Skip to comments.
Russia One Ups The United States
Toronto Sun ^
| 10/25/01
| By ERIC MARGOLIS
Posted on 11/25/2001 9:22:23 AM PST by Lucas1
Interesting Article
http://www.canoe.ca/Columnists/margolis.html
In a dazzling coup, Russian President Vladimir Putin stole a march on the Bush administration, which was so busy trying to tear apart Afghanistan to find bin Laden it failed to notice the Russians were taking over half the country.
Comments on the whole article?
TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-50, 51-87 next last
1
posted on
11/25/2001 9:22:23 AM PST
by
Lucas1
Comment #2 Removed by Moderator
Comment #3 Removed by Moderator
To: Lucas1
I guess the Russians Bombed the World Trade Center
4
posted on
11/25/2001 9:26:13 AM PST
by
scooby321
To: tex-oma
The way I see it, Bush and Putin agreed about this LONG ago, and the recent vacation on the Texas ranch was simply for small details and loose ends. I do not see where Bush wants a long heavy deep American involvement in Afghanistan. I think Bush is seriously about tracking down ALL terrorist cells on this planet, no matter the country.
5
posted on
11/25/2001 9:27:50 AM PST
by
meridia
Comment #6 Removed by Moderator
To: tex-oma
Maybe Putin tricked Bush. The NA was not supposed to take Kabul, after all, remember? The article makes sense.And maybe the public, don't go into Kabul, was like Brer Rabbit saying Don't throw me in that briar patch. All is not as it seems.
Never take global politics at face value, especially when the US and Russia are the players.
7
posted on
11/25/2001 9:41:06 AM PST
by
JD86
To: Lucas1
I always thought that that was Putin's paln. No surprise here. HE IS VERY SMART GUY!
To: tex-oma
Hi.
I truly thought that was INTENTIONAL DISINFORMATION.
In that way, al-Qaeda felt totally safe in Kabul, expecting fully to winter over in comfort. Days later, those who were still alive, fled to the hills.
The NA was ACCOMPANIED BY U.S. SPECIAL FORCES INTO KABUL.
9
posted on
11/25/2001 9:46:38 AM PST
by
meridia
To: tex-oma
The world has ample oil today. But according to CIA estimates, when China and India reach South Korea's level of per capita energy use, within 30 years, their combined oil demand will be 120 million barrels daily. This is like someone writing in 1880 predicting that future growth would cause a massive horse shortage.
To: tex-oma
The article mixes fact with a great deal of speculation.
According to the authors logic, Bin Laden would be on our side, having fought with the CIA in the past.
I am constantly amazed at the political geniuses who think they have made a discovery that no one in this administration (Rice, Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc
) could have. This article starts with the assumption that President Bush is a greedy oil man, naïve, and not too bright.
To: tex-oma
Maybe the real Communists are in Washington D.C. !
To: denydenydeny
"This is like someone writing in 1880 predicting that future growth would cause a massive horse shortage." Duh, horses are a renewable resource.
Comment #14 Removed by Moderator
To: tex-oma
What do we want with that forsaken land Afghanistan? It is the Russian Vietnam. We handed it over to them, we handed them victory which they could not achieve for 20 years. Why is the question.
Comment #16 Removed by Moderator
Comment #17 Removed by Moderator
Comment #18 Removed by Moderator
To: tex-oma
This article assumes that China will exist in 30 years.
19
posted on
11/25/2001 10:09:43 AM PST
by
11B3
To: Born to Conserve
The point is that oil will be an obsolete energy source, like horses are an obsolete transportation source.
"Experts" have been predicting severe shortages of oil for decades. The problem with these predictions is they never factor in 1) increase efficiencies in oil use with technology over time, 2) new oil finds and 3) alternative energy sources.
To: Born to Conserve
Then, where are they?
To: monkeyshine
And the fact that oil fields tend to refill themselves through geochemical processes. Forget the term "fossil fuel".
22
posted on
11/25/2001 10:11:53 AM PST
by
11B3
Comment #23 Removed by Moderator
To: tex-oma
They ran for the hills, and left their unburnt textbooks on terrorism behind, in their haste to flee. They were NOT expecting that Kabul would fall.
24
posted on
11/25/2001 10:14:18 AM PST
by
meridia
Comment #25 Removed by Moderator
To: tex-oma
By providing an essential product at inflated prices - due to the constant threat of the supply somehow running out. Or is your complaint with someone making money other than you on this? If so, welcome to the Democratic Party. When is the last time you were hired by a poor person?
26
posted on
11/25/2001 10:16:37 AM PST
by
11B3
To: meridia
I consider this "cutting edge" [cough!cough!] Canuck journalism to simply be par for the course for the HATE AMERICA Press, those stupid armchair generals who so recently were writing reams about the terrible American military strategy, and how the U.S. had met its second Viet Nam in Afghanistan [cough!cough!] and particularly how snide they were about our technological prowess and believed we had no humint. BASH-AMERICA is the journalistic norm, nowadays, and I feel that this article exemplifies the same.
27
posted on
11/25/2001 10:17:57 AM PST
by
meridia
To: tex-oma
Why would they run a pipeline in that direction? There are already plenty of ports along the coastline at the Arabian sea, the red sea, etc. Why not run it west through Russia and Turkey into the med?
Comment #29 Removed by Moderator
To: tex-oma
According to who - you?
