De ware aard van de oorlog tegen het terrorisme...

quote:

Introduction

Energy and resource issues will continue to be a factor in U.S. security policy and defense
planning. Most likely, the United States will not be required to employ military forces in order to secure access to resources. However, U.S. forces may be required for broader purposes, as was the case in the Persian Gulf War, 1990–91. Some specific energy and resource problems could exacerbate regional political tensions, potentially causing military conflicts in key areas, such as the Persian Gulf. In the coming years, 40 to 65 percent of the world’s oil will come from the Persian Gulf, a region infected by political instability and anti-Western attitudes.

U.S. forces might be used to ensure adequate supplies for Western democracies. This would include securing lines of communication to key oil and gas fields or protecting vulnerable countries with large resource reserves from attack. U.S. forces might also be used to counter rogue governments with sufficient oil revenues to acquire weapons of mass destruction. Help from allies and partners will be important in guaranteeing energy security and deterring regional conflicts.


Special Concerns

- Key energy and resource producers lacking powerful military forces or entrenched governments may be vulnerable to aggression. Rogue regimes may be tempted to steal from resource-rich neighbors through blackmail, raids, or territorial conquest. The Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries are obvious candidates.

- If anti-Western regimes can disrupt supplies and threaten economic pain, they might try to coerce the West into supporting their agendas.

- Major powers dependent on imports, especially from unstable regions, might independently attempt to ensure access to resources rather than participate in a cooperative security effort. Such independence could take the form of policies that work against cooperative security efforts. A potential example would be Chinese military cooperation with Gulf rogues.

quote:

Energy Security

The Persian Gulf will remain vital to world energy supplies. This is a concern, because the Gulf has many security problems. The GCC monarchies face serious domestic problems, including anti-Western radical Islamists. Historically, rogue regimes in the region have been inclined to act aggressively toward their neighbors. Growing oil revenues may enable rogue regimes to build weapons of mass destruction and conventional capabilities.

Where Gulf oil is sold is irrelevant. Disruption of Gulf oil would require speedy reallocations and raise oil prices for all consumers around the world. Additionally, the United States is committed to pooling its oil with other industrial democracies. Thus, such a disruption would hit the America hard, even if all U.S. oil comes from the Western Hemisphere.

quote:

U.S. Interests

Energy and resource issues will not cause global war in the foreseeable future. However,
they may create local crises and require military deployments. U.S. forces may intervene in future crises and wars in the Persian Gulf. Energy dynamics will dictate that U.S. forces play a major role in Persian Gulf security. They will also continue to help secure sea lines of communication from the Persian Gulf, especially to East Asia.

quote:

Assuring Energy Security

The industrial democracies have a vital interest in maintaining ready access to stable and reasonably priced energy supplies. The United States seeks the following conditions regarding
energy security:
- A variety of energy alternatives available from a number of sources
- Market forces, rather than political factors, determining energy availability.

Western countries cannot rely entirely on energy from within, because low-cost Middle
Eastern oil is vital to holding down transportation costs. To assure energy security, the U.S. Government has to do more than promote the role of market forces regarding energy. It must also provide a security guarantee for the Persian Gulf, the world’s key energy region.

quote:

Hedging Against an Oil Supply Shock

Military planning is based on two implicit assumptions regarding any oil supply shock:
first, any shortfall will be alleviated through increased output elsewhere, substitution of other fuels, or conservation. The second assumption is that military forces will respond fast enough to enable production to be restored before the Strategic Petroleum Reserves runs out.

During the 1970s and 1980s, the United States developed a variety of policies to hedge against an oil supply shock. The challenge is to adapt these policies to the very different conditions of the 21st century. Supply shocks can impose real economic pain. The oil price shocks of 1973–74 and 1979–80 sent the world economy into recessions, causing reductions in the U.S. GDP on the order of 2 percent for a couple years. If a similar shock occurred today, it would mean a loss of $300 billion in potential output. Preventing such a shock depends on a combination of policies that would foster quick expansion of output, energy conservation, and the substitution of other fuels.

quote:

Conclusion

In the coming decade, worldwide supplies of energy and resources are likely to be ample, with prices little higher than today. Even so, energy, resource, and environmental problems
could contribute to security tensions. A variety of pessimistic scenarios can be imagined that are plausible, even if improbable. The most likely scenario is a continuation of present trends with no major change. If so, Gulf security responsibilities will fall primarily on the United States, which will maintain a sufficiently robust commitment to deter regional aggression.
The other major powers, including China, are likely to do little to advance or complicate global energy security.

Energy and resource issues will continue to be key concerns of U.S. national security policy in the coming years.

quote:

Op vrijdag 27 april 2007 17:04 schreef Viajero het volgende:

Dat meen je niet. Geloof je dat echt? Dat een stelletje religieuze fanaten in een van de armste landen ter wereld ook maar enige invloed hebben op de economie van de VS?
[..]

quote:

Oliemarkt stevent af op nieuwe crisis
Relatie Opec en Westen onder druk

KAREL BECKMAN

AMSTERDAM - In de tweede helft van het jaar dreigt een olietekort met nieuwe prijspieken. Dit komt met name doordat oliekartel Opec stelselmatig weigert zijn productie te verhogen.

Die waarschuwing liet het Internationale Energie-Agentschap (IEA) dinsdag in Parijs horen. 'De wereld heeft absoluut meer olie nodig', zei een woordvoerder.

Het IEA, onderdeel van de Oeso, de organisatie van westerse industrielanden, riep de organisatie van olie-exporterende landen op om de productie te verhogen, maar kreeg gisteren nul op het rekest. 'Wij zien daar geen enkele reden toe', reageert een woordvoerder van Opec in Wenen. 'Wij zien geen tekort.'

De olieprijs is sinds januari met $ 20 per vat gestegen naar bijna $ 70. Het IEA is bang dat de markt nog krapper zal worden. Het verhoogde dinsdag zijn verwachtingen voor de vraag in 2007 met 2%.

'Als Opec niet meer gaat pompen, zullen de voorraden scherp teruglopen. Dat betekent kans op prijspieken en grote schommelingen in de prijs', aldus het IEA.

Analisten constateren dat de relatie tussen Opec en het Westen verslechtert. Het kartel dreigde onlangs zelfs met een productieverlaging omdat westerse landen massaal biobrandstoffen ontwikkelen.

'De uitspraken van Opec worden steeds harder van toon', zegt Cyril Widdershoven, 'principal consultant' van Capgemini . 'De toenaderingspogingen die er waren, zijn voorbij.' Volgens Widdershoven komt dat doordat Opec het Westen niet meer nodig heeft. 'Haar markt ligt steeds meer in het oosten.'

Volgens Widdershoven is het echter ook niet ondenkbaar dat Saudi-Arabië, de grootste producent binnen Opec, met capaciteitsproblemen kampt. De Saudische olieproductie is in twee jaar tijd met 2 miljoen vaten gedaald naar 8,5 miljoen vaten per dag. 'Er zijn steeds meer analyses die erop wijzen dat de olieproductie van een aantal grote Saudische velden terugloopt. Gezien de stijgende vraag, zou dat betekenen dat er een structureel tekort ontstaat op de oliemarkt.'

Noé van Hulst, strategiedirecteur van de IEA, gelooft niet dat Saudi-Arabië problemen heeft. 'Wij maken ons meer zorgen om het gebrek aan investeringen in Rusland.'

Andris Piebalgs, eurocommissaris van energie, pleitte dinsdag in Riga voor 'energiesolidariteit' tussen de EU-lidstaten. Hij zei dat de EU een onderhandelaar moet aanstellen om samen contracten te sluiten met energieleveranciers.

Copyright (c) 2007 Het Financieele Dagblad

Bron: http://www.fd.nl/ShowKrantArtikel.asp?KrantArtikelId=576795

quote:

CFR: Strategic Energy Policy: Challenges for the 21st Century (2001)

Early in the Bush presidency the influential Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) had joined with the James A Baker III Institute for Public Policy to draft an energy proposal for the new administration.

'Strategic Energy Policy Challenges for the 21st Century' was the result. It forecast critical energy shortages unless oil and gas production was substantively boosted or conservation measures pursued, calling upon the administration to admit ''these agonising truths to the American people''.

The report also saw both Caspian and Iraqi oil as answers to the projected crisis, additionally citing the possible need for ''military intervention'' to secure energy supplies.

Bronnen:
http://www.cfr.org/publication/3943/strategic_energy_policy.html
http://www.cfr.org/public(...)he_21st_century.html

Update:
http://www.cfr.org/public(...)y_policy_update.html

Rapport:
CFR - Strategic Energy Policy Challenges for the 21st Century.pdf
CFR - Strategic Energy Policy Update.pdf

quote:

The west's battle for oil; Five months before September 11, the US advocated using force against Iraq to secure control of its oil.

Sunday Herald, Oct 6, 2002 by Neil Mackay


IT is a document that fundamentally questions the motives behind the Bush administration's desire to take out Saddam Hussein and go to war with Iraq.

Strategic Energy Policy Challenges For The 21st Century describes how America is facing the biggest energy crisis in its history. It targets Saddam as a threat to American interests because of his control of Iraqi oilfields and recommends the use of "military intervention" as a means to fix the US energy crisis.

The report is linked to a veritable who's who of US hawks, oilmen and corporate bigwigs. It was commissioned by James Baker, the former US Secretary of State under George Bush Snr, and submitted to Vice- President Dick Cheney in April 2001 - a full five months before September 11. Yet it advocates a policy of using military force against an enemy such as Iraq to secure US access to, and control of, Middle Eastern oil fields.

One of the most telling passages in the document reads: "Iraq remains a destabilising influence to the flow of oil to international markets from the Middle East. Saddam Hussein has also demonstrated a willingness to threaten to use the oil weapon and to use his own export programme to manipulate oil markets.

"This would display his personal power, enhance his image as a pan- Arab leader and pressure others for a lifting of economic sanctions against his regime. The United States should conduct an immediate policy review toward Iraq including military, energy, economic and political/diplomatic assessments.

[...]

The document also points out that "the United States remains a prisoner of its energy dilemma", and that one of the "consequences" of this is a "need for military intervention".

Meer...

http://findarticles.com/p(...)0021006/ai_n12580278

quote:

The Cheney Energy Task Force (2001)

A review and analysis of the proceedings leading to the Bush administration's formulation of its May 2001 energy policy.

In the spring of 2002, under order from a federal judge, the U.S. Department of Energy released to NRDC roughly 13,500 pages relating to previously secret proceedings of the Bush administration's energy task force. (President Bush formed the task force in early 2001 to develop a national energy policy, with Vice President Cheney at the helm.) Even though the government heavily censored the documents before supplying them to NRDC, they reveal that Bush administration officials sought extensive advice from utility companies and the oil, gas, coal and nuclear energy industries, and incorporated their recommendations, often word for word, into the energy plan.

Bron: http://www.nrdc.org/air/energy/taskforce/tfinx.asp

Uiteindelijk vrijgegeven rapport: National Energy Policy.pdf

quote:

CFR: Independent Task Force on Energy and U.S. Foreign Policy (2006)

The Council on Foreign Relations established an Independent Task Force to examine the consequences of dependence on imported energy for U.S. foreign policy. Since the United States both consumes and imports more oil than any other country, the Task Force has concentrated its deliberations on matters of petroleum. In so doing, it reaches a sobering but inescapable judgment: The lack of sustained attention to energy issues is undercutting U.S. foreign policy and national security.

The Task Force goes on to argue that U.S. energy policy has been plagued by myths, such as the feasibility of achieving “energy independence” through increased drilling or anything else. For the next few decades, the challenge facing the United States is to become better equipped to manage its dependencies rather than pursue the chimera of independence.

The issues at stake intimately affect U.S. foreign policy, as well as the strength of the American economy and the state of the global environment. But most of the leverage potentially available to the United States is through domestic policy. Thus the Independent Task Force devotes considerable attention to how oil consumption (or at least the growth in consumption) can be reduced, and why and how energy issues must become better integrated with other aspects of U.S. foreign policy.

Bron: http://www.cfr.org/publication/11683/

Rapport:
National Security Consequences of U.S. Oil Dependency.pdf

Video:
National Security Consequences of U.S. Oil Dependency (Video)

quote:

'Australië blijft mede om olie in Irak'
Uitgegeven: 5 juli 2007 13:45

AMSTERDAM - De Australische minister van defensie, Brendan Nelson, heeft donderdag gezegd dat bescherming van de Iraakse olievoorraden een van de overwegingen van de regering is om troepen in Irak te houden. Hij werd onmiddellijk terechtgewezen door premier John Howard.

"We blijven niet in Irak voor de olie en we zijn er niet naartoe gegaan voor de olie", zei Howard in een radiointerview. "De reden dat wij daar blijven is dat we de bevolking van Irak de mogelijkheid willen bieden democratie te aanvaarden."

Nelsons noemde eerder donderdag allerlei redenen voor het Australische besluit om in Irak te blijven, met als voornaamste het voorkomen van een door Al-Qaeda geholpen burgeroorlog tussen sjiieten en soennieten.

Energie

Hij wees er tenslotte op dat niet alleen Irak, maar het hele Midden-Oosten, een belangrijke energieleverancier is voor de rest van de wereld. "Australiërs moeten eens bedenken wat er zou gebeuren bij een premature terugtrekking uit Irak", zei hij.

De opmerking is koren op de molen van de tegenstanders van de oorlog in Irak, die altijd al hebben gezegd dat de Amerikaanse invasie van 2003 eerder om de Iraakse olie begonnen was dan om de - niet bestaande - massavernietigingswapens van Saddam Hussein te vinden.

Bron: http://www.nu.nl/news/114(...)olie_in_Irak%27.html

quote:

Op donderdag 5 juli 2007 16:48 schreef BaajGuardian het volgende:
Ik ben altijd van mening geweest dat de mensen die in tru en nu bnw komen juist vaak al overstag zijn gegaan met het dieper in zaakjes kijken, juist in nws hangt het koffietafel volk rond.

quote:

Op donderdag 5 juli 2007 17:32 schreef Boswachtertje het volgende:
Ik heb even het topic doorgebladerd en ik moet zeggen hulde Open Your Mind!
Zeer interessant topic.

Ik denk zelf dat er nog een fundamenteel onderdeel van de puzzel onderbelicht is, namelijk onze vrijheid. Olie, macht en geld zijn middelen tot werelddominantie - en ik vraag me altijd af of alle betrokken partijen wel daadwerkelijk tegenover elkaar staan. Maar het doel is en blijft m.i. om ons te gebruiken om hun agenda uit te voeren, wat dat ook moge zijn.
Ik ben zelf van mening dat het meest fundamentele wat de mens heeft (lees: kan bereiken na langdurig en zorgvuldig zelfonderzoek) absolute vrijheid zonder beperking is. En dan niet de vrijheid dat je alles maar mag doen en laten wat je wil, aangezien er tijdens het proces van zelfonderzoek veel aan het licht komt wat die vrijheid tegengaat. En daar vallen m.i. de lagere lusten oorlog, geweld en macht onder. De ware vrijheid kent deze elementen niet.

Ik ben dus van mening dat zolang wij ons enkel bezig houden met de economische en politieke gevolgen, de machthebbers ons altijd een stap voor zullen blijven. Ik ga er bijvoorbeeld op energiegebied van uit dat er al lang voldoende kennis is om olie, kolen en nucleaire brandstof te vervangen.

Maar tot de tijd is gekomen dat er grote veranderingen gaan plaatsvinden, is het zeer zeker goed om op de hoogte te blijven van alle plannen/gebeurtenissen/belangen etc..

_{mijn excuses als het offtopic is/overkomt}

quote:

IEA waarschuwt voor olietekort

www.nu.nl

AMSTERDAM - Het Internationaal Energie Agentschap (IEA) waarschuwt voor een wereldwijd olie- en gastekort over vijf jaar, omdat de vraag sneller stijgt dan verwacht en het aanbod achterblijft.

De IEA baseert zijn voorspellingen op een jaarlijkse stijging van de vraag naar olie van 2,2 procent.

Natixis-analist Theirry Lefrancois voorspelt dat als de vraag met meer dan 2 procent per jaar stijgt, er een grote oliecrisis ontstaat.

Bron: http://www.nu.nl/news/114(...)voor_olietekort.html

quote:

IEA verwacht blijvende krapte op de oliemarkt

www.peakoil.nl

“De vraag naar olie en afgeleide producten stijgt de komende vijf jaar harder dan het aanbod. Vooral na 2009 wordt de oliemarkt krap, aldus het Internationaal Energie Agentschap (IEA) maandag in een rapport. Het IEA is een adviesorgaan van 26 industrielanden van de Organisatie voor Economische Samenwerking en Ontwikkeling, OESO.”

Aldus de ANP over de gisteren gepubliceerde medium term oil market outlook van het Internationaal Energie Agentschap. Het IEA brengt elk jaar een dergelijke rapportage uit waarin de oliemarkt tot 2012 onder de loep wordt genomen. In vergelijking met de vorige rapportage verwacht het agentschap 1 miljoen vaten minder aan productiestijging vanuit de non-OPEC landen. Het huidige scenario neemt aan dat deze stijgt van 50 miljoen vaten per dag in 2007 naar 52.5 miljoen vaten per dag in 2012. Tegelijkertijd verwacht men een veel hogere consumptiedruk, in totaal schat men de toename in de vraag naar aardolie in op bijna 10 miljoen vaten in de komende vijf jaar.





Om tegemoet te komen aan de groeiende vraag zal OPEC haar productie toe moeten laten nemen met 7 miljoen vaten per dag. Het IEA neemt aan dat dit mogelijk is, maar wel voor een krapte op de markt zal zorgen doordat de reservecapaciteit van OPEC een dieptepunt bereikt. Zij denkt dat van de 7 miljoen er in totaal 2 miljoen zullen komen vanuit onconventionele aardolieproductie binnen OPEC en 5 miljoen vanuit conventionele aardolieproductie. Centraal in het scenario staat Saoedi-Arabië waar men aanneemt dat de conventionele aardolieproductie met 1.77 miljoen vaten per dag kan toenemen.





Bron: http://www.peakoil.nl/?p=1450#more-1450

quote:

De Financiele Telegraaf

’Vraag naar olie stijgt sterker dan aanbod’

09 Jul 07, 14:36

PARIJS/LONDEN (ANP-AFX) - De vraag naar olie en afgeleide producten stijgt de komende vijf jaar harder dan het aanbod. Vooral na 2009 wordt de oliemarkt krap, aldus het Internationaal Energie Agentschap (IEA) maandag in een rapport.

Het IEA is een adviesorgaan van 26 industrielanden van de Organisatie voor Economische Samenwerking en Ontwikkeling, OESO. Volgens het IEA zal tot 2012 de vraag naar olie jaarlijks met 2,2 procent stijgen, vooral door de vraag vanuit Azië en het Midden-Oosten. Het aanbod van olie door landen die niet zijn aangesloten bij de organisatie van olie-exporterende landen (OPEC) zal in die periode slechts met 1 procent per jaar stijgen.

De OPEC zelf zal de toegenomen vraag aankunnen, maar de productiereserves van de OPEC-landen zullen wel dalen. De grootte van de reserves is voor een belangrijk deel bepalend voor de prijzen van olie. Volgens het IEA zal de reserve van de OPEC in 2009 al met 2 miljoen vaten per dag zijn geslonken. Het IEA gaat in zijn berekening uit van een groei van de wereldeconomie van ongeveer 4,5 procent. Als dit cijfer lager uitvalt, zal dit volgens het agentschap slechts een klein effect hebben op de vraag naar olie.

Het IEA voorziet wel een sterke groei van de biobrandstoffen. Het aanbod daarvan zal de komende twee jaar al met 50 procent stijgen. Maar in 2012 zullen de biobrandstoffen nog steeds slechts 2 procent van het totale aanbod van brandstof uitmaken.

Bron: http://www.dft.nl/nieuws/(...)n_aanbod_rsquo_.html

quote:

U.S. Mulled Seizing Oil Fields In '73

Originele link (werkt niet meer)
http://www.washingtonpost(...)46321-2003Dec31.html

British Memo Cites Notion of Sending Airborne to Mideast

By Glenn Frankel
Washington Post Foreign Service
Thursday, January 1, 2004; Page A01

LONDON, Dec. 31 -- The United States gave serious consideration to sending airborne troops to seize oil fields in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Abu Dhabi during the 1973 Arab oil embargo, according to a top-secret British intelligence memorandum released Wednesday night.

The document, titled "Middle East -- Possible Use of Force by the United States," says that if there were deteriorating conditions such as a breakdown of the cease-fire between Arab and Israeli forces following the October 1973 Middle East war or an intensification of the embargo, "we believe the American preference would be for a rapid operation conducted by themselves" to seize the oil fields.

It cites a warning from Defense Secretary James R. Schlesinger to the British ambassador in Washington, Lord Cromer, that the United States would not tolerate threats from "under-developed, under-populated" countries and that "it was no longer obvious to him that the United States could not use force."

Seizure of the oil fields, the memo says, was "the possibility uppermost in American thinking [and] has been reflected, we believe, in their contingency planning."

The document, dated Dec. 13, 1973, and sent to Prime Minister Edward Heath by Percy Cradock, head of Britain's Joint Intelligence Committee, goes on to discuss the likely scenario for an American invasion, how Britain could assist the United States and how Arab nations and the Soviet Union were likely to respond.

Arab members of OPEC imposed the embargo on the United States and other Western countries in October to try to force them to compel Israel to withdraw from Arab territories. The embargo, which lasted until March 1974, cut off only 13 percent of U.S. oil imports but caused steep gasoline price hikes in the United States, Europe and Japan.

U.S. officials at the time hinted that retaliation was possible but did not describe the form it might take. At a news conference on Nov. 21, 1973, Secretary of State Henry A. Kissinger declared: "It is clear that if pressures continue unreasonably and indefinitely, then the United States will have to consider what countermeasures it may have to take."

In his memoir "Years of Upheaval," Kissinger added, "These were not empty threats. I ordered a number of studies from the key departments on countermeasures against Arab members of OPEC if the embargo continued. By the end of the month, several contingency studies had been completed."

Neither Kissinger nor Schlesinger, contacted through aides, responded to requests for comment.

The British document -- one of hundreds released by Britain's National Archives in an annual disclosure of government papers that are 30 years old -- goes beyond previous accounts in describing what the countermeasures might have been. It assesses as unworkable such options as replacement of Arab rulers with "more amenable" leaders or assembling a show of force. Instead, it describes an airborne military operation as the most feasible alternative, although "a move of last resort."

"The initial force need not be large," the document states, adding, "We estimate that the force required for the initial operation would be on the order of two brigades, one for the Saudi operation, one for Kuwait and possibly a third for Abu Dhabi." After the initial assault, it adds, "the remainder of the force which might eventually amount to two divisions could be flown in from the United States."

"The area would have to be securely held probably for a period of some 10 years," it concludes.

In Saudi Arabia, it says, "the operation could be fairly straightforward," with U.S. forces facing only a "lightly armed national guard battalion at Dharan" and a U.S.-made Hawk surface-to-air-missile battery. In Kuwait, it says, "operational problems are greater" because the Kuwaitis had stationed about 100 tanks near the airport. While the Saudis and Kuwaitis might attempt to sabotage oil wells and terminals, the memo concludes, oil could be flowing within weeks of occupation.

One complication, it notes, was that British officers were stationed in Abu Dhabi. "For this reason alone the Americans might ask the U.K. to undertake this particular operation," it says.

The document notes that military action could trigger a confrontation with the Soviet Union, lead to a long occupation of Arab territory and deeply alienate Arab and Third World public opinion. But it discounted the possibility that the Soviet Union would use military force against a U.S. invasion, saying it would seek instead to make political and propaganda capital from the move.

"The greatest risk of such confrontation in the Gulf would probably arise in Kuwait where the Iraqis, with Soviet backing, might be tempted to intervene," it says, presaging Iraqi President Saddam Hussein's 1990 invasion of Kuwait.

meer...

Bron: http://www.16beavergroup.org/mtarchive/archives/000711.php

quote:

PBS - A chronology of the House of Saud

In Oct. 1973, another Arab-Israeli war breaks out. Despite growing tensions, the Arab attack on Israel comes as a surprise. In the first day, Egyptian and Syrian armies gain considerable ground.

In the midst of the war, the U.S. airlifts supplies to Israel. The Arab League pressures Faisal for an oil boycott and Faisal acts, ordering Aramco to stop pumping. With Saudi oil kept off the market, world oil prices quadruple. President Nixon sends Secretary of State Henry Kissinger on an urgent mission to meet with Faisal. The Pentagon begins considering military options. Kissinger says oil is a national security priority, and if necessary, the U.S. will intervene militarily.

With the oil embargo having a major impact on the war in Vietnam, a secret solution is devised: King Faisal agrees to arrange for Saudi oil to be covertly supplied to the U.S. Navy. The oil embargo officially ends in 1974.

bron: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/saud/cron/

quote:

Iran 'biggest threat to Mid-East'

Ms Rice says Iran, not the US is the region's main problem
US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has warned that Iran poses the biggest threat to US Middle East interests, as she begins a major regional tour.

The tour is aimed at uniting US allies against Iran, Syria and Hezbollah.

It is also trying to win support for a Mid-East peace conference planned for later this year, correspondents say.

Ms Rice held talks with Arab League Secretary General Amr Moussa, and Rice their said discussions included the situations in Iraq and Lebanon, and the prospects for a two-state solution for Israel and the Palestinians.

Ms Rice said the US was making sure its allies in the region were well protected after Iran accused the US of trying to spread fear and mistrust.

"The United States is determined to assure our allies that we are going to be reliable in helping them to meet their security needs. We have a lot of interests in common in this region: in the fight against terrorism and extremism; in protecting the gains of peace processes of the past and in extending those gains to peace processes of the future," she said.

During a stopover in Shannon, Ireland, Ms Rice told reporters: "There isn't a doubt, I think, that Iran constitutes the single most important, single-country challenge to... US interests in the Middle East and to the kind of Middle East that we want to see."

bron: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6923430.stm

quote:

Rice: U.S. military deals with Mideast promote stability

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The United States is cutting new arms and military assistance deals with Middle Eastern countries in an effort to counter terrorism and improve stability in the region, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Monday.

Rice, who made the announcement in advance of her visit to the region with Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, described the sales as "a renewed commitment to the security of our key strategic partners in the region."

In a written statement, Rice said the agreements involve Israel, Egypt and the Gulf states, including Saudi Arabia.

"This effort will help bolster forces of moderation and support a broader strategy to counter the negative influences of al Qaeda, Hezbollah, Syria and Iran," she said.

Rice said the "Gulf Security Dialogue" will help strengthen the countries' defense capabilities.

In addition, "we plan to initiate discussions with Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf states on a proposed package of military technologies that will help support their ability to secure peace and stability in the Gulf region," she said.

Rice said the United States will also move to conclude a 10-year, $30 billion military assistance agreement with Israel.

President Bush cited the announcement recently during Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's visit to Washington.

Discussions are also beginning with Egyptian government officials on a 10-year, $13 billion military assistance agreement, Rice said. "We plan to consult closely with Congress and our allies on the specifics of these agreements."

Under Secretary Nicholas Burns will travel to Israel and the region next month to finalize the agreements, then give Congress a proposed list of sales in September.

"We want to make sure countries can protect their own borders," he told reporters. "The majority of what we are planning are defensive systems and not offensive."

He said uncertainty over the needs of the countries involved make it impossible to put a dollar figure on the overall deal.

Burns said the sales to Saudi Arabia are in the U.S. interest because they serve to keep stability in the region.

During his weekly Cabinet meeting in Jerusalem, Olmert said Monday that, under the proposed deal, military aid to Israel from the United States would grow by 25 percent over the coming decade.

"It will enable us to significantly strengthen the security establishment and to develop measures and systems that will provide responses to the threats we will face in the next decade," he said.

He added that the U.S. military aid to moderate Arab countries is being given on the precondition that the weapons will not be used against Israel.

News of the deal with Saudi Arabia broke last week in The New York Times.

On Saturday, a senior administration official confirmed to CNN that the United States is developing a $20 billion, 10-year arms sales package for Saudi Arabia aimed at giving the Saudi military an upgraded capability to counter Iranian aggression in the Persian Gulf region.

"This is all about Iran," said the official, who noted that the Bush administration is mindful at the same time that Israel must maintain its "qualitative edge" in the region.

Besides Saudi Arabia, other countries in discussion with the United States about arms sales include the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain and Oman, the official said.

bron: http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/07/30/mideast.USarms/

quote:

New force to guard Saudi oil facilities

By Andrew England, The Financial Times
Published: August 27, 2007, 23:06

Cairo: Saudi Arabia has begun setting up a new 35,000-strong specialised security force to protect its oil facilities from potential attacks.

The move underlines the kingdom's growing concern about the security of its installations in the face of threats from Al Qaida to attack oil facilities, and rising tensions between Iran and the US. There have been fears that military confrontation between Iran and Washington could provoke Tehran to retaliate against US interests across the Gulf, including in Saudi Arabia.

Recruitment for the security force began several months ago. It already has more than 5,000 personnel, who are being trained in the use of new surveillance equipment and crisis management under a programme managed by US defence group Lockheed Martin, a Saudi strategic affairs adviser has said. The training is part of a US government contract, according to the Nicosia-based Middle East Economic Survey, which first revealed that Lockheed was involved in training the force.

bron: http://archive.gulfnews.com/articles/07/08/28/10149549.html

quote:

Op dinsdag 4 september 2007 09:31 schreef Resonancer het volgende:

[..]

Duidelijker kan het bijna niet. Weet niet of je dit quotje al 's gepost hebt, ben al je posten nog steeds aan het lezen.


Quote:
Whoever controls Persian Gulf oil has a stanglehold on the world
Dick Cheney to Senate Armed Services Committe, 1990
http://zfacts.com/p/682.html

quote:

U.S. Senate Committee on Armed Services' hearings into the "Crisis in the Persian Gulf Region," chaired by Democratic Senator Sam Nunn, and dating from the Second Session of the 101st Congress, in late 1990.

The Senate Armed Services Committee hearings ran for five consecutive working days, November 27, 28, 29, 30, and December 3. Testimony was given by the Ford Administration’s Secretary of Defense, James Schlesinger (Nov. 27); by Nixon’s and Ford’s Secretary of State, Henry Kissinger (Nov. 28); by two former Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Air Force General David Jones and the Navy Admiral, William Crowe (Nov. 28); by the former Secretary of the Navy, James Webb (Nov. 29); by the then-former Assistance Secretary of Defense under Reagan, Richard Perle (Nov. 29); by the Center for Strategic and International Studies’ Edward Luttwak (Nov. 29); by Lieut. General William Odom, a former Director of the National Security Agency (Nov. 30); by Gary Milhollin, the Director of the Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control (Nov. 30); by William Graham, a "Star Wars" guru and former science adviser to the White House under Reagan (Nov. 30); by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace’s Leonard Spector (Nov. 30); and, last but not least, by the Bush Administration’s Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney, and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Colin Powell (Dec. 3).

The day after the hearings began, the UN Security Council adopted Resolution 678. This was the resolution that authorized Member States, "Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter,...to use all necessary means to uphold and implement Resolution 660 [August 2, 1990] and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area" (operative par. 2). Some 13 years later, both the Bush and Blair regimes repeatedly would refer to Resolution 678 in asserting the right to launch their war of aggression over the defenseless Iraq.

I am not sure what the very best passage from all of these tens-of-thousands of words of testimony was. But surely one candidate for the prize came from the then-Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney, who, on December 3, 1990, explained to the Senate and to the world what I believe to have been the core of the American position, then as much as it already had been for decades. As much as it remained straight through March 2003. And as much as it still remains today.

As Cheney explained the unchanging point of view of American Power (December 3, 1990):

What was new and different on August 2nd, Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, was that whereas before we had always assumed that in order to threaten our strategic interests in the area what was required was for someone to threaten Saudi Arabia, but on August 2nd it became clear that once Saddam Hussein had taken Kuwait and deployed the biggest army in the region, and the world's sixth largest army, and was unopposed, that there was no counterbalancing force there, that, in effect, he put himself in the position to dominate the Persian Gulf, to dominate the Middle East, and obviously also to put a choke hold on the world's economy.

The situation with respect to our strategic interest is vital in part because of energy, and there is a chart that I think captures, in my mind, what's significant about the Persian Gulf from the standpoint of oil. If you look at the chart there, you'll see outlined in blue the percentage of the world's proven oil reserves that reside in the Persian Gulf. Those are reserves that are proven out; that is, we know what's there, we've been able to measure it. But the fact is that if you include the reserves in Saudi Arabia, 28 percent, in Iraq and Kuwait, 22 percent, and in the other regions, the other nations of the Gulf, in the Emirates and in Iran, et cetera, you come up to in excess of 70 percent of the world's proven oil reserves reside in the Persian Gulf. As contrasted with some 3 percent in the United States, 6 percent in the Soviet Union.

There shouldn't be any doubt about the consequences of allowing a man like Saddam Hussein to control the world's supply of energy. Obviously, were he to do so, he'd have a choke hold on the world's economy, he would be able to control production levels and price, he'd be in a position to blackmail any nation which chose not to do his bidding.

One of the most significant concerns isn't just the fact that if he were to control the Gulf, that he would be able to affect production and price; one of the most significant questions that we have to ask is what he does with his oil wells. One of our concerns isn't just that he would control the resource, but rather that he would use the revenues derived therefrom in ways that would be threatening to the rest of the world. And we've got a pattern of experience to look at.

The fact, of course, is that Iraq is not a "have not" nation. It is potentially one of the world's richest nations. That Iraq itself possesses second only to Saudi Arabia oil reserves, proven oil reserves, some 11 percent of reserves. It currently has about 5 percent of production. Iraq's oil income last year was $20 billion. During the period of time in the 1980s that we look at what happened to the wealth that's flowed to that part of the world to pay for oil, we see in Saudi Arabia a nation that's used the riches to develop their own economy, improve the standard of living of their people; Kuwait invested $50 billion in the 1980s in economic investments around the world; and of course Iraq earning revenues roughly comparable to Kuwait, spent $50 billion on armaments in the 1980s. So at the end of the decade instead of a strong, healthy economy and a high standard of living for his people, Saddam Hussein had acquired one of the world's largest military arsenals -- thousands of tanks, ballistic missiles, chemical weapons, and had embarked upon programs to acquire biological and nuclear capability. That's what he's done with the wealth that he already possesses and it doesn't take a great leap of imagination to know what he would do were he to succeed in his current effort to hold Kuwait and to be the beneficiary of the enormous wealth that's represented in that part of the world.

bron: U.S. Congress, Senate, Committee on Armed Services, Crisis in the Persian Gulf Region: U.S. Policy Options and Implications, Hearings, 101st Congress, 2nd Session (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1990), pp. 10-13.

Mijn bronen: http://blogs.zmag.org/node/2818
en http://www.peakoil.net/iwood2003/paper/KlarePaper.doc

quote:

The people with the endless bios - An introduction to the world we live in

The basic premise of this article is that an old boys network of low-profile, privately-funded, and intelligence-ridden institutes exercise a huge amount of influence over local governments, the media, universities (science), and the policies of the multinational corporations (who fund these networks). The names of about 150 of these institutes have been listed in appendix A and about 1400 names plus biographies, ranging from the most complete available to very basic, are available in the different membership lists. A smaller list of globalist institutes are chronologically ordered in appendix B, together with the persons who founded them and some of the connections they had. Appendix C contains the genealogies of the Rothschild, Warburg, Rockefeller, and Morgan families, which might come in handy at times. A partial Cecil bloodline is also listed there, although that one has been compiled for a different reason.

Below you can see a simplified sketch of the network that will be discussed. At this point I consider The Pilgrims, Le Cercle, and the 1001 the umbrella organizations (don't take this to literally), because together they encompass all aspects of the globalist movement: the leadership of all the other private globalist institutes, Anglo-American business and banking, Paneuropean Catholic fanatics, multinationals worldwide, old blue blood family lines, Western and Middle-Eastern intelligence, the illegal arms trade (1), and the environmental movement. Taken together, there's little doubt these organizations form a privatized, permanent, and transnational government which exercises a huge amount of direct and indirect influence over many parts of the world. Additionally, there's also the question if there's a central core within this group that might set the policies, or if there's another, even more hidden group that really sets the agenda (largely a reference to rumors about the military-industrial complex). We just don't know at this point.

Voor het hele artikel klik hier

quote:

Below you can find a list of about 30 of the more important privately-funded globalist institutions which have been established either by Pilgrims Society members, by people connected to the Rockefeller-Kissinger-Rothschild triumvirate, or a combination of these interests.

http://www.pehi.eu/AppendixB.htm

quote:

"The black network"

On July 29, 1991, Time Magazine reported in great detail how the corrupt BCCI bank had been controlled by what senior officers termed the "black network", which had ties to many Western intelligence agencies (including the CIA, DIA and Mossad), arms merchants and dictators around the world. This hugely powerful conglomerate was involved in drug running, arms trafficking, gold smuggling, assassinations and bribing government officials. In fact, it's quite obvious that the BCCI was not just working with the CIA, but that it was actually controlled by it. July 29, 1991, Time Magazine, 'The Dirtiest Bank of All':

"B.C.C.I. is more than just a criminal bank. From interviews with sources close to B.C.C.I., TIME has pieced together a portrait of a clandestine division of the bank called the "black network," which functions as a global intelligence operation and a Mafia-like enforcement squad. Operating primarily out of the bank's offices in Karachi, Pakistan, the 1,500-employee black network has used sophisticated spy equipment and techniques, along with bribery, extortion, kidnapping and even, by some accounts, murder. The black network -- so named by its own members -- stops at almost nothing to further the bank's aims the world over."

"The more conventional departments of B.C.C.I. handled such services as laundering money for the drug trade and helping dictators loot their national treasuries. The black network, which is still functioning, operates a lucrative arms-trade business and transports drugs and gold. According to investigators and participants in those operations, it often works with Western and Middle Eastern intelligence agencies. The strange and still murky ties between B.C.C.I. and the intelligence agencies of several countries are so pervasive that even the White House has become entangled. As TIME reported earlier this month, the National Security Council used B.C.C.I. to funnel money for the Iran-contra deals, and the CIA maintained accounts in B.C.C.I. for covert operations. Moreover, investigators have told TIME that the Defense Intelligence Agency has maintained a slush-fund account with B.C.C.I., apparently to pay for clandestine activities..."

"U.S. agents collaborated with the black network in several operations, according to a B.C.C.I. black-network "officer" who is now a secret U.S. government witness. Sources have told investigators that B.C.C.I. worked closely with Israel's spy agencies and other Western intelligence groups as well, especially in arms deals. The bank also maintained cozy relationships with international terrorists, say investigators who discovered suspected terrorist accounts for Libya, Syria and the Palestine Liberation Organization in B.C.C.I.'s London offices..."

"The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979 and the resulting strategic importance of neighboring Pakistan accelerated the growth of B.C.C.I.'s geopolitical power and its unbridled use of the black network..."

"The bank was in a unique position to operate an intelligence- gathering unit because it dealt with such figures as Noriega, Saddam, Marcos, Peruvian President Alan Garcia, Daniel Ortega, contra leader Adolfo Calero and arms dealers like Adnan Khashoggi. Its original purpose was to pay bribes, intimidate authorities and quash investigations. But according to a former operative, sometime in the early 1980s the black network began running its own drugs, weapons and currency deals."

"I was recruited by the black network in the early 1980s," says an Arab- born employee who has ties to a ruling family in the Middle East and has told U.S. authorities of his role in running one of the black units. "They came to me while I was in school in the U.S.; they spoke my language, knew all of my friends and gave me money. They told me they wanted me to join the organization, and described its wealth and political power, but at first they never said exactly what the organization did."

"This operative -- call him Mustafa -- underwent a year of training that began with education in psychology and the principles of leadership and proceeded into spycraft, with lessons in electronic surveillance, breaking and entering, and interrogation techniques. "Then the nature of our advisers changed," says Mustafa. "The pleasantness was gone, and we moved to Pakistan, where we trained with firearms." Mustafa's first operational assignment took him to London. "They gave us passports and identification, and we moved a shipment of ((unidentified)) goods. In England they had more I.D. waiting for us, because customs and immigration are strict, but when we moved many places, into India or China or Latin America, matters were taken care of, and we just slipped through borders. We would be met. It was always all arranged.""

"A typical operation took place in April 1989, when a container ship from Colombia docked during the night at Karachi, Pakistan. Black-unit operatives met the ship after paying $100,000 in bribes to Pakistani customs officials. The band unloaded large wooden crates from several containers. "They were so heavy we had to use a crane rather than a forklift," says a participant. The crates were trucked to a "secure airport" and loaded aboard an unmarked 707 jet, where an American, believed by the black-unit members to be a CIA agent, supervised the frantic activity..."

"The black network was the bank's deepest secret, but rumors of its activities filtered through the bank's managerial level with chilling effectiveness. Senior bankers voice fears that they will be financially ruined or physically maimed -- even killed -- if they are found talking about B.C.C.I.'s activities... Businessmen who pursued shady deals with B.C.C.I. are just as frightened. 'Look,' says an arms dealer, 'these people work hand in hand with the drug cartels; they can have anybody killed.'... Currently the black units have focused their scrutiny and intimidation on investigators. 'Our own people have been staked out or followed, and we suspect tapped telephones,' says a New York law-enforcement officer."

bron: http://www.pehi.eu/AppendixA.htm

quote:

Op vrijdag 7 september 2007 09:30 schreef Lambiekje het volgende:

[..]

Oke wie heeft van de week de docu bekeken?
Het ziet er wel allemaal beroerd uitzeg.

Wat ik dus niet snap is dat Hubbert heeft uitgelegd dat de piek ergens rond 2000 is. Maar vervolgens bedenkt de autoindustrie grotere en nog grotere SUVs en Hummers. Monsters die rijden op 1:3 a 4
Als je dat gaat afzetten tegen "de nek omdraaien van electrische autos" is er toch wel iets raars aan de hand?

quote:

Nu we dus aan de verkeerde kant van de heuvel zitten. Gaat op eens ook China en India meedoen. Die markten zijn booming.

Je kan de gemiddelde amerikaan niet kwalijk nemen dat de olie situatie onbekend is. En maar rond rijd in zijn SUV.
Ook hier is het redelijk onbekend dat we hoogstens 15 tot 20 jaar nog kunnen vertoefen als we nu doen.
Mensen hebben in hun hoofd door de reclames dat het er voor eeuwig genoeg spul is.

quote:

Ik snap niet dat politiek dat niet aankaart.
Het is toch te bespottelijk voor woorden dat benzine daar 3 keer zo goedkoop is als water. Het is het goedkoopste vloeistof, daar.

Volgens mij WIL de politiek het helemaal niet oplossen. Zadel de jeugd van nu maar op met het probleem.

Waarom wordt elk van nieuwe energiebronnen tegengehouden. Zonne-energie leuk. Wind-energie, meer dan de helft van de tijd staan die dingen stil. En kernenergie is maar een bruggetje voor 10 jaar.

Zero-energy technieken worden belachelijk gemaakt. Patenten worden opgekocht, vernietigd. Of uitvindenders gaan mysterieus dood of gaan opeens een carriere move maken.

Waarom wordt er nog niet op grote schaal geexperimenteerd met waterstof. Het lijkt er op dat er voor alternatieve energiebronnen obstructie is.

Nou van mij mogen we wel weer terug naar stenentijdperk op deze manier.

quote:

Even een vraag meldt Volkskrant dit soort problemen.?