government never had any intention of allowing U.S. firms to construct an oil pipeline, or letting the U.S. dictate the members of its ruling body. Given the inside knowledge al-Qaida had about U.S.-Taliban negotiations, it's reasonable to suspect bin Laden's group also received and understood the U.S. threat of military action delivered in late July as a threat of war.

    In the end, though, the U.S. got its way. Interim Afghan leader Hamid Karzai decided on May 30 to revive the pipeline project with Pakistan and Turkmenistan, signing an agreement under which the three governments agree to implement a pipeline from Turkmenistan to Pakistan through Afghanistan. Would that U.S. intelligence agencies' investigations into al-Qaida activities in the months before Sept. 11 had such a productive ending.


    So was I totally wrong Mr Kanas Bear? this is what I said: "I am sure that had 9/11 not happened, there would have been perhapes strong covert operation aimed at overthrowing the Taliban regime by the US"
    Last edited by xerxes; 20 Mar 07, at 05:33.

  3. #48
    Official Thread Jacker Senior Contributor gunnut's Avatar
    Join Date
    27 Jan 06
    Location
    DPRK, Demokratik People's Republik of Kalifornia
    Posts
    23,818
    Quote Originally Posted by xerxes View Post
    Mr Gunnut, I assume that you are just joking with me, with this last comment of yours. For someone who read books, I dont like to be told to stop watching something that I dont watch.
    Half joking. The congressional idiot caucus headed by Pelosi and co. love to say that we had plans to invade Iraq even if 9-11 didn't happen because Bush needed to "one up" on daddy. In reality wars are expensive. We don't fight a war unless there's a compelling reason to. "One up" on daddy is not a compelling reason. It's a conspiracy theory.

    Quote Originally Posted by xerxes View Post
    The only stuff that I watch are:

    Rome
    Sopranos
    Battlestar Galactica
    PBS Frontline

    ... and crapy popecorn movies like 300

    pick on these if you like .. thank you
    I will.

    You still watch BSG? I lost interest after the 2nd season. It's too much drama and not enough laser/explosion/blasting cylons. I call it Galactica 90210 because that's what I felt like watching. The rating is dropping like a snitch with cement shoes on. It's moved to Sunday nights. I don't know. I just miss the old Battlestar Galactica with its campy storyline and straight up blowing up cylon action.

    I don't watch Rome.

    I don't watch Sopranos because I have never been a big fan of the mob shows.

    I don't watch PBS.
    "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

  4. #49
    Registered User
    Join Date
    23 Jan 07
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    1,587
    About BSG, i watch it now only out of loyality, I am that kind of person.

    Though, next week the season finale and some major things will happen. You should watch Sopranos, the show is great and is well made, samething goes for Rome, though its second season was not as great as I hoped to be.

    I actually I forgot to add this, i also recently became addicted by the show called '24'.
    Last edited by xerxes; 20 Mar 07, at 22:23.

  5. #50
    Official Thread Jacker Senior Contributor gunnut's Avatar
    Join Date
    27 Jan 06
    Location
    DPRK, Demokratik People's Republik of Kalifornia
    Posts
    23,818
    I don't get Sopranos and Rome because I don't get HBO. Rome would be interesting. I don't like mobster shows. And I never got in on 24 and Lost. I don't see what the attaction is.

    I guess I'm a sci-fi guy. I love Heroes because it's like X-men from the beginning. I loved the X-files because it's strange and weird and mostly episodic rather than a long, continuous storyline. I love Stargate SG1 because it's MacGyver in space. Stargate Atlantis is OK. Dr. Who kicks ass. There's just something about British show that's so cool.
    "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

  6. #51
    Registered User
    Join Date
    23 Jan 07
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    1,587
    Gunnut, though I watched X-files very rarely, i think I am still a much much bigger Sci-fi fan than you are

    About 24, u have to watch on continous basis ... not once a week on TV

    go to this website peekvid ,,, here you can watch most things on the web for free. I just very recently started to watch 24, and it is intriguing. Even though the first season that I saw was Season 4, where the terrorist were Iranians heheh.