30
posted on
11/25/2001 10:21:28 AM PST
by
11B3
To: tex-oma
Of course. Horsemen got rich in 1880 too, but they don't get rich now. The comment referred to the notion 30 years from now, if/when China and India join the western world's consumption levels.
To: 11B3
That's interesting. I didn't know that at all. Got any sources so I can learn more about it? "fossil fuel" is a misnomer then, or only part of the story...?
To: tex-oma
It absolutely amazes me that every time there's a battle anywhere on earth, the left comes out and claims it's all about oil. You'd think they could come up with something new, but no, they pull out the same old bromides. LOL
To: denydenydeny
This is like someone writing in 1880 predicting that future growth would cause a massive horse shortage.In today's regulatory environment, he would've been right.
To: tex-oma
Please don't be so SNIDE.
I view it as a FACT that the armchair generals wrote REAMS of c=r=a=p - all of it derogatory - about the U.S.A.
Your opinion may vary -- but you need NOT place a value judgement on my opinion that I am WEAK and need a REFUGE. Why don't you run along to DU where you can read posts which won't inspire your insipid commentary and hostile snide remarks?
35
posted on
11/25/2001 10:25:20 AM PST
by
meridia
To: Born to Conserve
"This is like someone writing in 1880 predicting that future growth would cause a massive horse shortage."
Perhaps he should have said "whale oil" shortage
Actually in the late 1880s and early 1900s the worry was too many horses in the major cities (or more to the point the waste product horses create
;-}
To: tex-oma
Looks like you need to take a little of your own adviceHow so? (and I will overlook the slam on lawyers)
37
posted on
11/25/2001 10:26:12 AM PST
by
JD86
To: 11B3
This article assumes that China will exist in 30 years.I'd say that's a very good assumption.
Comment #39 Removed by Moderator
To: meridia
I am truly amazed at the military might we have. I heard that one American destroyer contains more firepower than all the weaponry we used in Vietnam combined. Not sure exactly how they calcultate that, but it is an interesting comparison.
To: monkeyshine
Yes, I'll have to look in the archives here, but there was an article posted on this subject within the last two or three days. All the normal doomsayers were knocking the research.
Basically, if all oil is based on fossils, why then is methane the primary atmosphere of planets such as Neptune? How many dinos died there to cause that?
41
posted on
11/25/2001 10:28:21 AM PST
by
11B3
To: tex-oma
The article suggests that in Afghanistan we are somehow losing in a zero-sum game of Great Power Ambition. In fact, we are the sole great power and Russia is competing with other oil-producing nations to serve us. The opportunity that Afghanistan provides to cast these roles with crystal clarity, is well worth allowing the Russians to participate in a win-win economic endeavor.
I don't know about the poster, but the article's author either has ulterior motives or is just another nattering nabob of negativism. Whether you emphasize his fear of Putin's machinations or lack of faith in the US administration, his shallow analysis is unadmirable at best.
42
posted on
11/25/2001 10:31:24 AM PST
by
dwills
To: 11B3
Yes, good question. I don't listen to the doomsayers much, either. All that oil sat on earth for 100's of 1000's of years, millions of years, and nobody knew about it, or what to do with it until very recently. Just think about all the other resources available to us to tap into, once we figure out what to do with it and how to use it. Nobody should underestimate human endeavor.
To: Lucas1
What's this guy been smoking? Of course the U.S. and the oil companies know the Northern Alliance is Communist and supported by Moscow. The Russians also know there is no substantial market for Caspian oil/gas in either Russia or Western Europe.
So if anyone wants to sell that damned Caspian oil, it *has to* go through Afghanistan on its way to Asia. The Russians know this. The oil companies know this. The only thing standing in the way was a Fundamentalist regime in Kabul that was armed and financed by the drug business.
It wouldn't be the first time oil companies made deals with the Communists.
To: Born to Conserve
Then why don't they cost $10?
45
posted on
11/25/2001 10:40:23 AM PST
by
1rudeboy
To: mad_as_he$$
Is that what you call.....
"Check Mate"LOL...The dear Mr. Prsident line at the end of the article is an eye opener! hehehe......Truth is refreshing is it not!
To: monkeyshine
Here's the link to that thread -
here. Fuel for thought, so to speak.
47
posted on
11/25/2001 10:46:02 AM PST
by
11B3
To: Lucas1
SO who is the oil man now, eh? Bush or the reds? And that's from a red!
To: monkeyshine
Hi, yes, the military might and the technological prowess of the U.S. military is mind-boggling. It is curious to me that so many governments seemed to be oblivious of that FACT. Indeed, I believe that General Musharrif DID understand this, and that knowledge led to his automatic immediate decision to assist the U.S. Frankly, he had no other option, and he knew it. That's how I see it. And it should not take a full fledged GENERAL to see the obvious, that America is the strongest military power, and that if we decide to eliminate TERRORISTS from the face of the planet, that we couldn't care less if some countries call those primitive savages 'freedom fighters.' In any event, the issue is moot: it's only a matter of time before all terrorists are neutralized.
49
posted on
11/25/2001 10:48:57 AM PST
by
meridia
To: tex-oma
Listen, *sweetie* -- YOU with YOUR snide snootie remarks started it -- since YOU can't take what you dish out, Y=O=U are on my ignore-list, so don't bother responding with any more of your insipid contemptuous commentary.
50
posted on
11/25/2001 10:51:20 AM PST
by
meridia
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-50, 51-87 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson