De geopolitieke redenen voor de oorlog in Irak?

quote:

"Denial Stops Here: From 9-11 to Peak Oil and Beyond"

Michael C. Ruppert's first original DVD since the landmark Truth and Lies of 9-11!

Listen and watch Mike Ruppert discuss:

The 9-11 cover-up

Peak Oil

The War in Iraq

Economic turmoil and accountability

World events relating to oil

Sustainability and the importance of community reliance

quote:

Op maandag 2 januari 2006 20:48 schreef okee6 het volgende:

[..]

Jij mag er best in geloven, ik vind dat wel erg koker kijken. Irak was de meest opzichtige Amerikaanse operatie sinds 11 september, er waren er meer. Maar goed, qua Irak, olie is in mijn ogen dan enkel betrokken vanwege de torenhoge inkomsten die Irak er uit 'had'. Dat geld kon verkeerd terecht komen, dat was een belangrijke factor in mijn ogen. Politiek en electoraal gezien kon Bush Jr. door op te treden afmaken wat zijn vader had nagelaten, ook niet onbelangrijk. Zijn zakenpartners en tevens belangrijke handelspartners van Amerika waren gebaat bij de verwijdering van een potentieel militair zwaargewicht in het centrum van het Midden Oosten.
Weinig te verliezen dus al met al. De kosten van de oorlog zouden goeddeels worden gedekt door het opbloeien van de Amerikaanse industrie, dat in een dip verzeild dreigde te raken.

quote:

Echter vergiste Amerika zich in de lengte van de operatie en de mate van bondgenootschap in de rest van de wereld. Wat dat betreft doet Bush meer kwaad aan de politieke kaart dan hem waard is. Zakelijk gezien hoeft het echter geen ramp te betekenen. Indien er werkelijk een staat binnen de Verenigde Staten is, een netwerk van grootindustriëlen, dan is er nog steeds niet echt sprake van falen. Wijdverbreide democratie zou dan voorwaarde zijn voor hun systeem.

quote:

Waar baseer je deze verdeling op? De EU lijkt niet eensgezind, maar is dat wel degelijk. Middels de NAVO blijven EU+Oostblok voorts goede gesprekspartner van Noord-Amerika. Latijns-Amerika produceert natuurlijk geweldig (landbouw/delfstoffen), maar heeft geen sterke papieren, want is politiek meer verdeeld. Ik meen dat Noord-Amerika indien nodig zelfs militaristisch een herziene NAFTA zal afdwingen. Opstandige linkse leiders zullen als vanouds onderhands getackled worden. Zo lang de Aziaten en Arabieren maar geld naar Amerika blijven schuiven, kan het aan zet blijven. Het heeft immers ook een grotere interne markt dan de overige blokken. China lijkt dan wel een reus, maar democratie staat er in de kinderschoenen en milieu problemen zullen het land de das om. Japan is vooralsnog bezig het hachje te redden. Het land blaast door zijn werkerscultuurtje en moderne industrie een deuntje mee, maar ontbeert nog altijd eigen delfstoffen en nabije strategische partners. Die afhankelijkheid maakt het verzoenbaar met de westerse alliantie. En Israël tenslotte bezorgt veel landen hoofdpijn. Het blijft een stressfactor in de regio, wat er ook van wordt.

quote:

Populair is inderdaad dat Rusland, China en Iran goed samen zouden kunnen. Maar India en Pakistan wisselen ook gewoon delfstoffen met Iran uit, dus hoezo alliantie? Dit is strikt naar olie toegerekend. Olie is niet een delfstof voor de toekomst.

quote:

_{en in het hele plaatje komt Afrika weer niet voor, nog steeds te oninteressant om in te gaan vechten}

quote:

"The Federal Reserve’s greatest nightmare is that OPEC will switch its international transactions
from a dollar standard to a euro standard. Iraq actually made this switch in Nov. 2000 (when the euro was worth around 82 cents), and has actually made off like a bandit considering the dollar’s steady depreciation against the euro. (Note: the dollar declined 17% against the euro in 2002.)"

"The real reason the Bush administration wants a puppet government in Iraq -- or more importantly, the reason why the corporate-military-industrial network conglomerate wants a puppet government in Iraq -- is so that it will revert back to a dollar standard and stay that way." (While also hoping to veto any wider OPEC momentum towards the euro, especially from Iran -- the 2nd largest OPEC producer who is actively discussing a switch to euros for its oil exports)."

quote:

"Saddam sealed his fate when he decided to switch to the euro in late 2000 (and later converted his $10 billion reserve fund at the U.N. to euros) -- at that point, another manufactured Gulf War become inevitable under Bush II. Only the most extreme circumstances could possibly stop that now and I strongly doubt anything can -- short of Saddam getting replaced with a pliant regime."

"Big Picture Perspective: Everything else aside from the reserve currency and the Saudi/Iran oil issues (i.e. domestic political issues and international criticism) is peripheral and of marginal consequence to this administration. Further, the dollar-euro threat is powerful enough that they will rather risk much of the economic backlash in the short-term to stave off the long-term dollar crash of an OPEC transaction standard change from dollars to euros. All of this fits into the broader Great Game that encompasses Russia, India, China."

quote:

"Otherwise, the effect of an OPEC switch to the euro would be that oil-consuming nations would have to flush dollars out of their (central bank) reserve funds and replace these with euros. The dollar would crash anywhere from 20-40% in value and the consequences would be those one could expect from any currency collapse and massive inflation (think Argentina currency crisis, for example). You’d have foreign funds stream out of the U.S. stock markets and dollar denominated assets, there’d surely be a run on the banks much like the 1930s, the current account deficit would become unserviceable, the budget deficit would go into default, and so on. Your basic 3rd world economic crisis scenario. "

"The United States economy is intimately tied to the dollar’s role as reserve currency. This
doesn’t mean that the U.S. couldn’t function otherwise, but that the transition would have to be
gradual to avoid such dislocations (and the ultimate result of this would probably be the U.S. and
the E.U. switching roles in the global economy)."

quote:

"A new world is being created. Ironically, the most troublesome clash of civilizations in it may not
be the one the academics expected: not Islamic fundamentalists vs. the West in the first instance,
but the United States against Europe.

To oversimplify, but only slightly, it’s the dollar vs. the euro.

. . . The Europeans and the United Nations want the inspections regime to resume because as long
as it is in place, the U.N. "oil-for-food" program remains in effect. Not only does France benefit
directly-its banks hold the deposits and its companies have been involved in the oil sales-the
entire EU does as well, if for no other reason than many of the recent sales were counted not in
dollars but in euros. The United Nations benefits because it has collected more than a billion
dollars in fees for administering the program. As long as the 1990 sanctions remain in effect, Iraq
can’t "legally" sell its oil on the world market. At least, to this point, tankers won’t load it without
U.N. permission, because they can’t get insurance for doing so.

Sometime in the next few weeks, push will come to shove. There are storage tanks full of Iraqi
crude waiting in Turkish ports. For now, Rumsfeld and Powell are playing "bad cop, bad cop."
"This isn’t on the president’s radar screen right now," an aide told me. "Powell is totally on board,
though. He is as angry at the French as anyone else, maybe more. There may come a time when
the smart thing to do is turn the whole Iraq situation over to the U.N. This is not that time."
Meanwhile, if the rest of the world tries to block any and all Iraq oil sales, it’s possible that American companies will find a way to become the customer of first and last resort.

And we’ll pay in dollars."

- "In Round 2, it’s the dollar vs. euro," Newsweek, April 23, 2003

quote:

"The tender, for which bids are due by June 10, switches the transaction back to dollars -- the international currency of oil sales -- despite the greenback’s recent fall in value.

Saddam Hussein in 2000 insisted Iraq’s oil be sold for euros, a political move, but one that improved Iraq’s recent earnings thanks to the rise in the value of the euro against the dollar."

- Hoyos, Carol & Morrison, Kevin, "Iraq returns to international oil market," Financial Times, June 5, 2003

quote:

European Commentary on the Essay: ‘The Real Reasons for the Upcoming War With Iraq’

To finish, in January 2003, Mr. Coílín Nunan reviewed a draft of my essay on an Internet
forum. He subsequently published an exceptional summary on an Irish website
( www.feasta.org ). Hopefully our efforts will facilitate public awareness, and stimulate a
more honest debate on the Iraq issues. Below are excerpts from his informative article "Oil, Currency, and the War on Iraq."

"One of the stated economic objectives, and perhaps the primary objective, when setting up the
euro was to turn it into a reserve currency to challenge the dollar so that Europe too could get
something for nothing.

"This however would be a disaster for the US. Not only would they lose a large part of their
annual subsidy of effectively free goods and services, but countries switching to euro reserves
from dollar reserves would bring down the value of the US currency. Imports would start to cost
Americans a lot more and as increasing numbers of those holding dollars began to spend them,
the US would have to start paying its debts by supplying in goods and services to foreign
countries, thus reducing American living standards. As countries and businesses converted their
dollar assets into euro assets, the US property and stock market bubbles would, without doubt,
burst. The Federal Reserve would no longer be able to print more money to reflate the bubble, as
it is currently openly considering doing, because, without lots of eager foreigners prepared to
mop them up, a serious inflation would result which, in turn, would make foreigners even more
reluctant to hold the US currency and thus heighten the crisis.

"There is though one major obstacle to this happening: oil. Oil is not just by far the most
important commodity traded internationally, it is the lifeblood of all modern industrialised
economies. If you don’t have oil, you have to buy it. And if you want to buy oil on the
international markets, you usually have to have dollars. Until recently all OPEC countries agreed
to sell their oil for dollars only. So long as this remained the case, the euro was unlikely to
become the major reserve currency: there is not a lot of point in stockpiling euros if every time
you need to buy oil you have to change them into dollars. This arrangement also meant that the
US effectively part-controlled the entire world oil market: you could only buy oil if you had
dollars, and only one country had the right to print dollars -- the US.

"If on the other hand OPEC were to decide to accept euros only for its oil (assuming for a
moment it were allowed to make this decision), then American economic dominance would be
over. Not only would Europe not need as many dollars anymore, but Japan which imports over
80% of its oil from the Middle East would think it wise to convert a large portion of its dollar
assets to euro assets (Japan is the major subsidizer of the US because it holds so many dollar
investments). The US on the other hand, being the world’s largest oil importer would have, to run
a trade surplus to acquire euros. The conversion from trade deficit to trade surplus would have to
be achieved at a time when its property and stock market prices were collapsing and its domestic
supplies of oil and gas were contracting. It would be a very painful conversion.

"The purely economic arguments for OPEC converting to the euro, at least for a while, seem very
strong. The Euro-zone does not run a huge trade deficit nor is it heavily indebted to the rest of the
world like the US and interest rates in the Euro-zone are also significantly higher. The Euro-zone
has a larger share of world trade than the US and is the Middle East’s main trading partner. And
nearly everything you can buy for dollars you can also buy for euros -- apart, of course, from oil .
. .
"All of this is bad news for the US economy and the dollar. The fear for Washington will be that
not only will the future price of oil not be right, but the currency might not be right either. Which
perhaps helps explain why the US is increasingly turning to its second major tool for dominating
world affairs: military force."

quote:

The Anglo-American Military Axis

by Michel Chossudovsky

Euro versus Dollar: Rivalry Between Competing Financial Conglomerates

The European common currency system has a direct bearing on strategic and political divisions. London’s decision not to adopt the common European currency is consistent with the integration of British financial and banking interests with those of Wall Street, not to mention the Anglo-American alliance in the oil industry (as in BP-Amoco) and weapons production ("Big Five" plus BAES). In other words, this shaky relationship between the British pound and the US dollar is an integral part of the new Anglo-American axis.

What is at stake is the rivalry between two competing global currencies: the Euro and the U.S. dollar, with Britain’s pound being torn between the European and the U.S.-dominated currency systems. In other words, two rival financial and monetary systems are competing worldwide for the control over money creation and credit. The geopolitical and strategic implications are far-reaching because they are also marked by splits in the Western defence industry and the oil business.

In both Europe and America, monetary policy, although formally under State jurisdiction, is largely controlled by the private banking sector. The European Central Bank based in Frankfurt — although officially under the jurisdiction of the European Union — is, in practice, overseen by a handful of private European banks including Germany’s largest banks and business conglomerates.

The U.S. Federal Reserve Board is formally under State supervision — marked by a close relationship to the U.S. Treasury. Distinct from the European Central Bank, the 12 Federal Reserve banks (of which the Federal Reserve Bank of New York is the most important) are controlled by their shareholders, which are private banking institutions. In other words, "the Fed" as it is known in the U.S., which is responsible for monetary policy and hence money creation for the nation, is actually controlled by private interests on Wall Street.


Currency Systems and ‘Economic Conquest’

In Eastern Europe, the former Soviet Union the Balkans extending into Central Asia, the dollar and the Euro are competing with one another. Ultimately, control over national currency systems is the basis upon which countries are colonized. While the U.S. dollar prevails throughout the Western Hemisphere, the Euro and the U.S. dollar are clashing in the former Soviet Union, Central Asia, Sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle East.

In the Balkans and the Baltic States, central banks largely operate as colonial style "currency boards" invariably using the Euro as a proxy currency. What this means is: German and European financial interests are in control of money creation and credit. That is, the pegging of the national currency to the Euro — rather than to the U.S. dollar — means that both the currency and the monetary system will be in the hands of German-EU banking interests.

More generally, the Euro dominates in Germany’s hinterland: Eastern Europe, the Baltic States and the Balkans, whereas the U.S. dollar tends to prevail in the Caucasus and Central Asia. In GUUAM countries (which have military cooperation agreements with Washington) the dollar tends (with the exception of the Ukraine) to overshadow the Euro.

The ‘Dollarisation’ of national currencies is an integral part of America’s Silk Road Strategy (SRS). The latter consists in first destabilizing and then replacing national currencies with the American greenback over an area extending from the Mediterranean to China’s Western border. The underlying objective is to extend the dominion of the Federal Reserve System — namely, Wall Street — over a vast territory.

What we are dealing with is an ‘imperial’ scramble for control over national currencies. Control over money creation and credit is an integral part of the process of economic conquest, which is in turn supported by the militarisation of Eurasian corridor.

While American and German-EU banking interests are clashing over the control of national economies and currency systems, they seem to have also agreed on "sharing the spoils" — i.e. establishing their respective "spheres of influence." Reminiscent of the policies of ‘partition’ in the late 19th Century, the U.S. and Germany have agreed upon the division of the Balkans: Germany has gained control over national currencies in Croatia, Bosnia and Kosovo where the Euro is legal tender. In return, the U.S. has established a permanent military presence in the region (i.e. the Bondsteel military base in Kosovo).

Bron: http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO303B.html

quote:

Op woensdag 4 januari 2006 01:07 schreef okee6 het volgende:

Onzin. Die fossiele brandstoffen zijn lang zo belangrijk niet meer als vroeger. De importantie is er thans enkel dankzij de expansiedrift in China.

[knip]

Men is er het stilletjes over eens dat op korte termijn kernenergie (rijke landen) en biobrandstoffen (armere landen) een oplossing moeten vormen. Naar gelang de urgentie zal men meer gaan investeren in kernfusie. En ik vertrouw er op dat als de olie en gas voorraden eenmaal substantieel slinken, we ook wel in de kosmos zullen rond gaan snuffelen naar alternatieve bronnen en methoden.
[..]

België en Frankrijk mogen daar toch maar al te vaak de eigen rommel opruimen