    I never watched LOST, though from what I heard most people lost intrest in LOST.

  7. #52
    Official Thread Jacker Senior Contributor gunnut's Avatar
    Join Date
    27 Jan 06
    Location
    DPRK, Demokratik People's Republik of Kalifornia
    Posts
    23,818
    Quote Originally Posted by xerxes View Post
    Gunnut, though I watched X-files very rarely, i think I am still a much much bigger Sci-fi fan than you are
    You cannot possibly be a bigger sci-fi fan than me.
    "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

  8. #53
    WAB BOUNCER Senior Contributor Stan187's Avatar
    Join Date
    24 Nov 06
    Posts
    2,617
    Xerxes u can't possiby be a bigger sci-fi fan if you don't watch SG-1
    In Iran people belive pepsi stands for pay each penny save israel. -urmomma158
    The Russian Navy is still a threat, but only to those unlucky enough to be Russian sailors.-highsea

  9. #54
    Regular
    Join Date
    27 Feb 07
    Posts
    44

    Excelent Review

    Hey I found this review, don't know if it was posted already but it deserves to be added again. Be warned it uses a lot of profanity if that offends anyone.

    I think it sums up the fact that it is just a 100% dude movie. Enjoy

    300 Review
    MT . . .

  10. #55
    Official Thread Jacker Senior Contributor gunnut's Avatar
    Join Date
    27 Jan 06
    Location
    DPRK, Demokratik People's Republik of Kalifornia
    Posts
    23,818
    Quote Originally Posted by Militarythinker View Post
    I think it sums up the fact that it is just a 100% dude movie. Enjoy
    No way man. Chicks love this movie. A girl at work just couldn't stop talking about the abs on those Greek dudes. She shivered as she commented on the thighs and legs (where have I heard that before?.....ah yes, KFC menu) of those said Greek dudes. The loin cloth practically sent her over the edge.

    This is a 100% certifiable chick flick.
    "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

  11. #56
    WAB Resident Historian Senior Contributor Kansas Bear's Avatar
    Join Date
    01 Jul 06
    Location
    Talisker distillery
    Posts
    1,705
    Quote Originally Posted by xerxes View Post
    Obviously Iran, if that is what you are getting at.

    However, you are discussing things in terms of cause-and-effect, and i think that is great, yet the cause-and-effect theory can be apply to many nations - strong or weak (no names ofcourse), for other situations.
    Iran??

    No.

    Quote Originally Posted by xerxes
    So was I totally wrong Mr Kanas Bear? this is what I said: "I am sure that had 9/11 not happened, there would have been perhapes strong covert operation aimed at overthrowing the Taliban regime by the US"
    Why make an enemy out of someone that wasn't an enemy to begin with? Until Feb 1998, al-Qaeda had been a minor player in the world of terrorism, AFTER Unocal and the Taliban had agreed on the pipeline did al-Qaeda suddenly increase the level of it's attacks.

    Which is easier; building a pipeline through a country with that country's blessing OR building a pipeline after "causing a war" in which we invade and struggle with guerilla warfare with the deposed government? Even the "covert op" would still leave Taliban supporters throughout Afghanistan. And the US would still be fighting against a guerilla war.

  12. #57
    Registered User
    Join Date
    23 Jan 07
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    1,587
    Quote Originally Posted by Kansas Bear View Post
    Iran??

    No.
    Based on your question, which was: "The question is, what country benefits from there NOT being a pipeline transporting Turkmenistan and Kazakistan's oil to the world market??": in my opinion that implies Iran, because it would mean that it has to pass through Iran ... if anything. more leverage for the Iranians. You say, not Iran, then who? ...

    just a while guess, ... TURKEY

    just kidding, anyways seeing that Taliban was on ISI's leash, u might be refering to that nation. Which however still has to pass the pipeline through its territory, which would make it pointless.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kansas Bear View Post
    Why make an enemy out of someone that wasn't an enemy to begin with? Until Feb 1998, al-Qaeda had been a minor player in the world of terrorism, AFTER Unocal and the Taliban had agreed on the pipeline did al-Qaeda suddenly increase the level of it's attacks.

    Which is easier; building a pipeline through a country with that country's blessing OR building a pipeline after "causing a war" in which we invade and struggle with guerilla warfare with the deposed government? Even the "covert op" would still leave Taliban supporters throughout Afghanistan. And the US would still be fighting against a guerilla war.
    You are absolutly right, in what you are saying and you have no argument from me, however, i was talking about the summer of 2001, when the relation between the US government and Talian was already soured on the issue. That was my point. I was not refering to few years back, to what led it to that. Though, I am very curious of whom according to you spilled the beans ...

  13. #58
    Distant Deeps or Skies Senior Contributor HistoricalDavid's Avatar
    Join Date
    19 Jul 05
    Location
    North London, UK
    Posts
    2,292
    Never mind about historical accuracy - when the guy with swords for hands came on, the cinema audience laughed, it was so farcical. Really, even from a plain old storytelling viewpoint, casting the villains all as either disabled, diseased, monsters, hermaphrodites, fat ugly men with monobrows or just generally wholly repulsive people is just ineffective since it denigrates the Spartan achievements. The Persians in that film were consistently either subhuman or faceless, or both - such as when an Immortal gets his mask ripped off.

    And even if you don't have historical knowledge of Spartan society, their constant preaching about freedom, justice and democracy seriously jars with the brutality of their treatment of their own children, as well as disrupts the pacing of the film with long, boring speeches.

  14. #59
    Official Thread Jacker Senior Contributor gunnut's Avatar
    Join Date
    27 Jan 06
    Location
    DPRK, Demokratik People's Republik of Kalifornia
    Posts
    23,818
    You make valid points.

    But if you look at the movie closely, you'll find the entire story was told from the perspective of that lone surviving Spartan at Thermopylae, one year later. He was telling a story to inspire his countrymen. Of course he's gonna exaggerate stuff a bit, like Xerxes was 8' tall and shoots lightning bolt out of his ass. Well, maybe not the lightning bolt part but you get the idea.

    The exaggerations and the farcical depictions of the Persians make more sense if you can see from the point of the story teller.

    It was not meant to demean the Persians from the perspective of the author. But it certainly was meant to dehumanize the Persians from the perspective of the Spartan story teller.
    "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

  15. #60
    Registered User
    Join Date
    23 Jan 07
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    1,587
    Quote Originally Posted by gunnut View Post
    You make valid points.

    But if you look at the movie closely, you'll find the entire story was told from the perspective of that lone surviving Spartan at Thermopylae, one year later. He was telling a story to inspire his countrymen. Of course he's gonna exaggerate stuff a bit, like Xerxes was 8' tall and shoots lightning bolt out of his ass. Well, maybe not the lightning bolt part but you get the idea.

    The exaggerations and the farcical depictions of the Persians make more sense if you can see from the point of the story teller.

    It was not meant to demean the Persians from the perspective of the author. But it certainly was meant to dehumanize the Persians from the perspective of the Spartan story teller.
    Third time, you typed the samething for another person hehe ...

    if it is any recocilation, I find myself in agreement with you on that subject of point of view, but still even a lone surviving Spartan should not confuse Imperial Guards "Immortals", with the Japanese swordsmen armed with Katana, considering the fact that he never heard of Japan.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. U.S. Population to Hit 300 Million in 2006
    By troung in forum International Politics
    Replies: 38
    Last Post: 02 Jul 06,, 16:37
  2. Automatic Rifle Concept: Part I—History and Empirical Testing
    By troung in forum Small Arms and Personal Weapons
    Replies: 42
    Last Post: 10 Sep 05,, 19:24
  3. 3 Pak trains collide, over 300 die
    By hammer in forum International Politics
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 14 Jul 05,, 12:41
  4. 300 surrendered militants being inducted in BSF
    By ajaybhutani in forum International Politics
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 04 Mar 05,, 19:20

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •