quote:

- "The last decade of the twentieth century has witnessed a tectonic shift in world affairs. For the first time ever, a non-Eurasian power has emerged not only as a key arbiter of Eurasian power relations but also as the world's paramount power. The defeat and collapse of the Soviet Union was the final step in the rapid ascendance of a Western Hemisphere power, the United States, as the sole and, indeed, the first truly global power." (p. xiii)

- "But in the meantime, it is imperative that no Eurasian challenger emerges, capable of dominating Eurasia and thus of also challenging America. The formulation of a comprehensive and integrated Eurasian geostrategy is therefore the purpose of this book." (p. xiv)

- "For America, the chief geopolitical prize is Eurasia" Now a non-Eurasian power is preeminent in Eurasia - and America's global primacy is directly dependent on how long and how effectively its preponderance on the Eurasian continent is sustained." (p.30)

- "America's withdrawal from the world or because of the sudden emergence of a successful rival - would produce massive international instability. It would prompt global anarchy." (p. 30)

- "In that context, how America manages' Eurasia is critical. Eurasia is the globe's largest continent and is geopolitically axial. A power that dominates Eurasia would control two of the world's three most advanced and economically productive regions. A mere glance at the map also suggests that control over Eurasia would almost automatically entail Africa's subordination, rendering the Western Hemisphere and Oceania geopolitically peripheral to the world's central continent. About 75 per cent of the world's people live in Eurasia, and most of the world's physical wealth is there as well, both in its enterprises and underneath its soil. Eurasia accounts for 60 per cent of the world's GNP and about three-fourths of the world's known energy resources." (p.31)

- Referring to an area he calls the "Eurasian Balkans" and a 1997 map in which he has circled the exact location of the current conflict - describing it as the central region of pending conflict for world dominance - Brzezinski writes: "Moreover, they [the Central Asian Republics] are of importance from the standpoint of security and historical ambitions to at least three of their most immediate and more powerful neighbors, namely Russia, Turkey and Iran, with China also signaling an increasing political interest in the region. But the Eurasian Balkans are infinitely more important as a potential economic prize: an enormous concentration of natural gas and oil reserves is located in the region, in addition to important minerals, including gold." (p.124) [Emphasis added]

- "The world's energy consumption is bound to vastly increase over the next two or three decades. Estimates by the U.S. Department of energy anticipate that world demand will rise by more than 50 percent between 1993 and 2015, with the most significant increase in consumption occurring in the Far East. The momentum of Asia's economic development is already generating massive pressures for the exploration and exploitation of new sources of energy and the Central Asian region and the Caspian Sea basin are known to contain reserves of natural gas and oil that dwarf those of Kuwait, the Gulf of Mexico, or the North Sea." (p.125)

- "It follows that America's primary interest is to help ensure that no single power comes to control this geopolitical space and that the global community has unhindered financial and economic access to it." (p148)

- "China's growing economic presence in the region and its political stake in the area's independence are also congruent with America's interests." (p.149)

- "America is now the only global superpower, and Eurasia is the globe's central arena. Hence, what happens to the distribution of power on the Eurasian continent will be of decisive importance to America's global primacy and to America's historical legacy." (p.194)

- "Without sustained and directed American involvement, before long the forces of global disorder could come to dominate the world scene. And the possibility of such a fragmentation is inherent in the geopolitical tensions not only of today's Eurasia but of the world more generally." (p.194)

- "With warning signs on the horizon across Europe and Asia, any successful American policy must focus on Eurasia as a whole and be guided by a Geostrategic design." (p.197)

- "That puts a premium on maneuver and manipulation in order to prevent the emergence of a hostile coalition that could eventually seek to challenge America's primacy." (p. 198)

- "The most immediate task is to make certain that no state or combination of states gains the capacity to expel the United States from Eurasia or even to diminish significantly its decisive arbitration role." (p. 198)

- "In the long run, global politics are bound to become increasingly uncongenial to the concentration of hegemonic power in the hands of a single state. Hence, America is not only the first, as well as the only, truly global superpower, but it is also likely to be the very last." (p.209)

- "Moreover, as America becomes an increasingly multi-cultural society, it may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus on foreign policy issues, except in the circumstance of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat." (p. 211) [Emphasis added]


Bron: A War in the Planning for Four Years

ps: ja ik het het boek ook zelf gelezen

quote:

One of the possible strategic reasons for the USA to attack Iraq in 2003 was securing future oil supplies. Iraq has the world's second largest oil reserves, and much of it is also relatively cheap to extract and refine.

This strategy was designed by the organisation "Project for the New American Century”, among their members are Jeb Bush, Dick Cheney, Dan Quayle, Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz.

The attack upon Iraq is seen by some as part of a wider post 2001 redeployment of American forces, organised by Donald Rumsfeld to the Middle East and the oil rich Caspian basin.

However, the effectiveness of this military strategy has yet to be demonstrated, since the rate of rebuilding oil infrastructure has not greatly outpaced internal sabotage in Iraq.

Bron: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_policy_of_the_United_States

quote:

The Energy Task Force is commonly known as the Cheney Energy Task Force after Vice President of the United States of America and former CEO of Halliburton, Dick Cheney.

In his second week in office George W. Bush created the task force, officially known as the National Energy Policy Development Group (NEPDG) with Dick Cheney as chairman. This group was supposed to develop an energy policy for the Bush administration. With both Bush and Cheney coming from the energy industry, which had contributed heavily to their campaign, and with the group proceeding in extreme secrecy, critics charged that the energy industry was exercising undue influence over national policy.

Congressmen Henry Waxman and John Dingell prompted the General Accounting Office (GAO), the investigative arm of Congress, to pursue Congress's oversight authority. Eventually the GAO filed a lawsuit known as Walker v. Cheney against the administration. This represented a power struggle between the legislative and executive branches. Judge John D. Bates, a recent Bush appointee, dismissed the case.

The activities of the Energy Task Force remain classified, even though Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests (since 19 April 2001) have sought to gain access to its materials. The organisations Judicial Watch and Sierra Club launched a law suit (U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia: Judicial Watch Inc. v. Department of Energy, et al., Civil Action No. 01-0981) under the FOIA to gain access to the task force's materials. On 5 March 2002 the US Government was ordered to make a full disclosure; this has not happened, pending appeal. In the Summer of 2003 a partial disclosure of these materials was made by the Commerce Department.

What was obtained were maps and charts, dated March 2001, of Iraq's, Saudi Arabia's and United Arab Emirates' oil fields, pipelines, refineries, tanker terminals and development projects.

Bron: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_task_force

quote:

Op donderdag 9 november 2006 16:16 schreef nonzz het volgende:
Dit is typisch zo'n OP waar je (of iig ik) niets mee kan.....

quote:

Op donderdag 9 november 2006 19:46 schreef problematiQue het volgende:
goed artikel over dit onderwerp

quote:

Steady as she goes

Apr 20th 2006 | BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA, AND CALGARY, ALBERTA
From The Economist print edition

Why the world is not about to run out of oil

IN 1894 Le Petit Journal of Paris organised the world's first endurance race for “vehicles without horses”. The race was held on the 78-mile (125km) route from Paris to Rouen, and the purse was a juicy 5,000 francs. The rivals used all manner of fuels, ranging from steam to electricity to compressed air. The winner was a car powered by a strange new fuel that had previously been used chiefly in illumination, as a substitute for whale blubber: petrol derived from oil.

Despite the victory, petrol's future seemed uncertain back then. Internal-combustion vehicles were seen as noisy, smelly and dangerous. By 1900 the market was still split equally among steam, electricity and petrol—and even Henry Ford's Model T ran on both grain-alcohol and petrol. In the decades after that great race petrol came to dominate the world's transportation system. Oil left its rivals in the dust not only because internal-combustion engines proved more robust and powerful than their rivals, but also because oil reserves proved to be abundant.

Now comes what appears to be the most powerful threat to oil's supremacy in a century: growing fears that the black gold is running dry. For years a small group of geologists has been claiming that the world has started to grow short of oil, that alternatives cannot possibly replace it and that an imminent peak in production will lead to economic disaster. In recent months this view has gained wider acceptance on Wall Street and in the media. Recent books on oil have bewailed the threat. Every few weeks, it seems, “Out of Gas”, “The Empty Tank” and “The Coming Economic Collapse: How You Can Thrive When Oil Costs $200 a Barrel”, are joined by yet more gloomy titles. Oil companies, which once dismissed the depletion argument out of hand, are now part of the debate. Chevron's splashy advertisements strike an ominous tone: “It took us 125 years to use the first trillion barrels of oil. We'll use the next trillion in 30.” Jeroen van der Veer, chief executive of Royal Dutch Shell, believes “the debate has changed in the last two years from 'Can we afford oil?' to 'Is the oil there?'”

But is the world really starting to run out of oil? And would hitting a global peak of production necessarily spell economic ruin? Both questions are arguable. Despite today's obsession with the idea of “peak oil”, what really matters to the world economy is not when conventional oil production peaks, but whether we have enough affordable and convenient fuel from any source to power our current fleet of cars, buses and aeroplanes. With that in mind, the global oil industry is on the verge of a dramatic transformation from a risky exploration business into a technology-intensive manufacturing business. And the product that big oil companies will soon be manufacturing, argues Shell's Mr Van der Veer, is “greener fossil fuels”.

The race is on to manufacture such fuels for blending into petrol and diesel today, thus extending the useful life of the world's remaining oil reserves. This shift in emphasis from discovery to manufacturing opens the door to firms outside the oil industry (such as America's General Electric, Britain's Virgin Fuels and South Africa's Sasol) that are keen on alternative energy. It may even result in a breakthrough that replaces oil altogether.

To see how that might happen, consider the first question: is the world really running out of oil? Colin Campbell, an Irish geologist, has been saying since the 1990s that the peak of global oil production is imminent. Kenneth Deffeyes, a respected geologist at Princeton, thought that the peak would arrive late last year.

It did not. In fact, oil production capacity might actually grow sharply over the next few years (see chart 1). Cambridge Energy Research Associates (CERA), an energy consultancy, has scrutinised all of the oil projects now under way around the world. Though noting rising costs, the firm concludes that the world's oil-production capacity could increase by as much as 15m barrels per day (bpd) between 2005 and 2010—equivalent to almost 18% of today's output and the biggest surge in history. Since most of these projects are already budgeted and in development, there is no geological reason why this wave of supply will not become available (though politics or civil strife can always disrupt output).

Peak-oil advocates remain unconvinced. A sign of depletion, they argue, is that big Western oil firms are finding it increasingly difficult to replace the oil they produce, let alone build their reserves. Art Smith of Herold, a consultancy, points to rising “finding and development” costs at the big firms, and argues that the world is consuming two to three barrels of oil for every barrel of new oil found. Michael Rodgers of PFC Energy, another consultancy, says that the peak of new discoveries was long ago. “We're living off a lottery we won 30 years ago,” he argues.

It is true that the big firms are struggling to replace reserves. But that does not mean the world is running out of oil, just that they do not have access to the vast deposits of cheap and easy oil that are left in Russia and members of the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC). And as the great fields of the North Sea and Alaska mature, non-OPEC oil production will probably peak by 2010 or 2015. That is soon—but it says nothing of what really matters, which is the global picture.

When the United States Geological Survey (USGS) studied the matter closely, it concluded that the world had around 3 trillion barrels of recoverable conventional oil in the ground. Of that, only one-third has been produced. That, argued the USGS, puts the global peak beyond 2025. And if “unconventional” hydrocarbons such as tar sands and shale oil (which can be converted with greater effort to petrol) are included, the resource base grows dramatically—and the peak recedes much further into the future.
After Ghawar

It is also true that oilmen will probably discover no more “super-giant” fields like Saudi Arabia's Ghawar (which alone produces 5m bpd). But there are even bigger resources available right under their noses. Technological breakthroughs such as multi-lateral drilling helped defy predictions of decline in Britain's North Sea that have been made since the 1980s: the region is only now peaking.

Globally, the oil industry recovers only about one-third of the oil that is known to exist in any given reservoir. New technologies like 4-D seismic analysis and electromagnetic “direct detection” of hydrocarbons are lifting that “recovery rate”, and even a rise of a few percentage points would provide more oil to the market than another discovery on the scale of those in the Caspian or North Sea.

Further, just because there are no more Ghawars does not mean an end to discovery altogether. Using ever fancier technologies, the oil business is drilling in deeper waters, more difficult terrain and even in the Arctic (which, as global warming melts the polar ice cap, will perversely become the next great prize in oil). Large parts of Siberia, Iraq and Saudi Arabia have not even been explored with modern kit.

The petro-pessimists' most forceful argument is that the Persian Gulf, officially home to most of the world's oil reserves, is overrated. Matthew Simmons, an American energy investment banker, argues in his book, “Twilight in the Desert”, that Saudi Arabia's oil fields are in trouble. In recent weeks a scandal has engulfed Kuwait, too. Petroleum Intelligence Weekly (PIW), a respected industry newsletter, got hold of government documents suggesting that Kuwait might have only half of the nearly 100 billion barrels in oil reserves that it claims (Saudi Arabia claims 260 billion barrels).

Tom Wallin, publisher of PIW, warns that “the lesson from Kuwait is that the reserves figures of national governments must be viewed with caution.” But that still need not mean that a global peak is imminent. So vast are the remaining reserves, and so well distributed are today's producing areas, that a radical revision downwards—even in an OPEC country—does not mean a global peak is here.

For one thing, Kuwait's official numbers always looked dodgy. IHS Energy, an industry research outfit that constructs its reserve estimates from the bottom up rather than relying on official proclamations, had long been using a figure of 50 billion barrels for Kuwait. Ron Mobed, boss of IHS, sees no crisis today: “Even using our smaller number, Kuwait still has 50 years of production left at current rates.” As for Saudi Arabia, most independent contractors and oil majors that have first-hand knowledge of its fields are convinced that the Saudis have all the oil they claim—and that more remains to be found.

Pessimists worry that Saudi Arabia's giant fields could decline rapidly before any new supply is brought online. In Jeremy Leggett's thoughtful, but gloomy, book, “The Empty Tank”, Mr Simmons laments that “the only alternative right now is to shrink our economies.” That poses a second big question: whenever the production peak comes, will it inevitably prompt a global economic crisis?

The baleful thesis arises from concerns both that a cliff lies beyond any peak in production and that alternatives to oil will not be available. If the world oil supply peaked one day and then fell away sharply, prices would indeed rocket, shortages and panic buying would wreak havoc and a global recession would ensue. But there are good reasons to think that a global peak, whenever it comes, need not lead to a collapse in output.

For one thing, the nightmare scenario of Ghawar suddenly peaking is not as grim as it first seems. When it peaks, the whole “super-giant” will not drop from 5m bpd to zero, because it is actually a network of inter-linked fields, some old and some newer. Experts say a decline would probably be gentler and prolonged. That would allow, indeed encourage, the Saudis to develop new fields to replace lost output. Saudi Arabia's oil minister, Ali Naimi, points to an unexplored area on the Iraqi-Saudi border the size of California, and argues that such untapped resources could add 200 billion barrels to his country's tally. This contains worries of its own—Saudi Arabia's market share will grow dramatically as non-OPEC oil peaks, and with it the potential for mischief. But it helps to debunk claims of a sudden change.

The notion of a sharp global peak in production does not withstand scrutiny, either. CERA's Peter Jackson points out that the price signals that would surely foreshadow any “peak” would encourage efficiency, promote new oil discoveries and speed investments in alternatives to oil. That, he reckons, means the metaphor of a peak is misleading: “The right picture is of an undulating plateau.”

What of the notion that oil scarcity will lead to economic disaster? Jerry Taylor and Peter Van Doren of the Cato Institute, an American think-tank, insist the key is to avoid the price controls and monetary-policy blunders of the sort that turned the 1970s oil shocks into economic disasters. Kenneth Rogoff, a Harvard professor and the former chief economist of the IMF, thinks concerns about peak oil are greatly overblown: “The oil market is highly developed, with worldwide trading and long-dated futures going out five to seven years. As oil production slows, prices will rise up and down the futures curve, stimulating new technology and conservation. We might be running low on $20 oil, but for $60 we have adequate oil supplies for decades to come.”

The other worry of pessimists is that alternatives to oil simply cannot be brought online fast enough to compensate for oil's imminent decline. If the peak were a cliff or if it arrived soon, this would certainly be true, since alternative fuels have only a tiny global market share today (though they are quite big in markets, such as ethanol-mad Brazil, that have favourable policies). But if the peak were to come after 2020 or 2030, as the International Energy Agency and other mainstream forecasters predict, then the rising tide of alternative fuels will help transform it into a plateau and ease the transition to life after oil.

The best reason to think so comes from the radical transformation now taking place among big oil firms. The global oil industry, argues Chevron, is changing from “an exploration business to a manufacturing business”. To see what that means, consider the surprising outcome of another great motorcar race. In March, at the Sebring test track in Florida, a sleek Audi prototype R-10 became the first diesel-powered car to win an endurance race, pipping a field of petrol-powered rivals to the post. What makes this tale extraordinary is that the diesel used by the Audi was not made in the normal way, exclusively from petroleum. Instead, Shell blended conventional diesel with a super-clean and super-powerful new form of diesel made from natural gas (with the clunky name of gas-to-liquids, or GTL).

Several big GTL projects are under way in Qatar, where the North gas field is perhaps twice the size of even Ghawar when measured in terms of the energy it contains. Nigeria and others are also pursuing GTL. Since the world has far more natural gas left than oil—much of it outside the Middle East—making fuel in this way would greatly increase the world's remaining supplies of oil.

So, too, would blending petrol or diesel with ethanol and biodiesel made from agricultural crops, or with fuel made from Canada's “tar sands” or America's shale oil. Using technology invented in Nazi Germany and perfected by South Africa's Sasol when those countries were under oil embargoes, companies are now also investing furiously to convert not only natural gas but also coal into a liquid fuel. Daniel Yergin of CERA says “the very definition of oil is changing, since non-conventional oil becomes conventional over time.”

Alternative fuels will not become common overnight, as one veteran oilman acknowledges: “Given the capital-intensity of manufacturing alternatives, it's now a race between hydrocarbon depletion and making fuel.” But the recent rise in oil prices has given investors confidence. As Peter Robertson, vice-chairman of Chevron, puts it, “Price is our friend here, because it has encouraged investment in new hydrocarbons and also the alternatives.” Unless the world sees another OPEC-engineered price collapse as it did in 1985 and 1998, GTL, tar sands, ethanol and other alternatives will become more economic by the day (see chart 2).

This is not to suggest that the big firms are retreating from their core business. They are pushing ahead with these investments mainly because they cannot get access to new oil in the Middle East: “We need all the molecules we can get our hands on,” says one oilman. It cannot have escaped the attention of oilmen that blending alternative fuels into petrol and diesel will conveniently reinforce oil's grip on transport. But their work contains the risk that one of the upstart fuels could yet provide a radical breakthrough that sidelines oil altogether.

If you doubt the power of technology or the potential of unconventional fuels, visit the Kern River oil field near Bakersfield, California. This super-giant field is part of a cluster that has been pumping out oil for more than 100 years. It has already produced 2 billion barrels of oil, but has perhaps as much again left. The trouble is that it contains extremely heavy oil, which is very difficult and costly to extract. After other companies despaired of the field, Chevron brought Kern back from the brink. Applying a sophisticated steam-injection process, the firm has increased its output beyond the anticipated peak. Using a great deal of automation (each engineer looks after 1,000 small wells drilled into the reservoir), the firm has transformed a process of “flying blind” into one where wells “practically monitor themselves and call when they need help”.

The good news is that this is not unique. China also has deposits of heavy oil that would benefit from such an advanced approach. America, Canada and Venezuela have deposits of heavy hydrocarbons that surpass even the Saudi oil reserves in size. The Saudis have invited Chevron to apply its steam-injection techniques to recover heavy oil in the neutral zone that the country shares with Kuwait. Mr Naimi, the oil minister, recently estimated that this new technology would lift the share of the reserve that could be recovered as useful oil from a pitiful 6% to above 40%.

All this explains why, in the words of Exxon Mobil, the oil production peak is unlikely “for decades to come”. Governments may decide to shift away from petroleum because of its nasty geopolitics or its contribution to global warming. But it is wrong to imagine the world's addiction to oil will end soon, as a result of genuine scarcity. As Western oil companies seek to cope with being locked out of the Middle East, the new era of manufactured fuel will further delay the onset of peak production. The irony would be if manufactured fuel also did something far more dramatic—if it served as a bridge to whatever comes beyond the nexus of petrol and the internal combustion engine that for a century has held the world in its grip.

quote:

Op donderdag 9 november 2006 20:30 schreef meurdoos het volgende:
Die tegenlicht docu's hierover zijn echt de bom

http://www.vpro.nl/programma/tegenlicht/afleveringen/

quote:

Europa op de knieen voor Poetin - deel 1

De ex-Sovjet Staten, controle over de exportpijpleidingen naar Europa.

Na Wit Rusland, Armenië, Litouwen, Estland, Letland, Moldavië en Oekraïne is nu Georgië aan de beurt. De boodschap is helder, zodra er een leveringscontract voor aardgas afloopt dwingt Rusland haar “klanten” tot een keuze. Of je betaalt steeds meer, tot aan de Europese marktprijs van 250 dollar per duizend kubieke meter, of je geeft een stuk van je infrastructuur, vrijwel gratis, aan Rusland. Het doel is tweeledig, ten eerste wil Rusland zoveel mogelijk controle krijgen over haar exportpijpleidingen naar Europa die ze door de val van de Sovjetunie verloren is. Ten tweede heeft Rusland veel meer inkomsten nodig, om moeilijk winbare gasreserves af te tappen omdat de productie in haar grote oude gasvelden hard terugloopt. Poetin weet dat de ex-Sovjet staten de marktprijs niet kunnen betalen en dus wel door de knieën moeten gaan. Hieronder een overzicht van de ontwikkelingen in de afgelopen twee jaar.

Bron: Europa op de knieen voor Poetin - deel 1

quote:

Yukos-concurrent achter onbekende bieder

zondag 19 december 2004

De winnaar van de veiling van de productiedivisie van de Russische oliegigant Yukos is naar alle waarschijnlijkheid verbonden aan een concurrent, olieproducent Surgutneftegaz. Heel verrassend kocht de onbekende Baikalfinansgroup zondag 19 december op een veiling Yuganskneftegaz, de belangrijkste dochteronderneming van Yukos. De Baikalfinansgroup heeft 7 miljard euro voor het bedrijf betaald.

Bron: http://www.elsevier.nl/ni(...)tnr/17418/index.html

quote:

Yukos toch in handen van Russische staat

donderdag 23 december 2004

De Russische president Vladimir Poetin is de grote winnaar in de strijd om oliegigant Yukos. Het staatsbedrijf Rosneft is eigenaar geworden van Yuganskneftegaz, de productiedivisie van Yukos.

Rosneft nam donderdag 23 december het onderdeel over van het onbekende investeringsbedrijf Baikalfinansgroup, dat Yuganskneftegaz zondag op een veiling voor 9,35 miljard dollar had gekocht. Hoeveel Rosneft voor het belangrijkste Yukos-onderdeel heeft neergeteld, is niet bekendgemaakt.

Bron: http://www.elsevier.nl/ni(...)tnr/18191/index.html

quote:

Baikalfinansgrup

Baikalfinansgrup (Russian: Байкалфинансгруп) is a Russian limited liability company owned by Rosneft Oil Company. It is best known as the company that won the December 19, 2004 auction for a 76.79% share in Yuganskneftegaz, formerly the core production subsidiary of Yukos Oil Company. Baikalfinansgrup won the auction with a bid of 261 billion rubles (US $9.3 bn), which was somewhere between 37-49% of Yuganskneftegaz’ market value at the time, according to an appraisal made by Dresdner Kleinwort Wasserstein and JPMorgan Chase & Co. [1].

Profile

Baikalfinansgrup was created on December 6, 2004, just two weeks before the Yuganskneftegaz auction, with a share capital of 10,000 rubles ($358 US). Its original registered address was in the north-western Russian city of Tver in a building that houses a vodka bar, a mobile phone shop, a tour operator agency and the offices of several small local companies, but no office of Baikalfinansgrup. Baykalfinansgrup later moved its legal address to the head office of Rosneft Oil Company, which is situated on Sofiyskaya Embankment directly opposite the Kremlin.

Despite its obscurity, Baikalfinansgrup was able to secure a credit of US $1.7 bn from the state-owned Sberbank savings bank as a down-payment for participating in the auction.

On December 21, 2004, Russian president Vladimir Putin admitted that he knew the owners of Baikalfinansgrup. Putin did not disclose their names but noted that they were individuals with ‘many years of experience in the energy business’.

Bron: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baikalfinansgroup

quote:

Arrested oil tycoon passed shares to banker

LONDON (Agence France-Presse) — Control of Mikhail Khodorkovsky's shares in the Russian oil giant Yukos have passed to renowned banker Jacob Rothschild, under a deal they concluded prior to Mr. Khodorkovsky's arrest, the Sunday Times reported.

Voting rights to the shares passed to Mr. Rothschild, 67, under a "previously unknown arrangement" designed to take effect in the event that Mr. Khodorkovsky could no longer "act as a beneficiary" of the shares, it said. Mr. Khodorkovsky, 40, whom Russian authorities arrested at gunpoint and jailed pending further investigation last week, was said by the Sunday Times to have made the arrangement with Mr. Rothschild when he realized he was facing arrest.

Mr. Rothschild now controls the voting rights on a stake in Yukos worth almost $13.5 billion, the newspaper said in a dispatch from Moscow. Mr. Khodorkovsky owns 4 percent of Yukos directly and 22 percent through a trust of which he is the sole beneficiary, according to Russian analysts. From the figures reported in the Sunday Times, it appeared Mr. Rothschild had received control of all Mr. Khodorkovsky's shares. The two have known each other for years "through their mutual love of the arts" and their positions as directors of the Open Russia Foundation, Yukos' philanthropic branch, it said.

Russian authorities Thursday froze billions of dollars of shares held by Mr. Khodorkovsky and his top lieutenants in Yukos — throwing control of the country's largest oil company into limbo and causing frenzied selling on financial markets. Russian prosecutors said owners of the shares are still entitled to dividends and retain voting rights, but can no longer sell their stakes. They said the freeze was necessary as collateral for the $1 billion that Mr. Khodorkovsky and his associates are accused of misappropriating during the 1990s. Mr. Rothschild is the British head of Europe's wealthy and influential Rothschild family, and runs his own investment empire.

Bron: http://washingtontimes.com/world/20031102-111400-3720r.htm

quote:

Op donderdag 9 november 2006 20:30 schreef meurdoos het volgende:
Die tegenlicht docu's hierover zijn echt de bom

http://www.vpro.nl/programma/tegenlicht/afleveringen/

quote:

Op donderdag 9 november 2006 20:27 schreef gorgg het volgende:
Artikel uit de Economist waarom Peak Oil zeer waarschijnlijk niet voor binnenkort is:
Daarbij komt nog eens dat er een erg grote kans bestaat dat er nog grote olievelden diep in de zee onondekt zijn. Zie bv. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=51837
Natuurlijk zijn deze allemaal veel duurder uit te baten, de tijd van 10$ per vat zal wel nooit meer terugkomen.

quote:

Artikel Economist

But is the world really starting to run out of oil? And would hitting a global peak of production necessarily spell economic ruin? Both questions are arguable. Despite today's obsession with the idea of “peak oil”, what really matters to the world economy is not when conventional oil production peaks, but whether we have enough affordable and convenient fuel from any source to power our current fleet of cars, buses and aeroplanes. With that in mind, the global oil industry is on the verge of a dramatic transformation from a risky exploration business into a technology-intensive manufacturing business. And the product that big oil companies will soon be manufacturing, argues Shell's Mr Van der Veer, is “greener fossil fuels”.

quote:

To see how that might happen, consider the first question: is the world really running out of oil? Colin Campbell, an Irish geologist, has been saying since the 1990s that the peak of global oil production is imminent. Kenneth Deffeyes, a respected geologist at Princeton, thought that the peak would arrive late last year.

It did not. In fact, oil production capacity might actually grow sharply over the next few years (see chart 1). Cambridge Energy Research Associates (CERA), an energy consultancy, has scrutinised all of the oil projects now under way around the world. Though noting rising costs, the firm concludes that the world's oil-production capacity could increase by as much as 15m barrels per day (bpd) between 2005 and 2010—equivalent to almost 18% of today's output and the biggest surge in history. Since most of these projects are already budgeted and in development, there is no geological reason why this wave of supply will not become available (though politics or civil strife can always disrupt output).

quote:

Peak-oil advocates remain unconvinced. A sign of depletion, they argue, is that big Western oil firms are finding it increasingly difficult to replace the oil they produce, let alone build their reserves. Art Smith of Herold, a consultancy, points to rising “finding and development” costs at the big firms, and argues that the world is consuming two to three barrels of oil for every barrel of new oil found. Michael Rodgers of PFC Energy, another consultancy, says that the peak of new discoveries was long ago. “We're living off a lottery we won 30 years ago,” he argues.

It is true that the big firms are struggling to replace reserves. But that does not mean the world is running out of oil, just that they do not have access to the vast deposits of cheap and easy oil that are left in Russia and members of the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC). And as the great fields of the North Sea and Alaska mature, non-OPEC oil production will probably peak by 2010 or 2015. That is soon—but it says nothing of what really matters, which is the global picture.

quote:

When the United States Geological Survey (USGS) studied the matter closely, it concluded that the world had around 3 trillion barrels of recoverable conventional oil in the ground. Of that, only one-third has been produced. That, argued the USGS, puts the global peak beyond 2025. And if “unconventional” hydrocarbons such as tar sands and shale oil (which can be converted with greater effort to petrol) are included, the resource base grows dramatically—and the peak recedes much further into the future.

quote:

It is also true that oilmen will probably discover no more “super-giant” fields like Saudi Arabia's Ghawar (which alone produces 5m bpd). But there are even bigger resources available right under their noses. Technological breakthroughs such as multi-lateral drilling helped defy predictions of decline in Britain's North Sea that have been made since the 1980s: the region is only now peaking.

Globally, the oil industry recovers only about one-third of the oil that is known to exist in any given reservoir. New technologies like 4-D seismic analysis and electromagnetic “direct detection” of hydrocarbons are lifting that “recovery rate”, and even a rise of a few percentage points would provide more oil to the market than another discovery on the scale of those in the Caspian or North Sea.

Further, just because there are no more Ghawars does not mean an end to discovery altogether. Using ever fancier technologies, the oil business is drilling in deeper waters, more difficult terrain and even in the Arctic (which, as global warming melts the polar ice cap, will perversely become the next great prize in oil). Large parts of Siberia, Iraq and Saudi Arabia have not even been explored with modern kit.

quote:

The petro-pessimists' most forceful argument is that the Persian Gulf, officially home to most of the world's oil reserves, is overrated. Matthew Simmons, an American energy investment banker, argues in his book, “Twilight in the Desert”, that Saudi Arabia's oil fields are in trouble. In recent weeks a scandal has engulfed Kuwait, too. Petroleum Intelligence Weekly (PIW), a respected industry newsletter, got hold of government documents suggesting that Kuwait might have only half of the nearly 100 billion barrels in oil reserves that it claims (Saudi Arabia claims 260 billion barrels).

Tom Wallin, publisher of PIW, warns that “the lesson from Kuwait is that the reserves figures of national governments must be viewed with caution.” But that still need not mean that a global peak is imminent. So vast are the remaining reserves, and so well distributed are today's producing areas, that a radical revision downwards—even in an OPEC country—does not mean a global peak is here.

For one thing, Kuwait's official numbers always looked dodgy. IHS Energy, an industry research outfit that constructs its reserve estimates from the bottom up rather than relying on official proclamations, had long been using a figure of 50 billion barrels for Kuwait. Ron Mobed, boss of IHS, sees no crisis today: “Even using our smaller number, Kuwait still has 50 years of production left at current rates.” As for Saudi Arabia, most independent contractors and oil majors that have first-hand knowledge of its fields are convinced that the Saudis have all the oil they claim—and that more remains to be found.

Pessimists worry that Saudi Arabia's giant fields could decline rapidly before any new supply is brought online. In Jeremy Leggett's thoughtful, but gloomy, book, “The Empty Tank”, Mr Simmons laments that “the only alternative right now is to shrink our economies.” That poses a second big question: whenever the production peak comes, will it inevitably prompt a global economic crisis?

quote:

The baleful thesis arises from concerns both that a cliff lies beyond any peak in production and that alternatives to oil will not be available. If the world oil supply peaked one day and then fell away sharply, prices would indeed rocket, shortages and panic buying would wreak havoc and a global recession would ensue. But there are good reasons to think that a global peak, whenever it comes, need not lead to a collapse in output.

For one thing, the nightmare scenario of Ghawar suddenly peaking is not as grim as it first seems. When it peaks, the whole “super-giant” will not drop from 5m bpd to zero, because it is actually a network of inter-linked fields, some old and some newer. Experts say a decline would probably be gentler and prolonged. That would allow, indeed encourage, the Saudis to develop new fields to replace lost output. Saudi Arabia's oil minister, Ali Naimi, points to an unexplored area on the Iraqi-Saudi border the size of California, and argues that such untapped resources could add 200 billion barrels to his country's tally. This contains worries of its own—Saudi Arabia's market share will grow dramatically as non-OPEC oil peaks, and with it the potential for mischief. But it helps to debunk claims of a sudden change.

The notion of a sharp global peak in production does not withstand scrutiny, either. CERA's Peter Jackson points out that the price signals that would surely foreshadow any “peak” would encourage efficiency, promote new oil discoveries and speed investments in alternatives to oil. That, he reckons, means the metaphor of a peak is misleading: “The right picture is of an undulating plateau.”

What of the notion that oil scarcity will lead to economic disaster? Jerry Taylor and Peter Van Doren of the Cato Institute, an American think-tank, insist the key is to avoid the price controls and monetary-policy blunders of the sort that turned the 1970s oil shocks into economic disasters. Kenneth Rogoff, a Harvard professor and the former chief economist of the IMF, thinks concerns about peak oil are greatly overblown: “The oil market is highly developed, with worldwide trading and long-dated futures going out five to seven years. As oil production slows, prices will rise up and down the futures curve, stimulating new technology and conservation. We might be running low on $20 oil, but for $60 we have adequate oil supplies for decades to come.”

quote:

The good news is that this is not unique. China also has deposits of heavy oil that would benefit from such an advanced approach. America, Canada and Venezuela have deposits of heavy hydrocarbons that surpass even the Saudi oil reserves in size. The Saudis have invited Chevron to apply its steam-injection techniques to recover heavy oil in the neutral zone that the country shares with Kuwait. Mr Naimi, the oil minister, recently estimated that this new technology would lift the share of the reserve that could be recovered as useful oil from a pitiful 6% to above 40%.

All this explains why, in the words of Exxon Mobil, the oil production peak is unlikely “for decades to come”. Governments may decide to shift away from petroleum because of its nasty geopolitics or its contribution to global warming. But it is wrong to imagine the world's addiction to oil will end soon, as a result of genuine scarcity. As Western oil companies seek to cope with being locked out of the Middle East, the new era of manufactured fuel will further delay the onset of peak production. The irony would be if manufactured fuel also did something far more dramatic—if it served as a bridge to whatever comes beyond the nexus of petrol and the internal combustion engine that for a century has held the world in its grip.

quote:

Op vrijdag 10 november 2006 13:06 schreef pberends het volgende:
VS heeft toch Irak aangevallen omdat ze hun olie in euro's wilden verhandelen? En dat zou de alleenheerschappij van de Amerikaanse dollar in gevaar brengen, en dat is met name gevaarlijk omdat Amerika een groot handelstekort heeft.

quote:

Op donderdag 9 november 2006 20:27 schreef gorgg het volgende:
Olie zal imo zeker meegespeeld hebben bij het nemen van de beslissing om Irak en Afganistan binnen te vallen. Maar dan vooral om de stroom olie naar de westerse wereld te vrijwaren, en niet om er rechtstreeks veel geld mee te verdienen. De pijplijn door Afganistan bv. is er nog steeds niet en zal er waarschijnlijk ook in de nabije toekomst niet komen.

quote:

De war on terror is volgens mij gestart omdat er terroristen zijn die aanslagen willen plegen en de paniek daarvoor na 9/11. De aanpak ervan zal best wel wat bijgestuurd worden door belangen her en der, maar de hoofddoelstelling blijft imo.

quote:

Op vrijdag 10 november 2006 14:34 schreef Pietverdriet het volgende:
Wat is nu precies het punt van TS? Dat het om de knaken draait in de wereld?
Wel wel wel
Stop de persen.

quote:

Op vrijdag 10 november 2006 15:35 schreef OpenYourMind het volgende:

[..]

Lekker cynisch, probeer het nog maar een keer.

quote:

De filosofie werd door Antisthenes, een leerling van Socrates, gesticht te Athene. Het cynisme als leer was geïnspireerd op de Socratische theorie kennis is wijsheid. De hele leer nam deze zin wel erg letterlijk op: ze zagen luxe, bezit of geld dan ook uit den boze en waren ervan overtuigd dat dit de enige manier was om wijs te zijn. Dit leidde uiteraard tot een vervreemding van de toenmalige maatschappij, die gebaseerd was op bezit, roem en geld. Deze afkering van de maatschappij, het alleenstaan in hun gevecht tegen het bezit wordt autarkie genoemd en was een sleutelbegrip voor de Cynici. Een extreem voorbeeld van het in praktijk brengen van deze autarkie is Diogenes van Sinope.

Het Cynisme was zeer lang actief: vanaf de stichting door Antisthenes in de 4e eeuw v. Chr. bleef de filosofie bestaan tot ver in de Romeinse Rijk. De Cynici waren over de eeuwen heen een kleine, maar invloedrijke groep filosofen.

quote:

Op donderdag 9 november 2006 19:31 schreef OpenYourMind het volgende:
Wat denken jullie is dit werkelijk een reden (misschien de grootste reden) achter de war on terror?

quote:

Smoking Gun: The CIA's Interest in Peak Oil

(Special to From the Wilderness)
by Richard Heinberg


Introduction Michael Ruppert

[A recently declassified 1977 CIA study on Peak Oil in the Soviet Union is a telling indicator that Peak Oil issues have been of secret concern to policy makers in the US for a long time. Here, Professor Richard Heinberg, author of the best-selling book "The Party's Over" describes what the CIA was looking at, and offers some insight as to why.

I recently discussed the CIA document with Professor Kjell Aleklett of the University of Uppsala in Sweden, who is the current President for the Association for the Study of Peak Oil and Gas (www.peakoil.net). Aleklett shed further light on the current phenomenon of large Russian oil exports by noting that the demise of the Soviet Union and Russian economic crashes of the mid-to-late 1990s effectively delayed Russia's peak for about ten years. This is the so-called "second peak" for Russia, which production graphs currently show.

What this also means is that while Russia is currently a major oil exporter, selling oil hand over fist, it will not be able to sustain either its economic recovery or its current production rates for more than a few more years. Russia's continued salvation and future economic clout will no doubt be based upon the fact that it possesses half of all the natural gas reserves on the planet. Current business and economic developments with Britain and Western Europe indicate that Europe, and especially Britain -- already experiencing severe gas shortages – are well aware of this reality.

For those who have not already read Heinberg's book "The Party's Over: Oil, War and the Fate of Industrial Societies," I cannot encourage it enough. It is the blueprint for what is to come, even as a massive and yet unexplained power outage cripples the Northeast US and parts of Canada. Whatever the cause of this blackout it is a future-image of what is coming for all of us. FTW now has the book for sale at discount rate at www.fromthewilderness.com. It's about the best investment for your future that I can think of. – MCR]


August 15, 2003, 1200 PDT, (FTW) -- A recently declassified CIA document casts new light on some of the most significant geopolitical events of the past quarter century. This document, an Intelligence Memorandum titled "The Impending Soviet Oil Crisis (ER 77-10147)," was issued in March 1977 by the Office of Economic Research and classified "Secret" until its public release in January 2001 in response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request. (1) Until now, the document has prompted little discussion.

The Memorandum predicts an impending peak in Soviet oil production "not later than the early 1980s" (the actual peak occurred in 1987 at 12.6 million barrels per day, following a preliminary peak in 1983 of 12.5 Mb/d). "During the next decade," the unnamed authors of the document conclude, "the USSR may well find itself not only unable to supply oil to Eastern Europe and the West on the present scale, but also having to compete for OPEC oil for its own use." The Memorandum predicts that the oil peak will have important economic impacts: "When oil production stops growing, and perhaps even before, profound repercussions will be felt on the domestic economy of the USSR and on its international economic relations."

The significance of the document requires some unpacking. First, we must understand the historical context in which it appeared.

Oil production in the US had peaked in 1970, just a few years earlier. This was arguably the most important economic event of the past half-century: until then America was the world's foremost oil producer; for much of the twentieth century it was also the world's foremost oil exporter. American oil won both World Wars for the Allies and made the US the world's richest and most powerful nation. Meanwhile, throughout most of this same period the USSR remained the world's second foremost oil-producing nation.

The American oil peak signaled the end of an era: from that point on, the US would become increasingly dependent on imports—and this dependence would entail serious costs, as became apparent with the Arab OPEC oil embargo of 1973, which sent the US economy into a tailspin. (2) Clearly, CIA analysts in 1977 understood the importance of the American oil peak and believed that a peak of petroleum production in the USSR would have similar or even graver consequences for that nation.

This much is clear and undisputable. Less clear is what was done with the information. Soon after assuming office in 1981, the Reagan Administration abandoned the established policy of pursuing détente with the Soviet Union and instead instituted a massive arms buildup; it also fomented proxy wars in areas of Soviet influence, while denying the Soviets desperately needed oil equipment and technology. Then, in the mid-1980s, Washington persuaded Saudi Arabia to flood the world market with cheap oil. Throughout the last decade of its existence, the USSR pumped and sold its oil at the maximum possible rate in order to earn foreign exchange income with which to keep up in the arms race and prosecute its war in Afghanistan. Yet with markets awash with cheap Saudi oil, the Soviets were earning less even as they pumped more. Two years after their oil production peaked, the economy of the USSR crumbled and its government collapsed.

Did the Reagan administration base its Cold War strategy on the CIA study, in the expectation that a Soviet Union economically weakened by oil depletion would collapse if pushed hard on other fronts?

That question is mostly of historical interest. But the Agency's focus on the phenomenon of oil peaks has important implications for the present. For the past decade, oil experts have been debating when global oil production will peak. Pessimists say the global peak may already have occurred in 2000; optimists say it won't come until 2025 or so. A growing consensus of petroleum geologists places this pivotal event in the mid-range period of 2006 to 2015. (3) From a certain perspective, the amount of time in dispute is not of great significance: whether we have a year or two or a decade or two before the supply of oil can no longer meet demand is relatively trivial from a historical, analytical point of view (though of considerable significance for billions of individual humans needing to make plans for the years ahead); the result in either case will be the same—a slow motion global economic and industrial collapse.

The 1977 CIA document shows clear and detailed awareness of oil issues, including depletion, extraction technologies, pipelines, areas of likely new discovery, the quality of existing reserves, and the dynamics of the global oil market. The CIA has obviously been studying oil very carefully for some time and must therefore understand the issue of global oil peak.

This begs the questions: Does the Agency have a strategy for dealing with this impending mega-event? Or is the Agency's job merely to provide information, and allow the current Administration to formulate policy?

Here we must speculate. The developing semi-public row between the neoconservatives of the present Administration and CIA insiders suggests that the Bush team's plan for invading Iraq and subsequently redrawing the map of the Middle East may not exactly coincide with Agency recommendations. We know that the Bush-Cheney team is independently aware of the issue of peak oil because international oil investment banker Matthew Simmons, who has written extensively and forcefully on depletion issues, was an advisor to Vice President Cheney's now-infamous Energy Task Force in 2001. (4)

If policy makers and their intelligence analysts understand the phenomenon of peak oil, and perhaps even used it strategically during the 1980s to undermine the Soviet Union, and are aware of the upcoming global peak, they must be interested to direct geopolitical events accordingly. What thoughts may be occurring to them in this regard?

The Middle East boasts 70% of global proven reserves of oil. Saudi Arabia has the world's largest reserves (25% of the total), and most of the 9/11 hijackers are alleged to have come from that country. Osama bin Laden is a Saudi native, and his published statements center on the project of ejecting American influence from the nation of Medina and Mecca.

If, as the neoconservatives have repeatedly hinted, Iraq is only the first stage in a larger project of regional regime change, then the real prize must lie just to the south in the giant fields east of Riyadh. One cannot help but wonder if the long-coddled Saudi government is even now being set up for a fall.

As events unfold, it will be of more than passing interest to see whether the CIA and the Bush Administration reconcile their differences, or whether the neoconservatives' hubris and ideological monomania will be their undoing.

Meanwhile, the real motives and long-term strategies of policy makers and intelligence gatherers alike will likely remain opaque to citizens who pay in blood and dollars for their government's military adventures. "The Impending Soviet Oil Crisis" gives us a rare, limited glimpse into the machinery of covert information analysis and decision-making that shape history as we live it.

Bron: http://www.fromthewildern(...)03_cia_russ_oil.html

quote:

Op zondag 12 november 2006 14:23 schreef OpenYourMind het volgende:
Nog een document dat duidelijk laat zien dat peak oil en geopolitieke redenen al decennia een zeer grote rol spelen bij het buitenlandse beleid van de VS.

[..]

quote:

The New Geopolitics

by Michael Klare

The war in Iraq has reconfigured the global geopolitical landscape in many ways, some of which may not be apparent for years or even decades to come. It has certainly altered the U.S. relationship with Europe and the Middle East. But its impact goes well beyond this. More than anything else, the war reveals that the new central pivot of world competition is the south-central area of Eurasia.

[knip]

This ideology disappeared to some degree during the Cold War in favor of a model of ideological competition. That is to say, geopolitical ideology appeared inconsistent with the high-minded justifications (in which “democracy” and “freedom” largely figured) given for interventions in the third world.

But really, if you study the history of the Cold War, the overt conflicts that took place were consciously framed by a geopolitical orientation from the American point of view. The United States had to control the Middle East and its oil. That was the basis of the Truman Doctrine and the Eisenhower Doctrine and the Carter Doctrine. The United States had to control parts of Africa because of its mineral wealth in copper, cobalt, and platinum. That’s why the United States backed the apartheid regime in South Africa. And the reason for both the Korean War and the Vietnam War was understood at the highest levels in terms of the U.S. interest in control of the Pacific Rim.

Today, we are seeing a resurgence of unabashed geopolitical ideology among the leadership cadres of the major powers, above all in the United States. In fact, the best way to see what’s happening today in Iraq and elsewhere is through a geopolitical prism. American leaders have embarked on the classical geopolitical project of assuring U.S. dominance of the most important resource areas, understood as the sources of power and wealth. There is an ideological consistency to what they’re doing, and it is this geopolitical mode of thinking.

Perhaps there is some question as to exactly how conscious this is, but you can see this way of thinking in the overt discourse of many contemporary leaders. Dick Cheney and some prominent neoconservatives especially, but also Democrats such as Zbigniew Brzezinski, speak in this manner. They openly state that the United States is engaged in a struggle to maintain its power vis-à-vis other contending great powers and that America must prevail.

Now, you might ask, what contending great powers? From our point of view it is far from obvious that any exist. But if you read what these folks write and hear what they say, you will find that they are absolutely obsessed by the potential emergence of rival great powers; Russia, China, a European combination of some sort, Japan, and even India.

This is the essence of the Wolfowitz Doctrine, first articulated in the Pentagon’s Defense Planning Guidance document for 1994–1999, first leaked to the press in February 1992. This document calls for proactive U.S. military intervention to deter and prevent the rise of a contending peer (or equal) competitor, and asserts that the United States must use any and all means necessary to prevent that from happening. At the time this statement was met with such howls of outrage from U.S. allies that then President Bush had to squelch the document, and it was revised to take out this language.

But this doctrine lingered in the think-tank writings of the 1990s, re-emerging as the official global military policy of the Bush II administration. It has now been incorporated as the core principle of the document known as the National Security Strategy of the United States of America (September 2002), available for download from the White House website. This document states explicitly that the ultimate purpose of American power is to prevent the rise of a competing great power, and that the United States shall use any means necessary to prevent that from happening, including preventive military force when needed, but also through spending so much money on defense that no other peer competitor can ever arise.

Against this background, it can hardly be questioned that the purpose of the war in Iraq is to redraw the geopolitical map of Eurasia so as to insure and embed American power and dominance in this region vis-E0-vis these other potential competitors.

Now let us step back for a minute and return to the classical geo-political thinking of the early part of the last century, particularly the views of Sir Halford Mackinder of Great Britain. This perspective held that Eurasia was the most important part—the “heartland” of the civilized world, and that whoever controlled this heartland by definition controlled the rest of the world because of the concentration there of population, resources, and industrial might. In classical geopolitical thinking, world politics is essentially a struggle over who will control the Eurasian heartland.

The strategists of the turn of the twentieth century saw two ways through which global dominance could arise. One was through the emergence of a continental power (or a combination of continental powers) that dominated Eurasia and was, therefore, the master of the world. It was precisely this fear—that a German-controlled continental Europe and Russia, together with a Japanese-dominated China and Southeast Asia, would merge into a vast continental power and dominate the Eurasian heartland, thereby reducing the United States to a marginal power—that galvanized American leaders at the onset of the Second World War. Franklin D. Roosevelt was deeply steeped in this mode of analysis, and it is this ideological–strategic view that triggered U.S. intervention in the Second World War.

The other approach to global dominance perceived by early twentieth century geopolitical strategists was to control the “rimlands” of Eurasia—that is, Western Europe, the Pacific Rim, and the Middle East—and thereby contain any emerging “heartland” power. After the Second World War, the United States determined that it would in fact maintain a permanent military presence in all of the rimlands of Eurasia. This is what we know of as the “containment” strategy. And it was this outlook that led to the formation of NATO, the Marshall Plan, SEATO, CENTO, and the U.S. military alliances with Japan and Taiwan. For most of the time since the Second World War, the focus was on the eastern and western ends of Eurasia—Europe and the Far East.

What is happening now, I believe, is that U.S. elites have concluded that the European and East Asian rimlands of Eurasia are securely in American hands or less important, or both. The new center of geopolitical competition, as they see it, is South-Central Eurasia, encompassing the Persian Gulf area, which possesses two-thirds of the world’s oil, the Caspian Sea basin, which has a large chunk of what’s left, and the surrounding countries of Central Asia. This is the new center of world struggle and conflict, and the Bush administration is determined that the United States shall dominate and control this critical area.

Until now, the contested rimlands of Eurasia were the base of U.S. power, while in the south-central region there was but a very modest presence of U.S. forces. Since the end of the Cold War, however, the primary U.S. military realignment has entailed the drawdown of American forces in East Asia and Europe along with the buildup of forces in the south-central region. U.S. bases in Europe are being closed, while new military bases are being established in the Persian Gulf area and in Central Asia.

It is important to note that this is a process that began before 9/11. September 11 quickened the process and gave it a popular mandate, but this was entirely serendipitous from the point of view of U.S. strategists. It was President Clinton who initiated U.S. military ties with Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Georgia, and Azerbaijan, and who built up the U.S. capacity to intervene in the Persian Gulf / Caspian Sea area. The U.S. victory in Iraq was not a victory of Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld; it was Clinton’s work that made this victory possible.

The war against Iraq was intended to provide the United States with a dominant position in the Persian Gulf region, and to serve as a springboard for further conquests and assertion of power in the region. It was aimed as much, if not more, at China, Russia, and Europe as at Syria or Iran. It is part of a larger process of asserting dominant U.S. power in south-central Eurasia, in the very heartland of this mega-continent.

But why specifically the Persian Gulf/Caspian Sea area, and why now? In part, this is so because this is where most of the world’s remaining oil is located—approximately 70 percent of known petroleum reserves. And you have to think of oil not just as a source of fuel—although that’s very important—but as a source of power. As U.S. strategists see it, whoever controls Persian Gulf oil controls the world’s economy and, therefore, has the ultimate lever over all competing powers.

In September 1990, then Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney told the Senate Armed Services Committee that Saddam Hussein would acquire a “stranglehold” over the U.S. and world economy if he captured Saudi Arabia’s oilfields along with those of Kuwait. This was the main reason, he testified, why the United States must send troops to the area and repel Hussein’s forces. He used much the same language in a speech last August to the Veterans of Foreign Wars. I believe that in his mind it is clear that the United States must retain a stranglehold on the world economy by controlling this area. This is just as important, in the administration’s view, as retaining America’s advantage in military technology.

Ten years from now, China is expected to be totally dependent on the Persian Gulf and the Caspian Sea area for the oil it will need to sustain its economic growth. Europe, Japan, and South Korea will be in much the same position. Control over the oil spigot may be a somewhat cartoonish image, but it is an image that has motivated U.S. policy since the end of the Cold War and has gained even more prominence in the Bush-Cheney administration.

This region is also the only area in the world where the interests of the putative great powers collide. In the hotly-contested Caspian Sea area, Russia is an expanding power, China is an expanding power, and the United States is an expanding power. There is no other place in the world like this. They are struggling with one another consciously and actively. The Bush administration is determined to dominate this area and to subordinate these two potential challengers and prevent them from forming a common front against the United States. (For more on the emerging power struggle in the Caspian Sea basin, see my Resource Wars: The New Landscape of Global Conflict [Henry Holt/Metropolitan, 2001].)

What then are the implications of this great realignment of U.S. geo-political strategy made possible by the Cold War defeat of the Soviet Union?

It is obviously much too early to draw any definitive conclusions on this, but some things can be said. First, Iraq is just the beginning of a U.S. drive into this area. We will see further extensions and expressions of U.S. power in the region. This will provoke resistance and self-conscious opposition to the United States by insurgent groups and regimes. But the United States will also become enmeshed in local conflicts that arose long before America’s involvement in the region. For example, the conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan, and that between Abkhazia and Georgia—both of which have a long history—will come to impact on U.S. security as the United States becomes dependent on a newly-constructed trans-Caucasian oil pipeline. The Chechen and Afghani wars continue and bracket the region. In all such disputes there is a likelihood of indirect or direct, covert or overt intervention by the United States and the other contending powers.

We are at the beginning, I believe, of a new Cold War in south-central Eurasia, with many possibilities for crises and flare-ups, because nowhere else in the world are Russia and China directly involved and supporting groups and regimes that are opposed to the United States. Even during the height of the Cold War, there wasn’t anything quite comparable to this. American troops will be there for a long time, with a high risk of violent engagement and the potential for great human suffering. It appears, then, that the U.S. and international peace movement will have a lot of work ahead!


Michael Klare is a professor of peace and world security studies at Hampshire College in Amherst, Massachusetts, and the author, most recently, of Resource Wars: The New Landscape of Global Conflict

Bron: http://www.monthlyreview.org/0703klare.htm

quote:

Op zondag 12 november 2006 14:29 schreef Wombcat het volgende:

[..]

Dat speelt het al veel langer. Japan heeft in WO2 Pearl Harbor aangevallen, omdat ze te maken hadden met een olieboycot van de VS.
Hitler liet zijn legers in 1942 richting Kaukasus oprukken vanwege de olie die daar zat.

Het ligt nogal voor de hand dat omdat in de huidige economie olie belangrijk is, het ook belangrijk is om de levering van olie (op zijn minst enigszins) onder controle te hebben. Je wilt daarin niet afhankelijk zijn van landen/regeringen die je slechtgezind zijn, want dan kunnen ze je economie lamleggen.

quote:

Ik denk dat de War on Terror op zichzelf wel bedoeld is om terrorisme te bestrijden, maar dat Irak er met de haren bijgesleept is vanwege de olie die daar is. Dus dat Bush de War on Terror gebruikt om de olie veilig te stellen.

Dito met het argument dat Saddam Hussein zo'n verschrikkelijke dictator is. Dat klopt, maar die zijn er wel meer, die blijven zitten omdat er in hun land geen olie is, en de VS er dus geen baat bij hebben om daar binnen te vallen.

Overigens hebben we zelf ook baat bij een stabiele olievoorziening. Wat voor mij geen reden was om Irak binnen te vallen.

quote:

Op zondag 12 november 2006 14:46 schreef OpenYourMind het volgende:

[..]

Eerder schreef jij:

quote:

Ik stel dus dat de war on terror bullshit is net als de war on drugs. Beide worden kunstmatig in stand gehouden en dienen de economie en het beleid van de VS. De war on drugs haalt niks uit en de drugs komt mede met behulp van de CIA het land binnen. Denk ook aan Afghanistan die nu meer dan 90% van de heroine de wereld in helpt. Het geld dat hiermee de Amerikaanse (en de wereld) economie ingepompt wordt is gigantisch. Het terrorisme geeft op haar beurt een publiekelijke aanvaardbare reden voor de invasies en bezettingen van de VS en GB. Mijn mening is dat ze het terrorisme juist bewust hebben aangewakkerd en dat bijna alles van 9/11 tot nu van tevoren gepland was. Zelfs als je van mening bent dat 9/11 niet mede mogelijk is gemaakt door de VS kan je niet anders concluderen dat het hele beleid zoals die nu gevoerd wordt onderdeel is van decennia lange plannen.

quote:

De motieven, onafhankelijk zijn voor je energiebehoeften en tegelijkertijd de macht hebben te bepalen wie wel en wie niet toegang krijgt tot deze bronnen lijken mij voldoende bewezen. Daarbij zijn een paar terroristen en wat aanslagen verwaarloosbaar.

quote:

Op zondag 12 november 2006 14:58 schreef Wombcat het volgende:

[..]

Dat weet ik wel dat ik dat schreef Die twee dingen die ik schrijf zijn niet tegenstrijdig.
9/11 noopte Bush/de VS tot een reactie, namelijk iets tegen het terrorisme te doen. Dus: war on terror. In eerste instantie vallen ze dan Afghanistan aan, een duidelijke link met terrorisme, want de Al Qaida had banden met de Taliban.

Vervolgens heb je Afghanistan, en richt Bush zich op Irak. Daar is geen link meer met terrorisme. Saddam Hussein had niets met 9/11 te maken en geen banden met de Al Qaida. Het was wel een wrede dictator, maar na de eerste Golfoorlog geen bedreiging meer voor de VS. Niettemin toch aangevallen, waarom? Omdat daar olie zit. En er is daar aangevallen op basis van valse argumenten (dat Saddam met terrorisme te maken had en massavernietigingswapens had. Dus: war on terror is er met de haren bijgesleept.
[..]

Dat de VS hand hebben gehad in 9/11 zijn we het niet over eens, maar dat wisten we al
Ik denk niet dat de aanval op Afghanistan veel te maken heeft gehad met olie, die was imo toch voornamelijk bedoeld om de dreiging van de Al Qaida te beperken. Dus: hier meer war on terror als war for oil.
[..]

De voortzetting van de war on terror zoals die nu wordt uitgevoerd heeft idd weinig meer met de war on terror te maken, maar wel degelijk zitten er nog een aantal van de doelstellingen van de war on terror in. Niettemin is dit niet meer de oorspronkelijke war on terror, dat ben ik dan wel weer met je eens.

quote:

The Anglo-American War of Terror: An Overview

By Michel Chossudovsky
Global Research, December 21, 2005


Introduction

The World is at the crossroads of the most serious crisis in modern history. In the largest display of military might since the Second World War, the United States and its indefectible British ally have embarked upon a military adventure, which threatens the future of humanity.

An understanding of the underlying historical background is crucial. This war agenda is not the product of a distinct neo-conservative project. From the outset of the Cold War Era, there is a consistent thread, a continuum in US military doctrine, from the "Truman doctrine" to Bush's "war on terrorism".

Foreign Policy adviser George F. Kennan had outlined in a 1948 State Department brief what was later described as the "'Truman doctrine."

What this 1948 document conveys is continuity in US foreign policy, from "Containment" to "Pre-emptive" War. In this regard, the Neo-conservative agenda under the Bush administration should be viewed as the culmination of a post World War II foreign policy framework. The latter has been marked by a succession of US sponsored wars and military interventions in all major regions of the World. From Korea, Vietnam and Afghanistan, to the CIA sponsored military coups in Latin America and Southeast Asia, the objective has been to ensure US military hegemony and global economic domination, as initially formulated under the "Truman Doctrine" at the outset of the Cold War.

Despite significant policy differences, successive Democratic and Republican administrations, from Harry Truman to George W. Bush have carried out this global military agenda.

Moreover, Kennan's writings pointed to the formation of an Anglo-American alliance, which currently characterizes the close relationship between Washington and London. This alliance responds to powerful economic interests in the oil industry, defense and international banking. It is, in many regards, an Anglo-American extension of the British Empire, which was officially disbanded in the wake of the Second World War.

The Truman doctrine also points to the inclusion of Canada in the Anglo-American military axis. Moreover, Kennan had also underscored the importance of preventing the development of a continental European power that could compete with the US.

With regard to Asia, including China and India, Kennan hinted to the importance of articulating a military solution:

"The day is not far off when we are going to have to deal in straight power concepts. The less we are then hampered by idealistic slogans, the better"


[...]


The "War on Terrorism"

Amply documented, the war on terrorism is a fabrication. Al Qaeda is a US sponsored "intelligence asset". Saudi-born Osama bin Laden is a creation of U.S. foreign policy. He was recruited during the Soviet-Afghan war "ironically under the auspices of the CIA, to fight Soviet invaders." During the Cold War, but also in its aftermath, the CIA — using Pakistan’s Military Intelligence apparatus as a go-between —played a key role in training the Mujahideen.

With the active encouragement of the CIA and Pakistan’s ISI [Inter Services Intelligence], who wanted to turn the Afghan Jihad into a global war waged by all Muslim states against the Soviet Union, some 35,000 Muslim radicals from 40 Islamic countries joined Afghanistan’s fight between 1982 and 1992. Tens of thousands more came to study in Pakistani madrasahs. Eventually more than 100,000 foreign Muslim radicals were directly influenced by the Afghan jihad. (Ahmed Rashid, The Taliban: Exporting Extremism, Foreign Affairs, November-December 1999)

Both the Clinton and Bush administrations have supported the so-called "Militant Islamic Base", including Osama bin Laden’s Al Qaeda, as part of their military-intelligence agenda. The links between Osama bin Laden and the Clinton administration in Bosnia and Kosovo are well documented by congressional records.

Ironically, the U.S. Administration’s undercover military-intelligence operations in Bosnia were fully documented by the Republican Party. A lengthy Congressional report by the Republican Party Committee (RPC) published in 1997 accused the Clinton administration of having "helped turn Bosnia into a militant Islamic base" leading to the recruitment, through the so-called "Militant Islamic Network", of thousands of Mujahideen from the Muslim world:

The Clinton administration’s ‘hands-on’ involvement with the Islamic network’s arms pipeline included inspections of missiles from Iran by U.S. government officials … the Third World Relief Agency (TWRA), a Sudan-based, phoney humanitarian organization … has been a major link in the arms pipeline to Bosnia. … TWRA is believed to be connected with such fixtures of the Islamic terror network as Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman (the convicted mastermind behind the 1993 World Trade Centre bombing) and Osama bin Laden, a wealthy Saudi émigré believed to bankroll numerous militant groups. (Congressional Press Release, Republican, Party Committee (RPC), U.S. Congress, Clinton-Approved Iranian Arms Transfers Help Turn Bosnia into Militant Islamic Base, Washington DC, 16 January 1997. The original document is on the website of the U.S. Senate Republican Party Committee (Senator Larry Craig), at

http://www.senate.gov/~rpc/releases/1997/iran.htm [emphasis added].


Counter-Terrorism

The CIA has created it own terrorist organizations including "Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia" which is led by Abu Musab Al Zarqawi. And at the same time, it creates its own terrorist warnings concerning the terrorist organizations, which it has itself created. In turn, it has developed a cohesive multibillion dollar counterterrorism program "to go after" these terrorist organizations.

Counterterrorism and war propaganda are intertwined. The propaganda apparatus feeds disinformation into the news chain. The terror warnings must appear to be "genuine". The objective is to present the terror groups as "enemies of America." The underlying objective is to galvanize public opinion in support of America's war on terrorism" agenda.
The "war on terrorism" requires a humanitarian mandate. The war on terrorism is presented as a "Just War", which is to be fought on moral grounds "to redress a wrong suffered." To reach its foreign policy objectives, the images of terrorism must remain vivid in the minds of the citizens, who are constantly reminded of the terrorist threat. The propaganda campaign presents the portraits of the leaders behind the terror network. In other words, at the level of what constitutes an "advertising" campaign, "it gives a face to terror."

Bron: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=CHO20051221&articleId=1576

quote:

Revisited - The Real Reasons for the Upcoming War With Iraq

by William Clark

Although a collective switch by OPEC would be extremely unlikely barring a major panic on the U.S. dollar, it would appear that a gradual transition is quite plausible. Furthermore, despite Saudi Arabia being our `client state,' the Saudi regime appears increasingly weak/threatened from massive civil unrest. Some analysts believe civil unrest might unfold in Saudi Arabia, Iran and other Gulf states in the aftermath of an unpopular U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq [3]. Undoubtedly, the Bush administration is acutely aware of these risks. Hence, the neo-conservative framework entails a large and permanent military presence in the Persian Gulf region in a post-Saddam era, just in case we need to surround and control Saudi's large Ghawar oil fields in the event of a Saudi coup by an anti-western group. But first back to Iraq.

"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."

This information about Iraq's oil currency is not discussed by the U.S. media or the Bush administration as the truth could potentially curtail both investor and consumer confidence, reduce consumer borrowing/spending, create political pressure to form a new energy policy that slowly weans us off Middle-Eastern oil, and of course stop our march towards a war with Iraq. This quasi `state secret' is addressed in a Radio Free Europe article that discussed Saddam's switch for his oil sales from dollars to the euros, to be effective November 6, 2000:

"Baghdad's switch from the dollar to the euro for oil trading is intended to rebuke Washington's hard-line on sanctions and encourage Europeans to challenge it. But the political message will cost Iraq millions in lost revenue. RFE/RL correspondent Charles Recknagel looks at what Baghdad will gain and lose, and the impact of the decision to go with the European currency." [4]

At the time of the switch many analysts were surprised that Saddam was willing to give up approximately $270 million in oil revenue for what appeared to be a political statement. However, contrary to one of the main points of this November 2000 article, the steady depreciation of the dollar versus the euro since late 2001 means that Iraq has profited handsomely from the switch in their reserve and transaction currencies. Indeed, The Observer surprisingly divulged these facts in a recent article entitled: `Iraq nets handsome profit by dumping dollar for euro,' (February 16, 2003).

"A bizarre political statement by Saddam Hussein has earned Iraq a windfall of hundreds of millions of euros. In October 2000 Iraq insisted upon dumping the US Dollar -- `the currency of the enemy' -- for the more multilateral euro." [5]

Although Iraq's oil currency switch appears to be completely censored by the U.S. media conglomerates, this UK article illustrates that the euro has gained almost 25% against the dollar since late 2001, which also applies to the $10 billion in Iraq's U.N. `oil for food' reserve fund that was previously held in dollars has also gained that same percent value since the switch. It was reported in 2003 that Iraq's UN reserve fund had swelled from $10 billion dollars to 26 billion euros. According to a former government analyst, the following scenario would occur if OPEC made an unlikely, but sudden (collective) switch to euros, as opposed to a gradual transition.

"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)."

Although the above scenario is unlikely, and most assuredly undesirable, under certain economic conditions it is plausible. In fact, one of the conditions that could create such an environment is a near unilateral U.S. led war in the Middle East. For example, a large spike in oil prices could create huge problems for the imperiled Japanese banking system, the world's largest holder of U.S. dollar reserves. Unfortunately the current Bush administration has chosen a military option instead of a multilateral conference on monetary reform to resolve these issues. In the aftermath of toppling Saddam it is clear the U.S. will keep a large and permanent military force in the Persian Gulf. Indeed, there is no talk of an `exit strategy,' as the military will be needed to protect the newly installed regime, and to send a message to other OPEC producers that they too might receive `regime change' if they convert their oil payments to euros.


[knip]


On April 28, 2003, I read the first article in the mainstream US media (msnbc.com) since the autumn of 2000 that addressed some of the issues regarding Iraqi oil exports in the euro. Apparently until the U.N. sanctions were lifted; Iraq's oil was to remain under UN control in the "oil for food" program. However, UN Resolution 1483 passed on May 22, 2003 establishing a joint US/UK administered "Iraqi Assistance Fund" which provided the mechanism to quietly and legally reconvert Iraqi's oil exports back to the dollar. To reiterate, the following excerpts from this forthright msnbc.com article is the only mainstream US media reference that I could locate during 2003 that discussed the Iraq war and the underlying petrodollar versus petroeuro issues. It was entitled "In Round 2, It's the Dollar versus the Euro" (implying the Iraq war was `Round 1').

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. [55]

Although the author addressed this subject somewhat obliquely, his final sentence is quite candid. Indeed, my original hypothesis from December 2002 was reinforced in a Financial Times article dated June 5th 2003 which confirmed Iraqi oil sales returning to the international markets were once again denominated in U.S. dollars, not euros. Not surprisingly, this detail was never mentioned in our imperialist, corporate-controlled US media, but confirmation of this fact provides insight into one of the crucial -- yet overlooked -- rationales for the Iraq war.

Bron: http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/RRiraqWar.pdf
Website: http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/RRiraqWar.html

quote:

Bush Says U.S. Pullout Would Let Iraq Radicals Use Oil as a Weapon

By Peter Baker
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, November 5, 2006; Page A06

GREELEY, Colo., Nov. 4 -- During the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, President Bush and his aides sternly dismissed suggestions that the war was all about oil. "Nonsense," Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld declared. "This is not about that," said White House spokesman Ari Fleischer.

Now, more than 3 1/2 years later, someone else is asserting that the war is about oil -- President Bush.

As he barnstorms across the country campaigning for Republican candidates in Tuesday's elections, Bush has been citing oil as a reason to stay in Iraq. If the United States pulled its troops out prematurely and surrendered the country to insurgents, he warns audiences, it would effectively hand over Iraq's considerable petroleum reserves to terrorists who would use it as a weapon against other countries.

"You can imagine a world in which these extremists and radicals got control of energy resources," he said at a rally here Saturday for Rep. Marilyn Musgrave (R-Colo.). "And then you can imagine them saying, 'We're going to pull a bunch of oil off the market to run your price of oil up unless you do the following. And the following would be along the lines of, well, 'Retreat and let us continue to expand our dark vision.' "

Bush said extremists controlling Iraq "would use energy as economic blackmail" and try to pressure the United States to abandon its alliance with Israel. At a stop in Missouri on Friday, he suggested that such radicals would be "able to pull millions of barrels of oil off the market, driving the price up to $300 or $400 a barrel."

Oil is not the only reason Bush offers for staying in Iraq, but his comments on the stump represent another striking evolution of his argument on behalf of the war. The slogan of "no blood for oil" became a rallying cry for antiwar activists prior to the March 2003 invasion and angered administration officials. "There are certain things like that, myths, that are floating around," Rumsfeld told Steve Kroft of CBS Radio in November 2002. "It has nothing to do with oil, literally nothing to do with oil."

White House spokesman Tony Fratto said Saturday that Bush's latest argument does not reflect a real shift. "We're still not saying we went into Iraq for oil. That's not true," he said. "But there is the realistic strategic concern that if a country with such enormous oil reserves and the corresponding revenues you can derive from that is controlled by essentially a terrorist organization, it could be destabilizing for the region."

[knip]

Even if Iraq did not sell oil to the United States, it would not matter as long as it sold it to someone because the international market is fungible and what counts is the overall supply and overall demand, according to analysts. If Iraq cut off exports altogether, it still would not have the dire effect on the world market that Bush predicts, they said. The price of oil began rising dramatically in 2002 as the confrontation with Iraq loomed, but many factors contributed, including increasing demand by China and problems in Nigeria, Venezuela and elsewhere.

Bron: http://www.washingtonpost(...)AR2006110401025.html

quote:

Op zondag 12 november 2006 19:57 schreef Freak187 het volgende:
Ach de huidige bronnen zitten nog zeker voor zo'n 50% vol, de bedrijven hebben alleen grote moeite om het op te pompen.

quote:

Op vrijdag 10 november 2006 13:19 schreef OpenYourMind het volgende:

[..]

De "wetenschappers" Jerome R. Corsi and Craig R. Smith worden in de wetenschappelijke wereld niet echt op handen gedragen, er is nog totaal geen bewijs voor hun abiotische olie theorie behalve wishfull thinking. Dat er nog grote olievelden diep in de zee zijn is goed mogelijk. De vraag is echter of we de techniek hebben om deze in productie te brengen en of dit een significante bijdrage kan leveren aan het aantal barrels per dag. Verder kan abiotische olie best waar zijn, maar tot nu toe is nog nergens gebleken dat de olie in andere velden bijgevult wordt uit de aarde en al helemaal niet of dit tempo voldoende is. Als de olievelden echt bijgevult worden dan hadden we dat nu al wel gemerkt. De diepere olievelden zouden hierop een uitzondering kunnen zijn, maar dan nog is het zeer speculatief.

quote:

Cambridge Energy Research Associates predicts world oil and natural gas liquids capacity could increase as much as 25% by 2015. Says Robert W. Esser, a director of CERA: "Peak Oil theory is garbage as far as we're concerned."

quote:

[..]

Mee eens. Het vertrouwen is dus op nieuwe technologie. De vraag blijft echter of dit aan de stijgende vraag naar energie kan voldoen. Dat is dus een kwestie van koffiedik kijken, waar bijna iedere wetenschapper een andere kijk op heeft.

quote:

[..]

Waarbij ze impliciet dus eigenlijk zeggen dat we nu nog maar net de vraag kunnen bijhouden en dat de verwachtingen zijn dat er misschien de komende jaren nog genoeg oude velden en wat alternatieven ontwikkeld worden die het aanbod iets kunnen verhogen. 15m barrels per dag is natuurlijk wel een uitermate optimistische schatting.

quote:

[..]

Bewijs eerst maar eens dat die er zijn. De reserves van de OPEC landen zijn eind jaren 80 bijna verdubbeld vanwege een regeling waarbij men meer olie mag produceren naarmate de reserves hoger zijn. Ook blijven de reserves al jaren hetzelfde ook al wordt er wel gewoon geproduceerd. Feit is dat niemand eigenlijk weet hoeveel reserves er zijn en dat de gegevens die we hebben onbetrouwbaar zijn.

quote:

[..]

Ik heb ook een tegenbericht gelezen van het IMF waarbij ze stellen dat een hoge olieprijs (rond de $80) zeer schadelijk is voor de economie.

quote:

Ken Rogoff, a professor at Harvard and former chief economist of the IMF, argues that the “world really did not have a clear picture” of the relationship between oil and GDP. He now thinks that a gradual rise to an oil price of $80 “would not present any great difficulties for the global economy”. If it happened over five or ten years, consumers would adjust by becoming more energy-efficient, using new technologies and perhaps even re-thinking their transport arrangements.

quote:

Edit:
En het allerbelangrijkste wat doen de landen waarvan het westen masaal afhankelijk van is voor haar energiebehoefte?

quote:

Op maandag 13 november 2006 22:37 schreef OpenYourMind het volgende:
EIA: tekort op oliemarkt in 2006 en 2007

Het onderzoeksbureau EIA van het Amerikaanse ministerie van Energie laat in haar maandelijkse Short Term Energy Outlook zien dat in 2007 net als in 2006 een tekort is op de wereldwijde oliemarkt.

Vraag

Het dagelijkse tekort over heel 2006 is 200.000 vaten per dag op een totale productie van 85 miljoen vaten. De vraag naar olie zal volgend jaar met ongeveer 2% stijgen en komt dan uit op 86,5 miljoen vaten. De EIA schat de totale dagelijks productie volgend jaar stijgt tot 86.4.

Dat levert een dagelijks tekort van 100.000 vaten per dag.

Prijs

Het is voor het eerst dat de vraag naar olie over een periode van twee jaar groter is dan het aanbod, aldus olie- en beurscommentator Willem Middelkoop van RTL Z. Een verdere daling van de olieprijs lijkt dan ook uitgesloten.

De laatste spreadsheet van wereldvraag en aanbod van het EIA met de tekorten rood gemarkeerd.

[afbeelding]

Bron: http://www.rtl.nl/(/finan(...)3-eia_olietekort.xml

quote:

World oil inventories increased in Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries during the first half of 2006 as concerns about potential supply problems rose. Some of these potential problems, such as further disruption during hurricane season in the Gulf of Mexico, never materialized, leading to greater than expected increases in inventory levels. Despite rising inventory levels during July and August, EIA projects that OECD inventories will decrease during the fourth quarter of 2006 and during 2007. By the end of 2007, EIA projects days of supply of OECD inventories to finish at the bottom of the normal range for that time of year, which is expected to maintain a tight market.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/steo/pub/contents.html

quote:

Op dinsdag 14 november 2006 02:06 schreef gorgg het volgende:

[..]

Geloof me of niet, maar eigenlijk wist ik niet dat dit in het artikel stond (had het niet gelezen, (tsk tsk) alleen gezien dat het over die ene vondst ging). Ik geloof niet dat olie abiotisch is.
Waar ik op doelde was het feit dat er 2 maanden geleden een behoorlijk groot olieveld werd gevonden (bevestigd eigenlijk) op een diepte van zo'n 8500 meter onder de zeespiegel en ongeveer 6400 meter onder de zeebodem.
Artikels waar ik beter naar verwezen had:
http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/17487/page1/
http://www.businessweek.c(...)news+index_investing
Slotzin bij dat laatste artikel:

quote:

On September 5, a consortium of three oil-industry giants, Chevron, Devon, and Statoil, announced the results of a well test in the Jack Field located about 270 miles south of New Orleans and 175 miles offshore. It may be the largest discovery since Alaska's Prudhoe Bay in 1968, and it is almost entirely due to recent advances in exploration technology.

[knip]

The well sustained a flow rate of about 6,000 barrels a day, strong enough to encourage analysts to predict that the field may contain anywhere from three billion to fifteen billion barrels of oil, although the results of a second well test scheduled for 2007 will sharpen the accuracy of those figures considerably. If the higher-end estimate is correct, though, the discovery would approach Prudhoe Bay in size, and possibly increase total U.S. reserves by some 50 percent.

quote:

One huge oil reserve, even if it could rival the 1968 discovery of Prudhoe Bay and increase U.S. reserves by up to 50%, will not turn around the world's tight energy markets, of course. It won't even bring the U.S. close to energy independence when oil and gas get into full-fledged production four or five years from now.

But the capability to find and recover petroleum at extreme depths, temperatures, and pressures, as demonstrated by the Chevron team, may indeed tip the balance of supply and demand in the long term. There will be a new frenzy of drilling at these depths in the Gulf of Mexico, where about a dozen promising exploration wells have already been drilled.

[knip]

Earlier drilling had established promising reserves in an area of the Gulf 300 miles long and 80 miles wide, but the Chevron project found a flow rate of more than 6,000 bbl. a day of light, sweet crude. The discovery confirmed the area's commercial viability, strengthening hopes that as much as 15 billion barrels of oil could be recovered in the vicinity.

[knip]

But given the powerful combination of high oil prices and new technology, the industry is gaining confidence that supplies will grow. It's pushing hard to produce oil and gas from difficult tar sand and shale fields as well as rejuvenating older fields with enhanced recovery methods. Cambridge Energy Research Associates predicts world oil and natural gas liquids capacity could increase as much as 25% by 2015. Says Robert W. Esser, a director of CERA: "Peak Oil theory is garbage as far as we're concerned."

quote:

- The underlying analytical model formulated by the late M. King Hubbert both fails to recognize that recoverable reserve estimates evolve with time and are subject to significant change, and it also underplays the substantial impact of technological advances. Consequently, total annual production at the high point in 1970 was 600 million barrels higher – 20 percent -- than Hubbert’s projection of peak production for the US Lower 48, although he correctly anticipated its timing within two years.

- Hubbert’s method requires accurate knowledge of the ultimate recoverable reserves of an area, but his 1956 analysis could never have incorporated the impact of giant discoveries in Alaska and the deepwater Gulf of Mexico, and therefore couldn’t have predicted the production profile for the U.S. As a result, total cumulative U.S. production between the high point in 1970 and 2005 exceeded Hubbert’s predictions by the equivalent of more than 10 years of US production at present rates.

- Hubbert-posited post-peak reservoir decline curve assumptions are rebutted by observation that the geometry of typical oilfield production profiles is often distinctly asymmetrical and does not generally show a precipitous mirror-image decline in production after an apparent peak, even without the application of new technology or enhanced oil recovery techniques. As a result, in the US Lower 48 where Hubbert came closest to accurately forecasting a peak, oil production in 2005 was some 66 percent higher than projected by Hubbert, and cumulative production between 1970 and 2005 was some 15 billion barrels higher, a variance equal to more than eight years of US production at present rates.

- Those who believe a peak is imminent tend to consider only proven remaining reserves of conventional oil, which they currently estimate at about 1.2 trillion barrels. In the view of many petroleum geologists, this is a pessimistic estimate because it excludes the enormous contribution likely from probable and possible resources, those yet to be found, and plays down the importance of unconventional reserves in the Canadian oil sands, the Orinoco tar belt, oil shale and GTL projects. CERA believes the global inventory is some 4.8 trillion barrels, of which about 1.08 trillion barrels have been produced, leaving 3.72 trillion conventional and unconventional barrels, an order of magnitude that will allow productive capacity to continue to expand well into this century.

- The “peak oil” argument is frequently supported with data indicating that new exploration finds are not sufficient to replace annual production. Their data sets have serious deficiencies. The peak argument is an incomplete and therefore misleading analysis because it ignores the role of development (vs exploration) projects in expanding reserves, fails to understand economic factors that can point company and national strategies to emphasize development vs exploration work. By focusing on “discovery” and ignoring the increased knowledge and confidence about field volumes, it disregards the fact that revisions, additions and exploration together have generated resource growth of 320 billion barrels – 80 billion barrels more, or one-third more, than total production – during the period from 1995 to 2003. CERA draws both on its own data bases and those of its parent company IHS, which has the world’s most complete proprietary data bases on oil production and resources.

- Hubbert’s method does not incorporate economic or technical factors that influence productive capacity; most importantly, it ignores the impact of both price and demand, both major drivers of production.

quote:

- Based on a detailed bottom-up approach, CERA sees no evidence of a peak before 2030. Moreover, global production will eventually follow an undulating plateau for one or more decades before declining slowly. Global resources, including both conventional and unconventional oils, are adequate to support strong production growth and a period on an undulating plateau.

- Despite his valuable contribution, M. King Hubbert's methodology falls down because it does not consider likely resource growth, application of new technology, basic commercial factors, or the impact of geopolitics on production. His approach does not work in all cases-including on the United States itself-and cannot reliably model a global production outlook. Put more simply, the case for the imminent peak is flawed. As it is, production in 2005 in the Lower 48 in the United States was 66 percent higher than Hubbert projected.

- The debate should now move toward a better understanding of the key drivers of production, including the scale of global resources and the likely production outlook, which form the core of current disagreements and confusion.

quote:

Je noemt Jerome R. Corsi en Craig R. Smith (terecht imo) omstreden. Mensen als Ruppert en Chossudovsky zijn toch ook erg omstreden? Veel aanhang bij wetenschappers in relevante vakgebieden hebben ze imo alleszins niet, toch baseer je je wereldbeeld volgens mij voor een groot stuk op hun meningen.

quote:

Op woensdag 15 november 2006 14:30 schreef OpenYourMind het volgende:
Uit de artikelen blijkt al dat er een 6.000 vaten olie per dag geproduceerd kunnen worden en dat het veld tussen de 3 en 15 miljard vaten (recoverable oil?) zou kunnen bevatten. Die 6.000 vaten per dag zijn nauwelijks merkbaar op een consumptie van de VS alleen al van meer dan 20 miljoen vaten per dag. Maar als er hier een stuk of 100 gevonden worden en in productie worden genomen zal het wellicht de peak hoogstens een paar jaar uitstellen. Met andere woorden het wachten is op een groot veld en het enige bewijs voor het bestaan ervan is het goede vertrouwen van deze mensen dat die er moeten zijn.

quote:

Die CERA organisatie is ook niet echt een onafhankelijke wetenschappelijke bron te nomen. Het is een energie adviseursbedrijf, net als Mathew Simmons’s bedrijf. Beide hebben dus belangen bij het brengen van bepaald gekleurd nieuws.

quote:

Op de CERA website staat een artikel uitgegeven afgelopen dinsdag 14 november waarin ze stellen dat de peak oil theorie gevaarlijk is en het debat kan verstoren door met verkeerde informatie te komen. Hierbij gebruiken ze voornamelijk de originele theorie van M. King Hubbert uit 1956.
[..]

Dit is een directe aanval op de peak oil theorie en alle wetenschappers die met deze theorie geassocieerd worden. Het grootste deel van het artikel bestaat uit het bekritiseren van de peak oil theorie in de oude vorm. CERA presenteert het alsof de peak oil aanhangers van tegenwoordig nog exact die theorie aanhangen en stellen dan alsof zij degenen zijn die het debat willen corrigeren door te melden dat het geen piek zal zijn maar een plateau. Dit terwijl de meeste wetenschappers die zich met peak oil bezig houden al jaren precies hetzelfde zeggen. En alle punten die ze daar noemen erkennen. Het geen waar andere peak oil wetenschappers verschillen met het CERA is het optimisme en het oneindige vertrouwen in de oplossingen die aangedragen zullen worden door markt werking en technologische ontwikkeling. Peak oil aanhangers zien liever een geforceerde oplossing, d.m.v. research en het ontwikkelen en implementeren van technieken voordat we de invloeden van een plateau en jaren van schommelend aanbod hebben.

quote:

De hoofdpunten uit het rapport.
[..]

Geen enkele serieuze wetenschapper die zich met peak oil bezig houd zal het hier mee oneens zijn. Sterker nog, dit is common knowledge! De wetenschappers die zich met peak oil bezig houden zijn zich juist bewust van de invloeden van geopolitiek en houden juist rekening met nieuwe technologieën en de economie, dat zijn namelijk juist de speerpunten waarom zij zo bezorgd zijn en de mensen willen waarschuwen en voorzorgsmaatregelen willen nemen in plaats van alles maar op zijn beloop te laten.

quote:

Het artikel van From The Wilderness is geschreven door Richard Heinberg. Heinberg staat zeer hoog aangeschreven. Hij doet voornamelijk onderzoek naar peak oil en heeft hier meerdere boeken over geschreven. Als bron gebruikt hij een declassified document van de CIA. Ik gebruik deze om aan te tonen dat de CIA op de hoogte was en dat peak oil invloed heeft op de Amerikaanse politiek vanaf de jaren 70.

quote:

In the late eighties Heinberg started reading the works of historian Lewis Mumford, who helped him understand the history of technology from an ecological and humanistic perspective. Another inspiration was M.K. Hubbard _{(foutje denk ik: Hubbert)}, the late geophysicist who accurately predicted the decline of U.S. oil production in 970. Heinberg found a mentor in Colin J. Campbell, a British Petroleum geologist and godfather of the modern peak-oil movement. It was a 998 Scientific American article Campbell coauthored, titled “The End of Cheap Oil,” that led Heinberg to begin digging into U.S. Department of Energy databases. Just five years later, Heinberg’s book The Party’s Over: Oil, War, and the Fate of ndustrial Societies (New Society Publishers) became a bestseller.

quote:

Mijn doel met dit topic was het aantonen dat het buitenlandse beleid sterk gedreven is door geopolitieke redenen en dat terrorisme slechts het excuus vormt om deze geopolitieke zetten te verantwoorden aan het volk. Ik acht deze stelling inmiddels voldoende bewezen.

quote:

_{De rest reageer ik later nog op (waarschijnlijk heb ik daar pas volgende week tijd voor).}

quote:

Op dinsdag 14 november 2006 22:17 schreef gorgg het volgende:

[..]

Ik vind die Willem Middelkoop een ongeloofelijke idioot en snap niet hoe die op zo'n functie is terecht kunnen komen, maar dat terzijde.

De oliemarkt werkt net als alle andere niet-gereguleerde markten (qua prijzen) naar gelang vraag en aanbod. Bij een vraagoverschot stijgen de prijzen tot het evenwicht hervonden wordt, bij vraagtekort dalen de prijzen tot het evenwicht gevonden wordt. De oliemarkt is hier natuurlijk geen uitzondering op. Het is onmogelijk dat er over een langere periode een tekort zou zijn zonder dat dit bijgesteld wordt.

Dat Middelkoop een idioot is, bewijst hij imo nog maar eens met deze 'vondst' van hem. Hij vindt een tabelletje met wat cijfers in, ziet total world demand en total world supply en ziet dat die niet overeenkomen en denkt weer te moeten aankondigen dat het einde der wereld naderbij komt. Ten eerste zijn de cijfers die hij gebruikt duidelijk afrondingen. Maar vooral dat hij niet eens naar de definitie van die kolommen kijkt, niet eens de erg korte uitleg van EIA zelf leest en zich blijkbaar ook niet eens afvraagt waarom iets dat economisch onmogelijk lijkt toch voorspelt wordt door een dergelijke organisatie.

De cijfers die hij gebruikt zijn niet het totale aanbod van olie in die periodes. De definitie zegt: "b Includes production of crude oil ". Enkel productie dus. Landen leggen voorraden aan en die voorraden zijn niet steeds evengroot. Als een land zijn voorraad verkleint, komt die voorraad ook op de markt. De som van die voorraadverschuivingen kan er dus toe leiden dat de vraag groter of kleiner is dan aangeboden olie ten gevolge van de productie over die periode. Wat zien we in de tabel: die vooraadverschuivingen zijn ook terug te vinden. Als rij 44 (totaal voorraadverandering) meegeteld wordt, is het totale aanbod en de totale vraag steeds exact hetzelfde (afrondingen niet meegeteld).

Uit de IAE zijn korte analyse van de cijfers:
[..]

Tada, raadsel opgelost. Voorraaddalingen in precies die periodes die hij rood aankleurt. Ze verwachten dat de totale voorraad op het einde van 2007 lager zal zijn dan nu (want ze vinden de huidige voorraden aan de hoge kant) en vandaar dus die 200.000 en 100.000 (maar even afrondingen behandelen zoals Willem).

Het heeft niets maar dan ook niets te maken met de onmogelijkheid om meer te produceren. De OPEC produceert (naar eigen zeggen) nu al 1.2 million barrels per day (bbl/d) minder om de recente prijsdaling tegen te gaan (en heeft al aangekondigd dat er eventueel nog meer beperkingen kunnen volgen als de prijs nog zou dalen).

Tabel van EIA:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/steo/pub/3tab.html
Tabel van Middelkoop met totaal nutteloze rode markeringen:
http://www.rtl.nl/compone(...)emand_2007_year.xls.

quote:

Op vrijdag 24 november 2006 00:35 schreef OpenYourMind het volgende:
Mijn mening:

Naar mijn mening is het terrorisme langzaam opgebouwd door de elite door in het geheim de radicale Islam te steunen d.m.v. geld, wapens maar het allerbelangrijkste, het steunen van de geestelijken en de ideologie. Dit zette zich later voort in het aanwakkeren van rellen en aanslagen. Afghanistan en Joegoslavie zijn hier goede voorbeelden van. Ook het stichten van de staat Israel en de manier waarop Israel zich vervolgens heeft gedragen zie ik als bedoelde provocatie en onderdeel van het plan macht te verkrijgen over het Midden Oosten.

quote:

Op vrijdag 24 november 2006 01:09 schreef Perun het volgende:

[..]

Ik noem maar een van de vele argumenten die tegen deze stelling aan te voeren zijn, heb geen zin veel tijd te besteden aan discussie met complottheoretici.
Er is een enorm verschil tussen de geopolitieke situatie voor grofweg 1990 en na 1990. De prioriteiten op het gebied van buitenlands beleid van veel landen, in het bijzonder de VS, zijn na het einde van de Koude Oorlog zeer veranderd. En natuurlijk hebben ook grote veranderingen plaatsgevonden binnen de periodes 1945-1990 en 1990-2006. Het is zeer ongeloofwaardig dat er vanuit zo'n vastomlijnde doelstelling als 'macht verkrijgen over het Midden-Oosten om olie veilig te stellen' al die tijd beleid is gevoerd, en dat ook nog door een of andere duistere 'elite', die dan blijkbaar onder de oppervlakte van het politieke spectrum geopereerd zou hebben.

quote:

Now let us step back for a minute and return to the classical geo-political thinking of the early part of the last century, particularly the views of Sir Halford Mackinder of Great Britain. This perspective held that Eurasia was the most important part—the “heartland” of the civilized world, and that whoever controlled this heartland by definition controlled the rest of the world because of the concentration there of population, resources, and industrial might. In classical geopolitical thinking, world politics is essentially a struggle over who will control the Eurasian heartland.

Bron: http://www.monthlyreview.org/0703klare.htm

quote:

De VS verbruikt 25% van 's wereld olie, terwijl dit slechts 5% van de wereldpopulatie is

quote:

Op zaterdag 11 november 2006 11:10 schreef Wombcat het volgende:

[..]

Ik denk dat de War on Terror op zichzelf wel bedoeld is om terrorisme te bestrijden

quote:

Op vrijdag 24 november 2006 01:09 schreef Perun het volgende:

en dat ook nog door een of andere duistere 'elite', die dan blijkbaar onder de oppervlakte van het politieke spectrum geopereerd zou hebben.

quote:

Op vrijdag 24 november 2006 13:41 schreef gronk het volgende:
Twee vraagjes:

-hoe krijgen die conspiracy-jongens het toch iedere keer weer voorelkaar om ellenlange lulverhalen in te kloppen (tijd over?)
-waarom posten ze nooit eens naar recentere links, maar altijd naar dezelfde oude koeien uit 2002, 2003 etc. Alsof de wereld niet veranderd is in die tijd.

quote:

Op vrijdag 24 november 2006 11:36 schreef CeeJee het volgende:

[..]

Een veelgemaakte fout. Olie is geen voedsel maar een brandstof voor zo'n beetje elke economische activiteit. Met meer dan 25% van het BNP van de wereld is het niet meer dan logisch dat een kwart van de olie in de VS wordt verbruikt.

quote:

Op vrijdag 24 november 2006 12:11 schreef Pappie_Culo het volgende:

[..]

Volgens mij zijn er boeken volgeschreven over allerhande duistere bankiers en de macht die ze zouden hebben.

quote:

Als ik om me heen kijk denk ik ook dat het niet meer dan logisch is dat het geld en macht elkaar aantrekken. Dus zo vergezocht is het allemaal niet. Of je moet uit Oz komen.

quote:

Op vrijdag 24 november 2006 15:19 schreef OpenYourMind het volgende:
Mijn discussievraag hierbij is:

Wat denken jullie, is dit werkelijk een reden (misschien de grootste reden) achter de war on terror?

quote:

Op vrijdag 24 november 2006 15:05 schreef OpenYourMind het volgende:

Ik post het als feit en onderbouwing voor het feit dat de economie van de VS afhankelijk is van deze olie voor het voorzien in haar behoeften, levenstijl en de voortzetting van economische groei.

quote:

Op vrijdag 24 november 2006 15:19 schreef OpenYourMind het volgende:
Conclusie:
De ware aard van het terrorisme en de oorlogen in het Midden Oosten lijken onderdeel van een plan dat al decennia in de maak is. Terrorisme is slechts een excuus en scapegoat voor het bezetten van het gebied met de grootste grondstofreserves te wereld. De VS heeft hierdoor andere grote spelers als China, India en Rusland buitenspel gezet en heeft haar energievoorziening voor een aantal jaar langer veilig gesteld.

quote:

Mijn discussievraag hierbij is:

Wat denken jullie, is dit werkelijk een reden (misschien de grootste reden) achter de war on terror?

quote:

Op vrijdag 24 november 2006 16:12 schreef Perun het volgende:

[..]

Eh, de VS is rijk genoeg om haar energievoorziening tot het eind van de olie gewoon met dollars veilig te stellen. Ze kunnen veel meer bieden per vat dan China, India en Rusland bij elkaar.

quote:

Naar mijn mening is de War on Terror voor een deel een wraakoefening voor 11 september, voor een deel werkelijk een oorlog tegen terroristen (in hoeverre succesvol is natuurlijk de vraag), en voor een deel een deels uit veiligheidsoverwegingen en deels uit idealisme geboren Amerikaanse expeditie tegen gevaarlijke dictatoriale regimes.
De Golfoorlog van 90-91 had heel andere motieven en ook Israël is weer een aparte geschiedenis.

quote:

Op vrijdag 24 november 2006 16:04 schreef Perun het volgende:

[..]

Dat geloof ik graag, er zijn complotdenkers genoeg.

quote:

Er kan zo veel fout gaan aan zo'n complot, en zeker wanneer het een langere periode betreft, dat de meeste van de complottheorieën alleen al vanuit het oogpunt van kansberekening zeer twijfelachtig zijn.

quote:

Meestal zijn er veel waarschijnlijker verklaringen voor bepaalde verschijnselen dan dat er een complot achter zit.

quote:

Tuurlijk, er zal af en toe wel eens een geheim samenwerkingsverband zijn, maar zoiets reusachtigs als in deze discussie wordt voorgesteld is vrijwel onmogelijk. Mensen moeten eens wat minder naar Hollywoodfilms kijken.

quote:

Op vrijdag 24 november 2006 16:12 schreef Perun het volgende:
Naar mijn mening is de War on Terror voor een deel een wraakoefening voor 11 september, voor een deel werkelijk een oorlog tegen terroristen (in hoeverre succesvol is natuurlijk de vraag), en voor een deel een deels uit veiligheidsoverwegingen en deels uit idealisme geboren Amerikaanse expeditie tegen gevaarlijke dictatoriale regimes.
De Golfoorlog van 90-91 had heel andere motieven en ook Israël is weer een aparte geschiedenis.

quote:

Op vrijdag 24 november 2006 16:12 schreef Perun het volgende:
Eh, de VS is rijk genoeg om haar energievoorziening tot het eind van de olie gewoon met dollars veilig te stellen. Ze kunnen veel meer bieden per vat dan China, India en Rusland bij elkaar.

quote:

Naar mijn mening is de War on Terror voor een deel een wraakoefening voor 11 september, voor een deel werkelijk een oorlog tegen terroristen (in hoeverre succesvol is natuurlijk de vraag), en voor een deel een deels uit veiligheidsoverwegingen en deels uit idealisme geboren Amerikaanse expeditie tegen gevaarlijke dictatoriale regimes.
De Golfoorlog van 90-91 had heel andere motieven en ook Israël is weer een aparte geschiedenis.

quote:

Op vrijdag 24 november 2006 11:36 schreef CeeJee het volgende:

Een veelgemaakte fout. Olie is geen voedsel maar een brandstof voor zo'n beetje elke economische activiteit. Met meer dan 25% van het BNP van de wereld is het niet meer dan logisch dat een kwart van de olie in de VS wordt verbruikt.

quote:

Op vrijdag 24 november 2006 15:05 schreef OpenYourMind het volgende:

Ik post het als feit en onderbouwing voor het feit dat de economie van de VS afhankelijk is van deze olie voor het voorzien in haar behoeften, levenstijl en de voortzetting van economische groei.

quote:

Op vrijdag 24 november 2006 16:12 schreef CeeJee het volgende:

De VS en iedere andere economie in de wereld verbruiken olie, dit is de constatering van een feit dat bij elke denkbare theorie ingezet kan worden.

quote:

Op zaterdag 25 november 2006 18:47 schreef Gebleekte het volgende:
>TRU?

quote:

Op zondag 26 november 2006 19:43 schreef OpenYourMind het volgende:

[..]

Verklaar u nader. Naar mijn mening is dit slechts een geopolitieke analyse. Dat is dan ook de reden dat het topic oorspronkelijk in POL geplaatst was. Blijkbaar houden ze daar meer van slap lullen over verkiezingen en ouwehoeren over links rechts dogma's en ging dit hun verstand te boven. Waarom het in nieuws staat is mij ook niet helemaal duidelijk... (misschien vanwege de achtergrond?)

quote:

lap tekst

quote:

Op dinsdag 28 november 2006 15:32 schreef B.R.Oekhoest het volgende:

[..]

Doe mij maar een biertje.

Wat de neuk doet dit in Nieuws?

quote:

Op vrijdag 24 november 2006 16:04 schreef Perun het volgende:

[..]

Dat geloof ik graag, er zijn complotdenkers genoeg.
[..]

Er kan zo veel fout gaan aan zo'n complot, en zeker wanneer het een langere periode betreft, dat de meeste van de complottheorieën alleen al vanuit het oogpunt van kansberekening zeer twijfelachtig zijn. Meestal zijn er veel waarschijnlijker verklaringen voor bepaalde verschijnselen dan dat er een complot achter zit. Verder zijn er altijd ook nog tal van goede tegenargumenten die met behulp van bewijzen een complottheorie ontkrachten. Tuurlijk, er zal af en toe wel eens een geheim samenwerkingsverband zijn, maar zoiets reusachtigs als in deze discussie wordt voorgesteld is vrijwel onmogelijk. Mensen moeten eens wat minder naar Hollywoodfilms kijken.

quote:

Gazprom wil gasprijs voor Europa verhogen

Uitgegeven: 27 november 2006 17:25
Laatst gewijzigd: 27 november 2006 17:44

MOSKOU - Het Russische gasconcern Gazprom wil de gasprijs voor Europa volgend jaar met 15 procent verhogen. Bronnen bij de door de staat gecontroleerde onderneming bevestigden maandag een bericht van die strekking in de Russische krant Vedomosti.

Concreet zou de prijs voor Russisch gas in Europa omhoog gaan van ongeveer 250 naar 293 dollar per 1000 kubieke meter. In Duitsland, dat eenderde van zijn gas uit Rusland haalt, is verrast gereageerd. Importeur Ruhrgas wijst erop dat Moskou de olieprijs zou moeten volgen. Omdat die recentelijk is gedaald, ligt een daling van de gasprijs meer voor de hand.

Volgens de Russische media moeten ook diverse voormalige Sovjet-republieken rekening houden met een prijsverhoging. Zo moet Wit-Rusland vier keer zoveel voor gas uit Rusland gaan betalen.

Begin dit jaar leidde een prijsverhoging tot een conflict tussen Oekraïne en Rusland. Moskou besloot de gaskraan dicht te draaien omdat Oekraïne niets van een prijsverhoging wilde weten. Daardoor kregen diverse Europese landen te maken met een verminderde gastoevoer.

Bron: http://www.nu.nl/news/900(...)Europa_verhogen.html

quote:

Europa op de knieën voor Poetin - deel 1

De Europese leiders leunen rustig achterover, ze zijn weer in slaap gesust na het gasprobleem in Oekraïne. Niet dat ze veel kunnen doen, Rusland zet Europa momenteel schaakmat als het gaat om de levering van aardgas. Deel 1 van een drieluik over de toenemende invloed van Rusland in de wereld dankzij aardgas.


Deel 1) De ex-Sovjet Staten, controle over de exportpijpleidingen naar Europa.

Na Wit Rusland, Armenië, Litouwen, Estland, Letland, Moldavië en Oekraïne is nu Georgië aan de beurt. De boodschap is helder, zodra er een leveringscontract voor aardgas afloopt dwingt Rusland haar “klanten” tot een keuze. Of je betaalt steeds meer, tot aan de Europese marktprijs van 250 dollar per duizend kubieke meter, of je geeft een stuk van je infrastructuur, vrijwel gratis, aan Rusland. Het doel is tweeledig, ten eerste wil Rusland zoveel mogelijk controle krijgen over haar exportpijpleidingen naar Europa die ze door de val van de Sovjetunie verloren is. Ten tweede heeft Rusland veel meer inkomsten nodig, om moeilijk winbare gasreserves af te tappen omdat de productie in haar grote oude gasvelden hard terugloopt. Poetin weet dat de ex-Sovjet staten de marktprijs niet kunnen betalen en dus wel door de knieën moeten gaan. Hieronder een overzicht van de ontwikkelingen in de afgelopen twee jaar.


1) Wit Rusland, eind 2003, 47 dollar per duizend kubieke meter. Wit Rusland weigert om marktprijzen te betalen. Gazprom draait de gaskraan meerdere malen dicht als pressiemethode. Op 8 juni 2004 komen de landen tot een akkoord, in december 2005 wordt dit definitief ondertekend. Wit Rusland krijgt aardgas van Rusland tegen de oude prijs van 46,68 dollar. Gazprom krijgt een zeer goedkoop doorvoertarief voor zijn gas door Wit Rusland plus eigenschap over de voorheen Wit Russische sectie van de Yamal-Europa pijpleiding, welke 50% van de export capaciteit van Rusland in het land doorvoert. Na de verkiezingen in Wit Rusland in 2006 kondigd Gazprom opnieuw aan dat het land marktprijzen moet betalen. De op te zetten joint venture met het staatstransportbedrijf Beltranzgas komt namelijk niet van de grond. Gazprom zou voor 50% eigenaar worden van Beltranzgas voor een spotprijsje zodat Rusland een vinger in de pap krijgt in de gehele gasinfrastructuur van Wit Rusland. Laatste nieuws is dat Belarus volgend jaar gewoon 180 tot 200 dollar per kubieke meter moet betalen, wat een jaarlijks begrotingsgat van 2 miljard dollar oplevert voor Wit Rusland. Gazprom heeft geduld en wacht tot Wit Rusland verder op de knieën gaat. Wit Rusland dreigt terug met een hoop gebakken lucht.

2) Oekraïne, begin 2005, 50 dollar per duizend kubieke meter. Gazprom vraagt marktprijzen voor haar gas, Oekraïne wil in ruil hogere doorvoertarieven van Gazprom. Het lukt niet om tot een akkoord te komen en gazprom draait op 1 januari 2006 de kraan dicht. Grote onrust in de Europese Unie wanneer blijkt dat Oekraïne “illegaal” Russisch aardgas voor eigen verbruik aftapt en niet doorvoert naar de EU. Na een hoop politieke druk vanuit de EU komen Oekraïne en Rusland tot een akkoord. Specifiek is er weinig bekend over de afspraken, Oekraïne zou 95 dollar per kubieke meter betalen. Gazprom moet veel meer betalen voor het doorvoertarief aan Oekraïne. Netto komt het erop neer dat Oekraïne niks extra kwijt is voor haar aardgas. Naar verwachting van veel analisten zal de prijs binnenkort echter weer omhooggaan. Rusland voert namelijk goedkoop Turkmeense gas door naar Oekraïne, maar de prijs van Turkmeens gas gaat vanaf begin volgend jaar met 40 dollar per duizend kubieke meter omhoog tot aan 2008. Gazprom zou van plan zijn om deze prijsverhoging door te berekenen aan Oekraïne.

3) Armenië, begin 2006, 56 dollar per duizend kubieke meter. Gazprom wil 110 dollar per kubieke meter voor haar aardgas. Na een kleine strubbeling is de Armeense regering in april akkoord met de prijsverhoging. De prijs van 110 dollar per kubieke meter is vastgelegd tot eind 2008. Ook is de Armeense regering akkoord gegaan om Gazprom een meerderheidsaandeel te laten verkrijgen in ArmRosGazprom, de energy joint venture die de gehele gasinfrastructuur in Armenië verzorgt. Vooralsnog had Gazprom een aandeel van 45% in dit bedrijf. Zij koopt nu een meerderheidsaandeel in van 58% voor 118 miljoen dollar van de Armeense staat die tot nog toe ook 45% van het bedrijf bezat. Gazprom krijgt hiermee controle over de nieuwe gaspijpleiding van Iran naar Armenië. Volgens de geruchten kan Gazprom zelfs het gehele Armeense gedeelte van de Iran-Armenië pijpleiding opkopen. Naast het meerderheidsaandeel is de Armeense overheid ook akkoord gegaan met de Russische aankoop van de vijfde grote gasgestookte elektriciteitscentrale in Hrazdan voor 430 miljoen dollar. Nummer 1 tot 4 zijn al in handen van de Russische overheid, die ze in ruil voor het aflossen van schulden in 2002/2003 heeft gekregen. Deze centrales produceren elektriciteit dat geruild wordt met Iran voor aardgas. Rusland heeft hiermee en de gasinfrastructuur van Armenië in handen en de belangrijkste elektriciteitsinfrastructuur.

4) Litouwen, Estland en Letland, begin 2005, 85 á 95 dollar per duizend kubieke meter. Letland en Estland ging gemakkelijk door de knieën en betalen inmiddels 120 dollar per duizend kubieke meter gas. In Litouwen liep het verhaal wat anders, eerder had Gazprom een aandeel verkregen in het Litouwse gastransportbedrijf Lietuvos Dujos evenals het Duitse E.on Ruhrgas. Na een aantal onderhandelingsrondes in 2004 zou Gazprom 15 jaar lang goedkoop aardgas leveren onder een aantal voorwaarden. Belangrijkste was dat de overheidsregulatie voor grote gasverbruikers weggenomen moest worden. Die afspraak kwam de regering niet na, tot grote irritatie voor Gazprom. Inmiddels is de gasprijs naar het land al tweemaal verhoogd, men betaalt nu 150 dollar per duizend kubieke meter. Rusland laat het hier niet bij, in 2007 moet Litouwen gewoon de marktprijs betalen, rond de 200 dollar per duizend kubieke meter.

5) Moldavië, 80 dollar per duizend kubieke meter in 2005. Moldavië vroeg om 80 dollar maar moest 110 dollar betalen in de eerste helft van 2006. De regering van Moldavië dacht Gazprom met een aantal energieprojecten tevreden te stellen, maar die sloeg het concern af. Gazprom wil namelijk haar aandeel in Moldovagaz, de pijpleidingmaatschappij van het land, verhogen van 50% naar 100%. Vooralsnog heeft Gazprom alleen het aandeel van 13.4% dat eerst in bezit was van Transnistria gekregen, waardoor Moldovagaz voor 64.4% in haar handen is. Later kondigde Gazprom aan om de prijs voor de rest van 2006 te verhogen naar 160 dollar per duizend kubieke meter.

6) Georgië, 68 dollar per duizend kubieke meter in 2005. Begin 2006 moest het land 110 dollar per duizend kubieke meter betalen, maar daar bleef het niet bij. Sinds de Georgische regering 4 Russische spionnen uitgeleverde op 3 oktober aan de Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) neemt het Kremlin stevige maatregelen. Al het lucht, vracht, water en postverkeer met Georgië is gestopt evenals banktransfers. Tevens eiste het Kremlin dat direct de 147 miljoen dollar aan uitstaande schuld terugbetaald werd. De deportatie van ethnische georgiërs uit Rusland nam dramatisch toe, met meer dan duizend in de afgelopen paar weken. Rusland dreigt zelfs om alle handel met het land stop te zetten. Op het gebied van energie heeft Gazprom aangekondigd dat Georgië vanaf 1 januari volgend jaar 221 of 250 dollar per duizend kubieke meter moet betalen t.o.v. de 110 nu. In wanhoop probeert Georgië nu zo snel mogelijk afspraken te maken met Iran en Azerbeidjaan voor de import van elektriciteit en aardgas.

Bron: http://www.peakoil.nl/?p=1000#more-1000

quote:

Europa op de knieën voor Poetin - deel 2

De Europese leiders leunen rustig achterover, ze zijn weer in slaap gesust na het gasprobleem in Oekraïne. Niet dat ze veel kunnen doen, Rusland zet Europa momenteel schaakmat als het gaat om de levering van aardgas. Deel 2 van een drieluik over de toenemende invloed van Rusland in de wereld dankzij aardgas.


Deel 2) De Gaspec, Rusland en haar opkomende gas-alliantie met Algerije en Iran.

Tot eergisteren was het allemaal pure speculatie. Rusland die de gaslanden achter zich schaart om zoveel mogelijk controle over de toekomstige gasmarkt te krijgen. Tot eergisteren.. want toen lekte een geheim rapport van topeconomen van de NAVO. Rusland zou in de beginfase zijn om een Gaspec te vormen samen met Libië, Algerije, Qatar, Iran en Centraal Azië. Eerder waarschuwde het Internationaal Energie Agentschap hiervoor.

Het vormen van een gaskartel is eigenlijk heel makkelijk, Qatar, Rusland & Iran bezitten samen 56% van de gasreserves in de wereld, pak daar nog een paar kleine strategische spelers bij, en je hebt de gasmarkt van de wereld in handen. Om Europa politiek te chanteren is Algerije van centraal belang, omdat zij de 2de leverancier van gas is aan de EU, na Rusland. De geluiden in de media zijn alleen divers, velen doen de mogelijke Gaspec af als grootscheepse onzin, waaronder uiteraard de Russen zelf. Zij gebruiken hiervoor woordvoerder Dmitry Peskov, dezelfde man die de verheerlijking van verkrachting door Putin even in context probeerde te plaatsen.


Rusland heeft ondertussen de banden met Algerije flink aangehaald. Afgelopen augustus ondertekende Gazprom en Sonatrach, het staatsenergiebedrijf van Algerije, een “memorandum of understanding”. De Russische en Algerijnse energiegiganten willen op het gebied van exploratie, productie, transmissie & distributie van aardgas en olie in Algerije, Rusland en andere landen meer gaan samenwerken. De exacte details zijn zoals gewoonlijk niet bekend. Een jaar eerder werdt er in Algerije een nieuwe wet aangenomen, waarin is vastgelegd dat Sonatrach een aandeel van minstens 51% moet verkrijgen in alle productiecontracten. Daarmee behoudt de staatsmaatschappij haar invloed op de olie & gas sector. Naast meer samenwerking op het gebied van energie hebben de Russen ook voor miljarden aan wapens verkocht aan Algerije in het begin van 2006. Sommigen speculeren dat de wapens gedeeltelijk geruild zijn voor meer toegang tot olie & gasvelden in Algerije.

Met Algerije heeft Rusland een van de hoofdspelers in het Europese gasspel te pakken, maar daarmee is ze er nog niet. Hoewel er weinig andere Afrikaanse spelers van echt belang zijn kan het Midden-Oosten nog veel roet in het eten gooien. Iran en Rusland onderzoeken echter de mogelijkheid om verder samen te werken op het gebied van olie & gas inclusief transport. Gazprom gaat waarschijnlijk meehelpen met de bouw van een Iraans-Indiase pijpleiding. Gazprom heeft daarnaast ook een aandeel verworven in de nieuwe gaspijpleiding Iran-Armenië. Hiermee blijven Armenië en Georgië voor gaslevering geheel onder invloed van Rusland.

Om de klus af te maken probeert Gazprom zoveel mogelijk invloed te krijgen op oude & nieuwe gaspijpleidingen in de regio. Belangrijk is dat gasleverantie uit de andere landen in Centraal Azië en het Midden-Oosten zolang mogelijk tegengehouden wordt. De Noord Europese markt is al voorzien via de nieuwe Russische pijpleiding naar Duitsland, maar de toekomstige Gazprom monopolie op de Zuid-Europese markt moet nog verder verzekerd worden. Europa dacht een start te maken met haar diversificatie van aardgaslevering via de Nabucco pijpleiding. Deze pijpleiding zou gas kunnen leveren uit Centraal Azië, Iran en verder weg liggende landen uit het Midden-Oosten. Veel landen hebben al een niet bindende verklaring tot samenwerking getekend voor dit project. Oostenrijk zou in het Nabucco project de nieuwe gashub voor Zuid Europa worden. Na Nabucco 1 zouden nog meerdere van dergelijke pijpleidingen volgen, zodat tegen 2025 zo’n 10 á 15 procent van het gas via pijpleidingen uit het Midden-Oosten kan komen.

Gazprom benaderde echter dezelfde landen die in het Nabucco project deelnemen. Hongarije hapte en inmiddels is Gazprom samen met het staatsenergiebedrijf Mol van Hongarije bezig met een onderzoek naar project blue stream, een pijpleiding van Rusland naar Turkije richting Hongarije. Een gedeelte van Blue stream ligt er al, welke in een joint venture tussen de Italiaanse energiemaatschappij ENI en Gazprom gebouwd is. Eergisteren tekende ENI een contract wat Gazprom directe toegang geeft tot de Italiaanse markt.

In project Blue stream zou Hongarije echter de hub van gaslevering aan Zuid Europa worden. Tevens heeft Gazprom beloofd dat als Hongarije meewerkt dat ze gegarandeerde gaslevering krijgt. Dat klonk vooralsnog de Hongaarse machthebbers wel zeer aanlokkelijk in de oren. Volgend jaar gaat Hongarije een beslissing nemen over welk project het definitief wordt, Nabucco of Blue Stream. Ondertussen bood de Duitse gaskampioen E.ON Ruhrgas een gedeelte van haar distributienetwerk in Hongarije aan Gazprom aan in ruil voor een aandeel van 25% in het Siberische Yuzhno-Russky gasveld. Het gas uit dat veld is een van de hoofdleveranciers voor de Noord-Europese pijpleiding. Zodoende verhoogd Duitsland haar eigen zekerheid als het gaat om gaslevering.

De tweede kink in de kabel op dit gebied voor Europa is Georgië. Een groot gedeelte van de te bouwen gaspijpleidingen uit het Midden-Oosten en Centraal-Azië zullen door Georgië gaan lopen. Niet voor niets zal Gazprom daarom de duimschroeven op Georgië in de komende weken en maanden aandraaien.

Gazprom heeft hiermee voldoende kaarten in handen om bijna volledige invloed te krijgen op de gasleveranties via pijpleidingen in Europa.

Bron: http://www.peakoil.nl/?p=1011#more-1011

quote:

In het licht van de onvermijdelijke herverkiezing van Poetin kijkt Tegenlicht terug op diens greep naar de macht vier jaar geleden. De bomaanslagen op twee flatgebouwen in Moskou zorgden in die tijd voor het creëren van een soort noodtoestand, waarin Poetin naar voren werd geschoven als sterke man. Poetin wist binnen een kwartier wie de daders van de aanslag waren: Tsjetsjeense terroristen. En zijn oplossing was een nieuwe oorlog te beginnen.

De inmiddels geëmigreerde oligarch Boris Berezovski liet een film "Attacks made in Russia, all roads lead to the Kremlin" maken op basis van zijn vermoeden dat Poetin en de Russische binnenlandse veiligheidsdienst FSB zelf achter de explosies zaten. De voormalige FSB-officier Alexander Litvinenko, ook gevlucht, schreef een boek met dezelfde strekking. En de onder dramatische omstandigheden vertrokken Rybkin, die zijn campagne voor het presidentschap vanuit Londen zal voortzetten, heeft ook zo zijn vermoedens.

Documentairemaker Jos de Putter spreekt met Berezovski, Litvinenko en Rybkin en toont fragmenten uit voornoemde film. Verder proeft Masja Novikova in Moskou de sfeer en volgt ze de verkiezingscampagne van de enig overgebleven liberale kandidaat Irina Hakamada. Hakamada lijkt een volslagen kansloze en eenzame strijd te voeren voor een transparante democratie.

quote:

Op woensdag 29 november 2006 16:44 schreef OpenYourMind het volgende:
Artikel over de 3 delige BBC documentaire serie "Russian Godfathers"

quote:

Russia: biggest spy threat to Britain

The Russian intelligence services, the prime suspects behind the murder of Alexander Litvinenko, have a network of more than 30 spies operating in Britain, it can be revealed.

The sophisticated ring represents the greatest espionage threat facing Britain, Whitehall sources told The Sunday Telegraph. The agents, equivalent to one in five of the Moscow government officials based in Britain, are known to be monitoring the movements and activities of Russian emigres and opponents of the Putin regime. But they are also involved in a widespread operation targeting businessmen, MPs and scientists in an attempt to steal commercial and state secrets. Only the United States, it is understood, has more Russian agents operating on its soil. Whitehall sources claim that the agents are as active today as they were at the height of the Cold War, despite the fact that the Kremlin is now one of Britain's major allies in the war on terrorism.

The startling intelligence was presented last week to Cabinet ministers at a Cobra meeting, where they are briefed on issues of national security. They were also told that Mr Litvinenko, a former KGB agent, who died 10 days ago, was "most probably" murdered by "state sponsored" assassins, with the radioactive poison polonium 210 and that suspicion centred firmly on Moscow. A source said: "The Russian intelligence services are highly bureaucratic and legalistic. There isn't a great deal of room for personal initiative, everything has to be officially authorised and signed off. And this murder would have been a highly complex operation involving many people not one or two acting in isolation."

During the Cobra meeting, government officials and the police were briefed that Russia is being ruled by a "brutal regime" that regards dissidents such as Mr Litvinenko and Boris Berezovsky, the Russian oligarch, living in exile in Britain, as terrorists. The Russian state is suspected of ordering the murder of five people in the past two decades.

Whitehall sources said that Russia continues to spy on Britain because of its "insatiable" appetite for other countries' state secrets. The main areas of interest include finance, the energy industry, defence, and electronics.

Meer...

Bron: http://www.telegraph.co.u(...)006/12/03/nspy03.xml

quote:

Op zondag 3 december 2006 16:36 schreef OpenYourMind het volgende:

[..]

Persoonlijk vind ik 30 eigenlijk nog vrij weinig... ik verwacht dat ze er wel een heel stuk meer hebben. Andersom hebben de VS en UK natuurlijk ook een heel netwerk in Rusland, dus die eenzijdige verbazing en belichting van het nieuws is ook weer een stukje propaganda. De achtergrond van de disidenten (zogenaamde doelwitten) wordt weer eens achterwege gelaten. We zullen hier waarschijnlijk ook weinig over te weten komen uit de westerse media. De redenen vermelden waarom zij het target zijn is toch niet teveel gevraagd?
[...]

quote:

Op maandag 4 december 2006 01:50 schreef Lauder-Frost het volgende:
o god niet weer zo'n topic

quote:

Op maandag 27 november 2006 22:05 schreef francorex het volgende:
Schitterende uiteenzetting OpenYourMind. Het doet me plezier, jouw inzet is een pluim voor jezelf.

Je brengt een visie die staat als een paal, klaar en duidelijk en verstaanbaar voor vele lezers. Onderschreven met bronnen.
knip

quote:

"Iraq is important to world energy markets because it holds more than 112 billion barrels of oil - the world's second largest reserves. Iraq also contains 110 trillion cubic feet of gas." [ US Government's Country Analysis Brief on Iraq, December 1999. ]

"No matter what decision the president makes [on Iraq], the United States will always be better off with a policy that provides more energy independence" (Ari Fleischer, White House spokesman) [ Miami Herald (from Reuters), "White House: No Link Between Iraq Policy, Oil Price", 6 September 2002 ]

quote:

Op woensdag 20 december 2006 18:54 schreef siggi het volgende:
De ware aard van de oorlog tegen het terrorisme...

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

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

Hoi OpenYourMind met als statement Question Everything. Wordt het niet eens tijd dat je je naam wijzigt? Jij hebt je eigen standpunt waar je lekker stug aan vast houdt, niks geen Opening Your Mind en wat betreft je: "Question Everything"; dat kun je beter vervangen met: "I Only Question Each & Every Good & Valid Argument Brought Against Me."

En trouwens; het Stenen Tijdperk is ook niet afgelopen omdat de Stenen op waren.

quote:

The Emerging Russian Giant Plays its Cards Strategically

By F. William Engdahl, October 9, 2006 / Updated Ocotober 20, 2006

On October 10, Russian President Vladimir Putin flew to the German city of Dresden for a summit on energy issues with Germany’s Chancellor Angela Merkel. On the agenda were proposed plans to more than double German import of Russian natural gas. Putin told the German Chancellor that Russia would ‘possibly’ redirect some of the future natural gas from its giant Shtokman field in the Barents Sea. The $20 billion project is due to come online 2010. Putin’s Dresden talks followed an earlier summit in Paris in late September with Putin and French President Chirac and Merkel. A week after his Dresden talks, the Indonesian Navy Chief of Staff announced a remarkable shift away from that country’s traditional purchases of NATO military equipment. Indonesia will buy twelve modern Kilo-Class and Lada-Class Russian submarines. Indonesia cited advantages of cost and reliability over NATO French or German equivalents.

These developments underscore the re-emerging of Russia as a major global power. The new Russia is gaining in influence through a series of strategic moves revolving around its geopolitical assets in energy—most notably its oil and natural gas. It’s doing so by shrewdly taking advantage of the strategic follies and major political blunders of Washington. The new Russia also realizes that if it does not act decisively, it soon will be encircled and trumped by a military rival, USA. The battle, largely unspoken, is the highest stakes battle in world politics today. Iran and Syria are seen by Washington strategists as mere steps to this great Russian End Game.

In recent years major attention has been paid to the emergence of a China economic colossus. What is generally missing in these discussions is the fact that China will not be able to emerge as a truly independent global power over the coming decade unless it is able to solve two strategic vulnerabilities—its growing dependence on energy imports for its economic growth, and its inability to pose a credible nuclear deterrence to a US nuclear first strike.

Russia is the one remaining power which still has sufficient military deterrence potential in its strategic nuclear arsenal, and is expanding same, as well as abundant energy to make a credible counterweight to global US military and political primacy. A Eurasian combination of China and Russia and allied Eurasian states, essentially the states in and around the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, do present a potential counterweight to unilateral USA dominance. An understanding of recent Russian developments in this light is essential to understand United States foreign policy as well as global politics at present.


Russia`s Strategic Dilemma

Since the devastating setbacks two years ago from the US-sponsored ‘color revolutions’ in Georgia, and then Ukraine, Russia has begun to play its strategic energy cards extremely carefully, from nuclear reactors in Iran to military sales to Venezuela and other Latin American states, to strategic market cooperation deals in natural gas with Algeria.

At the same time, the Bush Administration has dug itself deeper into a geopolitical morass, through a foreign policy agenda which has reckless disregard for its allies as well as its foes. That reckless policy has been associated with former Halliburton CEO, Dick Cheney, more than any other figure in Washington.

The ‘Cheney Presidency,’ which is what historians will no doubt dub the George W. Bush years, has been based on a clear strategy. It has often been misunderstood by critics who had overly focused on its most visible component, namely, Iraq, the Middle East and the strident war-hawks around the Vice President and his old crony, Defense Secretary Don Rumsfeld.

The ‘Cheney strategy’ has been a US foreign policy based on securing direct global energy control, control by the Big Four US or US-tied private oil giants - ChevronTexaco or ExxonMobil, BP or Royal Dutch Shell. Above all, it has aimed at control of all the world`s major oil regions, along with the major natural gas fields. That control has moved in tandem with a growing bid by the United States for total military primacy over the one potential threat to its global ambitions - Russia. Cheney is perhaps the ideal person to weave the US military and energy policies together into a coherent strategy of dominance. During the early 1990s under father Bush, Cheney was also Secretary of Defense.

The Cheney-Bush administration has been dominated by a coalition of interests between Big Oil and the top industries of the American military-industrial complex. These private corporate interests exercise their power through control of the government policy of the United States. An aggressive militaristic agenda has been essential to it. It is epitomized by Cheney`s former company, Halliburton Inc., at one and the same time the world`s largest energy and geophysical services company, and the world`s largest constructor of military bases.

To comprehend the policy it`s important to look at how Cheney, as Halliburton CEO, viewed the problem of future oil supply on the eve of his becoming Vice President.


‘Where the Prize Ultimately Lies’: Cheney`s 1999 London speech

Back in September 1999, a full year before the US elections which made him the most powerful Vice President in history, Cheney gave a revealing speech before his oil industry peers at the London Institute of Petroleum. In a global review of the outlook for Big Oil, Cheney made the following comment:

By some estimates there will be an average of two per cent annual growth in global oil demand over the years ahead along with conservatively a three per cent natural decline in production from existing reserves. That means by 2010 we will need on the order of an additional fifty million barrels a day. So where is the oil going to come from? Governments and the national oil companies are obviously controlling about ninety per cent of the assets. Oil remains fundamentally a government business. While many regions of the world offer great oil opportunities, the Middle East with two thirds of the world‘s oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies. Even though companies are anxious for greater access there, progress continues to be slow. It is true that technology, privatisation and the opening up of a number of countries have created many new opportunities in areas around the world for various oil companies, but looking back to the early 1990‘s, expectations were that significant amounts of the world‘s new resources would come from such areas as the former Soviet Union and from China. Of course that didn‘t turn out quite as expected. Instead it turned out to be deep water successes that yielded the bonanza of the 1990‘s.

The Cheney remarks are worth a careful reading. He posits a conservative rise in global demand for oil by the end of the present decade, i.e. in about 4 years. He estimates the world will need to find an added 50 million barrels of daily output. Total daily oil production at present hovers around the level of some 83 million barrels oil equivalent. This means that to avert catastrophic shortages and the resultant devastating impact on global economic growth, by Cheney`s 1999 estimate, the world must find new oil production equal to more than 50% of the 1999 daily global output, and that, by about 2010. That is the equivalent of five new oil regions equal to today`s Saudi Arabian size. That is a whopping amount of new oil.

Given that it can take up to seven years or more to bring a new major oilfield into full production, that`s also not much time if a horrendous energy crunch and sky-high oil and gas prices are to be averted. Cheney`s estimate was also based on an overly conservative estimate of future oil import demand in China and India, today the two fastest growing oil consumers on the planet.

A second notable point of Cheney`s 1999 London comments was his remark that, ‘the Middle East with two thirds of the world‘s oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies.’ However, as he revealingly remarked, the oil ‘prize’ of the Middle East was in national or government hands, not open to exploitation by the private market, and thus, hard for Cheney`s Halliburton and his friends in ExxonMobil or Chevron or Shell or BP to get their hands on.

At that time, Iraq, with the second largest oil reserves after Saudi Arabia in the Middle East, was under the rule of Saddam Hussein. Iran, which has the world`s second largest reserves of natural gas, in addition to its huge oil reserves, was ruled by a nationalist theocracy which was not open to US private company oil tenders. The Caspian Sea oil reserves were a subject of bitter geopolitical battle between Washington and Russia.

Cheney`s remark that ‘Oil remains fundamentally a government business,’ and not private, takes on a new significance when we do a fast forward to September 2000, in the heat of the 2000 Bush-Cheney election campaign. That month Cheney, along with Don Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, and many others who went on to join the new Bush Administration, issued a policy report titled, ‘Re-building America`s Defenses.’ The paper was issued by an entity named Project for the New American Century (PNAC).

Cheney`s PNAC group called on the new US President-to-be to find a suitable pretext to declare war on Iraq, in order to occupy it and take direct control over the second largest oil reserves in the Middle East. Their report stated bluntly, ‘While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification (sic), the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein ...’

Cheney signed on to a policy document in September 2000 which declared that the key issue was ‘American force presence in the Gulf,’ and regime change in Iraq, regardless whether Saddam Hussein was good, bad or ugly. It was the first step in moving the US military to ‘where the prize ultimately lies.’

No coincidence that Cheney immediately got the task of heading a Presidential Energy Task Force review in early 2001, where he worked closely with his friends in Big Oil, including the late Ken Lay of Enron, with whom Cheney earlier had been involved in an Afghan gas pipeline project, as well as with James Baker III.

Buried in the debate leading to the US bombing and occupation of Iraq in March 2003 was a lawsuit under the US Freedom of Information Act brought by Sierra Club and Judicial Watch, initially to find data on Cheney`s role in the California energy crisis. The suit demanded that Vice President Cheney make public all documents and records of meetings related to his 2001 Energy Task Force project.

The US Commerce Department in summer 2003 ultimately released part of the documents, over ferocious Cheney and White House opposition. Amid the files of the domestic US energy review was, curiously enough, a detailed map of Iraqi oilfields, pipelines, refineries and terminals, as well as two charts detailing Iraqi oil and gas projects, and ‘Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield Contracts.’ The ‘foreign suitors’ included Russia, China and France, three UN Security Council members who openly opposed granting the US UN approval for invading Iraq.

The first act of post-war occupation by Washington was to declare null and void any contracts between the Iraqi government and Russia, China and France. Iraqi oil was to be an American affair, handled by American companies or their close cronies in Britain, the first victory in the high-stakes quest, ‘where the prize ultimately lies.’

This was precisely what Cheney had alluded to in his 1999 London speech. Get the Middle East oil resources out of independent national hands and into US-controlled hands. The military occupation of Iraq was the first major step in this US strategy. Control of Russian energy reserves, however, was Washington`s ultimate ‘prize.’


De-construction of Russia: The ‘ultimate prize’

For obvious military and political reasons, Washington could not admit openly that its strategic focus, since the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991, had been the dismemberment or de-construction of Russia, and gaining effective control of its huge oil and gas resources, the ‘ultimate prize.’ The Russian Bear still had formidable military means, however dilapidated, and he still had nuclear teeth.

In the mid-1990s Washington began a deliberate process of bringing one after the other former satellite Soviet state into not just the European Union, but into the Washington-dominated NATO. By 2004 Poland, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Bulgaria, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia all had been admitted into NATO, and the Republic of Georgia was being groomed to join.

This surprising spread of NATO, to the alarm of some in western Europe, as well as to Russia, had been part of the strategy advocated by Cheney`s friends at the Project for the New American Century, in their ‘Rebuilding America`s Defenses’ report and even before.

Already in 1996, PNAC member and Cheney crony, Bruce Jackson, then a top executive with US defense giant, Lockheed Martin, was head of the US Committee to Expand NATO, later renamed the US Committee on Nato, a very powerful Washington lobby group.

The US Committee to Expand NATO also included PNAC members Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Stephen Hadley and Robert Kagan. Kagan`s wife is Victoria Nuland, now the US Ambassador to NATO. From 2000 - 2003, she was a foreign policy advisor to Cheney. Hadley, a hardline hawk close to Vice President Cheney, was named by President Bush to replace Condoleezza Rice as his National Security Adviser.

The warhawk Cheney network moved from the PNAC into key posts within the Bush Administration to run NATO and Pentagon policy. Bruce Jackson and others, after successfully lobbying Congress to expand NATO to Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary in 1999, moved to organize the so-called Vilnius Group that lobbied to bring ten more former Warsaw Pact countries on Russia`s periphery into NATO. Jackson called this the ‘Big Bang.’

President Bush repeatedly used the term ‘New Europe’ in statements about NATO enlargement. In a July 5, 2002 speech hailing the leaders of the Vilnius group, Bush declared, ‘Our nations share a common vision of a new Europe, where free European states are united with each other, and with the United States through cooperation, partnership, and alliance.’

Lockheed Martin`s former executive, Bruce Jackson, took credit for bringing the Baltic and other members of the Vilnius Group into NATO. Testifying before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on April 1, 2003, Jackson claimed he originated the ‘Big Bang’ concept of NATO enlargement, later adopted by the Vilnius Group of Baltic and Eastern European nations. As Jackson noted, his ‘Big Bang’ briefing ‘proposed the inclusion of these seven countries in NATO and claimed for this enlargement strategic advantages for NATO and moral (sic) benefits for the democratic community of nations.’ On May 19, 2000 in Vilnius, Lithuania, these propositions were adopted by nine of Europe`s new democracies as their own. It became the objectives of the Vilnius Group. Jackson could also have noted the benefits to US military defense industry, including his old cronies at Lockheed Martin, with the creation of a vast new NATO arms market on the borders to Russia.

Once that NATO goal was reached, Bruce Jackson and other members of the NATO eastern expansion lobby, closed the US Committee on Nato in 2003, and, seamlessly, in the very same office, re-opened as a new lobby organization, the Project on Transitional Democracies, which according to their own statement was ‘organized to exploit the opportunities to accelerate democratic reform and integration which we believe will exist in the broader Euro-Atlantic region over the next decade.’ In other words, to foster the series of Color Revolutions and regime change across Russian Eurasia. All three principals of the Project on Transitional Democracies worked for the Republican Party, and Jackson and Scheunemann have close ties with major military contractors, notably Lockheed Martin and Boeing.

Jackson and other PNAC and U.S. Committee on NATO members also created a powerful lobby organization, the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq (CLI). CLI`s advisory panel included hardline Democrats such as Rep. Stephen Solarz and Sen. Robert Kerrey. It was dominated by neo-conservatives and Republican Party stalwarts like Jeane Kirkpatrick, Robert Kagan, Richard Perle, William Kristol, and former CIA Director, James Woolsey. Serving as honorary co-chairs were Senators Joe Lieberman (D-CT) and John McCain (R-AZ). Jackson related that friends in the White House had asked him to create the CLI in 2002 to replicate the success he had had pushing for NATO expansion through his US Committee on NATO by establishing an outfit aimed at supporting the administration`s campaign to convince Congress and the public to support a war. “People in the White House said, ‘We need you to do for Iraq what you did for NATO’,” Jackson told American Prospect magazine in a January 1, 2003 interview.

In brief, NATO encirclement of Russia, Color Revolutions across Eurasia, and the war in Iraq, were all one and the same American geopolitical strategy, part of a grand strategy to ultimately de-construct Russia once and for all as a potential rival to a sole US Superpower hegemony. Russia - not Iraq and not Iran - was the primary target of that strategy.

During a White House welcoming ceremony to greet the ten new NATO members in 2004, President Bush noted that NATO`s mission now extended far beyond the perimeter of the alliance. ‘NATO members are reaching out to the nations of the Middle East, to strengthen our ability to fight terror, and to provide for our common security,’ he said. But NATO`s mission now would extend beyond even global security. Bush added, ‘We`re discussing how we can support and increase the momentum of freedom in the greater Middle East.’ Freedom, that is, to come into the orbit of a Washington-controlled NATO alliance.

The end of the Yeltsin era put a slight crimp in the US plans. Putin began slowly and cautiously to emerge as a dynamic national force, committed to rebuilding Russia, following the IMF-guided looting of the country by a combination of Western banks and corrupt Russian oligarchs.

Russian oil output had risen since the collapse of the Soviet Union to the point that, by the time of the 2003 US war on Iraq, Russia was the world`s second largest oil producer behind Saudi Arabia.


Bron: http://www.engdahl.oilgeopolitics.net/print/Russian%20Giant.html

quote:

The real significance of the Yukos Affair

The defining event in the new Russian energy geopolitics under Vladimir Putin took place in 2003. It was just as Washington was making it brutally clear it was going to militarize Iraq and the Middle East, regardless of world protest or UN niceties.

A brief review of the spectacular October 2003 arrest of Russia`s billionaire ‘oligarch’ Mikhail Khodorkovsky, and state seizure of his giant Yukos oil group, is essential to understand Russian energy geopolitics.

Khodorkovsky was arrested at Novosibirsk airport on October 25, 2003, by the Russian Prosecutor General`s office on charges of tax evasion. The Putin government froze shares of Yukos Oil because of tax charges. They then took further actions against Yukos, leading to a collapse in the share price.

What was little mentioned in Western media accounts, which typically portrayed the Putin government actions as a reversion to Soviet-era methods, was what had triggered Putin`s dramatic action in the first place.

Khodorkovsky had been arrested just four weeks before a decisive Russian Duma or lower house election, in which Khodorkovsky had managed to buy the votes of a majority in the Duma using his vast wealth. Control of the Duma was to be the first step by Khodorkovsky in a plan to run against Putin the next year as President. The Duma victory would have allowed him to change election laws in his favor, as well as to alter a controversial law being drafted in the Duma, ‘The Law on Underground Resources.’ That law would prevent Yukos and other private companies from gaining control of raw materials in the ground, or from developing private pipeline routes independent of the Russian state pipelines.

Khodorkovsky had violated the pledge of the Oligarchs made to Putin, that they be allowed to keep their assets - de facto stolen from the state in the rigged auctions under Yeltsin - if they stayed out of Russian politics and repatriated a share of their stolen money. Khodorkovsky, the most powerful oligarch at the time, was serving as the vehicle for what was becoming an obvious Washington-backed putsch against Putin.

The Khodorkovsky arrest followed an unpublicized meeting earlier that year on July 14, 2003 between Khodorkovsky and Vice President Dick Cheney.

Following the Cheney meeting, Khodorkovsky began talks with ExxonMobil and ChevronTexaco, Condi Rice`s old firm, about taking a major state in Yukos, said to have been between 25% and 40%. That was intended to give Khodorkovsky de facto immunity from possible Putin government interference by tying Yukos to the big US oil giants and, hence, to Washington. It would also have given Washington, via the US oil giants, a de facto veto power over future Russian oil and gas pipelines and oil deals. Days before his October 2003 arrest on tax fraud charges, Khodorkovsky had entertained George H.W. Bush, the representative of the powerful and secretive Washington Carlyle Group in Moscow. They were discussing the final details of the US oil company share buy-in of Yukos.

Yukos had also just made a bid to acquire rival Sibneft from Boris Berezovsky, another Yeltsin-era Oligarch. Yukos/Sibneft, with 19.5 billion barrels of oil and gas, would then own the second-largest oil and gas reserves in the world after ExxonMobil. Yukos/Sibneft would be the fourth largest in the world in terms of production, pumping 2.3 million barrels of crude oil a day. The Exxon or Chevron buy-up of Yukos/Sibneft would have been a literal energy coup d´etat. Cheney knew it; Bush knew it; Khodorkovsky knew it.

Above all, Vladimir Putin knew it and moved decisively to block it.

Khodorkovsky had cultivated very impressive ties to the Anglo-American power establishment. He created a philanthropic foundation, the Open Russia Foundation, modeled on the Open Society foundation of his close friend George Soros. On the select board of Open Russia Foundation sat Henry Kissinger and Kissinger`s friend, Jacob Lord Rothschild, London scion of the banking family. Arthur Hartman, a former US Ambassador to Moscow, also sat on the foundation`s board.

Following Khodorkovsky`s arrest, the Washington Post reported that the imprisoned Russian billionaire had retained the services of Stuart Eizenstat - former deputy Treasury Secretary, Undersecretary of State, Undersecretary of Commerce during the Clinton Administration - to lobby in Washington for his freedom. Khodorkovsky was in deep with the Anglo-American establishment.

Subsequent western media and official protest about Russia`s return to communist methods and raw power politics, conveniently ignored the fact that Khodorkovsky was hardly Snow White himself. Earlier, Khodorkovsky had unilaterally ripped up his contract with British Petroleum. BP had been a partner with Yukos, and had spent $300 million in drilling the highly promising Priobskoye oil field in Siberia.

Once the BP drilling had been done, Khodorkovsky forced BP out, using gangster methods that would be unlawful in most of the developed world. By 2003 Priobskoye oil production reached 129 million barrels, equivalent to a value on the market of some $8 billions. Earlier, in 1998, after the IMF had given billions to Russia to prevent a collapse of the Ruble, Khodokorvosky`s Bank Menatep diverted an eye-popping $4.8 billion in IMF funds to his hand-picked bank cronies, some US banks among them. The howls of protest from Washington at the October 2003 arrest of Khodorkovsky were disingenuous, if not outright hypocritical. As seen from the Kremlin, Washington had been caught with its fat hand in the Russian cookie jar.

The Putin-Khodorkovsky showdown signaled a decisive turn by the Putin government towards rebuilding Russia and erecting strategic defenses from the foreign onslaught led by Cheney and friend Tony Blair in Britain. It took place in the context of a brazen US grab for Iraq in 2003 and of a unilateral Bush Administration announcement that the USA was abrogating its solemn treaty obligations with Russia under their earlier Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty, in order to go ahead with development of US missile defenses, an act which could only be viewed in Moscow as a hostile act aimed at her security.

By 2003, indeed, it took little strategic military acumen to realize that the Pentagon hawks and their allies in the military industry and Big Oil had a vision of a United States unfettered by international agreements and acting unilaterally in its own best interests, as defined, of course, by the hawks. Their recommendations were published by one of the many Washington hawk conservative Think-Tanks. In January 2001 The National Institute for Public Policy (NIPP) issued Rationale and Requirements for U.S. Nuclear Forces and Arms Control, just as the Bush-Cheney Administration began. The report, demanding a unilateral US end to nuclear force reduction, was signed by 27 senior officials from past and current administrations. The list included the man who today is Bush`s National Security Adviser, Stephen Hadley; it included the special assistant to the Secretary of Defense, Stephen Cambone, and it included Admiral James Woolsey, the former head of CIA and chairman of the Washington NGO, Freedom House. Freedom House played a central role in Ukraine`s US-sponsored ‘Orange Revolution’ and all other ‘Color Revolutions’ across the former Soviet Union.

These events were soon followed by the Washington-financed series of covert destabilizations of a number of governments in Russia`s periphery which had been close to Moscow. It included the November 2003 ‘Rose Revolution’ in Georgia which ousted Edouard Shevardnadze in favour of a young, US-educated and pro-NATO President, Mikheil Saakashvili. The 37-year-old Saakashvili had conveniently agreed to back the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan oil pipeline that would avoid Moscow pipeline control of Azerbaijan`s Caspian oil. The United States has maintained close ties with Georgia since President Mikheil Saakashvili has come to power. American military trainers instruct Georgian troops and Washington has poured millions of dollars into preparing Georgia to become part of NATO.

Following its Rose Revolution in Georgia, Woolsey`s Freedom House, the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), Soros Foundation and other Washington-backed NGOs organized the brazenly provocative November 2004 Ukraine ‘Orange Revolution.’ The aim of the Orange Revolution was to install a pro-NATO regime there under the contested Presidency of Viktor Yushchenko, in a land strategically able to cut the major pipeline flows from Russian oil and gas to Western Europe. Washington-backed ‘democratic opposition’ movements in neighboring Belarus also began receiving millions of dollars of Bush Administration largesse, along with Kyrgystan, Uzbekistan and more remote former Soviet states which also happen to form a barrier between potential energy pipelines linking China with Russia and the former Soviet states like Kazkhstan.

Again, energy and oil and gas pipeline control lay at the heart of the US moves. Little wonder, perhaps, that some people inside the Kremlin, notably Vladimir Putin, began to wonder if Putin`s new born-again Texan partner-in-prayer, George W. Bush, was in fact speaking to Putin with forked tongue, as the Indians would say.

By the end of 2004 it was clear in Moscow that a new Cold War, this one over strategic energy control and unilateral nuclear primacy, was fully underway. It was also clear from the unmistakable pattern of Washington actions since the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, that End Game for US policy vis-à-vis Eurasia was not China, not Iraq, and not Iran.

The geopolitical ‘End Game’ for Washington was the complete de-construction of Russia, the one state in Eurasia capable of organizing an effective combination of alliances using its vast oil and gas resources. That, of course, could never be openly declared.

After 2003 Putin and Russian foreign policy, especially energy policy, reverted to their basic response to the ‘Heartland’ geopolitics of Sir Halford Mackinder, politics which had been the basis of Soviet Cold War strategy since 1946.

Putin began to make a series of defensive moves to restore some tenable form of equilibrium in face of the increasingly obvious Washington policy of encircling and weakening Russia. Subsequent US strategic blunders have made the job a bit easier for Russia. Now, with the stakes rising on both sides - NATO and Russia – Putin`s Russia has moved beyond simple defense to a new dynamic offensive, to secure a more viable geopolitical position, using its energy as the lever.


Mackinder`s Heartland and Brzezinski`s Chess Game

It`s essential to understand the historic background to the term geopolitics. In 1904, an academic British geographer named Halford Mackinder made an address before the Royal Geographic Society in London which was to give the British Empire and later the United States a roadmap to change history. In his speech, titled, ‘The Geographical Pivot of History,’ Mackinder sought to define the relation between a nation`s or region`s geography - its topography, relation to the sea or land, its climate - with its politics and position in the world. He posited two classes of powers: sea powers including Britain and the United States as well as Japan; and he posited the large land powers of Eurasia, which, with development of the railroad, were able to unite large land masses free from dependency on the seas.

For Mackinder, an ardent Empire advocate, the implicit lesson for continued hegemony of the British Empire following the 1914-1917 World War, was to prevent at all costs a convergence of interests between the nations of East Europe - Poland, Czechoslovakia, Austria-Hungary - and the Russia-centered Eurasia ‘Heartland’ or ‘pivot’ land,as he termed it. After the Versailles peace talks, Mackinder summed up his ideas in the following famous dictum:

Who rules East Europe commands the Heartland;
Who rules the Heartland commands the World-Island;
Who rules the World-Island commands the world.

Mackinder`s Heartland was the core area of Eurasia, and the World-Island was all of Eurasia, including Europe, the Middle East and Asia. Great Britain, never a part of Continental Europe, he saw as a separate naval or sea-power. The Mackinder geopolitical perspective shaped Britain`s entry into the 1914 Great War, it shaped her entry into World War Two. It shaped Churchill`s calculated provocations of an increasingly paranoid Stalin, beginning 1943, to entice Russia into what became the Cold War.

From a US perspective, the 1946-1991 Cold War era was all about who shall control Mackinder`s World-Island, and, concretely, how to prevent the Eurasian Heartland, centered on Russia, from doing just that. A look at a polar projection map of US military alliances during the Cold War makes the point: The Soviet Union had been geopolitically contained and prevented from any significant linkup with Western Europe or the Middle East or Asia. The Cold War was about Russian efforts to circumvent that NATO-centered Iron Curtain.

Former US National Security Adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski, writing in the post-Soviet era in 1997, drew on Mackinder`s geopolitics by name, in describing the principal strategic aim of the United States to keep Eurasia from unifying as a coherent economic and military bloc or counterweight to the sole superpower status of the United States.

To understand US foreign policy since the onset of the Bush-Cheney Presidency in 2001, therefore, it`s useful to cite a revealing New York Council on Foreign Relations Foreign Affairs article by Brzezinski from September/October 1997:

‘Eurasia is home to most of the world`s politically assertive and dynamic states. All the historical pretenders to global power originated in Eurasia. The world`s most populous aspirants to regional hegemony, China and India, are in Eurasia, as are all the potential political or economic challengers to American primacy. After the United States, the next six largest economies and military spenders are there, as are all but one of the world`s overt nuclear powers, and all but one of the covert ones. Eurasia accounts for 75 percent of the world`s population, 60 percent of its GNP, and 75 percent of its energy resources. Collectively, Eurasia`s potential power overshadows even America`s.

‘Eurasia is the world`s axial supercontinent. A power that dominated Eurasia would exercise decisive influence over two of the world`s three most economically productive regions, Western Europe and East Asia. A glance at the map also suggests that a country dominant in Eurasia would almost automatically control the Middle East and Africa. With Eurasia now serving as the decisive geopolitical chessboard, it no longer suffices to fashion one policy for Europe and another for Asia. What happens with the distribution of power on the Eurasian landmass will be of decisive importance to America`s global primacy….’ (emphasis added-w.e.)

If we take the words of Washington strategist Brzezinski and understand the axioms of Halford Mackinder as the driving motive for Anglo, and later, American foreign policy for more than an entire century, it begins to become clear why a reorganized Russian state under the Presidency of Vladimir Putin has gone into motion to resist the overtures and overt attempts at deconstruction being promoted by Washington in the name of democracy. How has Putin acted to shore up Russian defenses? In a word: energy.


Russian energy geopolitics

In terms of the overall standard of living, mortality and economic prosperity, Russia today is not a world class power. In terms of energy, it is a colossus. In terms of landmass it is still the single largest nation in land area in the world, spanning from the Pacific to the door of Europe. It has vast territory, vast natural resources, and it has the world`s largest reserves of natural gas, the energy source currently the focus of major global power plays. In addition, it is the only power on the face of the earth with the military capabilities able to match that of the United States despite the collapse of the USSR and deterioration in the military since.

Russia has more than 130,000 oil wells and some 2000 oil and gas deposits explored of which at least 900 are not in use. Oil reserves have been estimated at 150 billion barrels, similar perhaps to Iraq. They could be far larger but have not yet been exploited owing to difficulty of drilling in some remote arctic regions. Oil prices above $60 a barrel begin to make it economical to explore in those remote regions.

Currently Russian oil products can be exported to foreign markets in three routes: Western Europe via the Baltic Sea and Black Sea; Northern route; Far East to China or Japan and East Asian markets. Russia has oil terminals on the Baltic at St. Petersburg for oil and a newly expanded oil terminal at Primorsk. There are added oil terminals under construction at Vysotsk, Batareynaya Bay and Ust-Luga.

Russia`s state-owned natural gas pipeline network, its so-called ‘unified gas transportation system’ includes a vast network of pipelines and compressor stations extending more than 150,000 kilometers across Russia. By law only the state-owned Gazprom is allowed to use the pipeline. The network is perhaps the most valued Russian state asset outside the oil and gas itself. Here is the heart of Putin`s new natural gas geopolitics and the focus of conflict with western oil and gas companies as well as the European Union, whose Energy Commissioner, Andras Piebalgs, is from new NATO member Latvia, formerly part of the USSR.


Bron: http://www.engdahl.oilgeopolitics.net/print/Russian%20Giant.html

quote:

Op woensdag 20 december 2006 20:29 schreef Hallulama het volgende:
OpenYourMind, uiteindelijk behouden we dus op die wijze onze levensstijl, die ons op dit moment zo dierbaar is, of niet?

M.a.w., dankzij al dat gelazer kunnen we over 10 tot 20 jaar nog steeds van onze breedbeeld televisie genieten.

Jammer alleen, dat de politiek dit niet gewoon eerlijk toegeeft.

Oh, en: Het Grote Verborgen Schaakspel

quote:

 
Terrorist attack on gas pipeline from Azerbaijan to Georgia

TBILISI, December 22 (RIA Novosti) - A section of a gas pipeline through which Azerbaijan delivers natural gas to Georgia has been damaged in a terrorist attack, a Georgian TV channel reported Friday.

The Rustavi-2 channel, citing sources in Azerbaijan, said the South Caucasus (Baku-Tblisi-Erzerum) pipeline pumping gas to Georgia from Azerbaijan's Shah Deniz field in the Caspian Sea was seriously damaged by an explosion December 20.

Officials both in Tbilisi and in Baku have not confirmed the report.

Georgian Prime Minister Zurab Nogaideli said earlier Friday that natural gas deliveries from Azerbaijan to Georgia have been suspended for several weeks for technical reasons.

Nogaideli said Georgia will buy Russian gas at a new price of $235 per 1,000 cubic meters until gas supply from Azerbaijan is restored.

Georgia has until now received most of its natural gas from Russia at $110 per 1,000 cubic meters, but Russian natural gas monopoly Gazprom has doubled the price as of 2007.

Gazprom signed three contracts Friday on supplies of 1.1 billion cubic meters of gas to Georgia in 2007 at $235 per 1,000 cubic meters on condition that 2006 supplies total 1.8 billion cubic meters.
 

quote:

Op vrijdag 22 december 2006 12:40 schreef OpenYourMind het volgende:

Ik denk niet dat we onze levensstijl kunnen behouden. Oneindige groei is onmogelijk in deze wereld. De schuldeneconomie zal hoe dan ook een keer barsten. Zonder hervormingen en compleet andere denkwijzen zal dit onvermijdelijk zijn.

quote:

Verder denk ik niet dat de huidige oorlog gedaan wordt met als doel om de midden klasse en de way of life te behouden, maar dat het de gekozen weg is om de machtsverdeling te behouden en te vergroten. Ook al leven we vandaag in een hele andere wereld als een eeuw geleden, de wereld draait nog steeds om macht en de elite van toen en nu verschillen denk ik niet zo veel in dat opzicht. De oude theorieen gaan nog steeds op, alleen wordt dit achter de schermen uitgevoerd en wordt er voor het volk een schijnwereld gepresenteerd.

quote:

Op zaterdag 23 december 2006 07:07 schreef NorthernStar het volgende:

[..]

De 'terroristen' hebben het maar weer druk in de Caspische regio.

quote:

'Iran wil kernenergie wegens problemen met olie'

Uitgegeven: 25 december 2006 23:56

WASHINGTON - Iran wil niet alleen kernenergie omdat het zich als regionale macht wil profileren, maar het land staat voor een ernstige crisis met zijn oliewinning en -industrie. Dit stelt een Amerikaanse onderzoeker in een maandag verschenen publicatie.

Iran heeft de naam een grote olieproducent te zijn met enorme voorraden om nog lang olie op te pompen, maar in werkelijkheid verkeert de Iraanse oliesector in een crisis. De infrastructuur die noodzakelijk is voor deze sector, faalt en er zijn geen nieuwe investeringen voor de sector, zo betoogt professor Roger Stern van de Johns Hopkins Universiteit in de publicatie Proceedings van de gezaghebbende Nationale Academie in de VS.

Kernwapens

Stern is van mening dat beschuldigingen van Washington dat Teheran op kernwapens uit is, steek houden, maar de Iraanse argumentatie voor kernenergie hoeft niet allemaal onzin te zijn. Hij stelt dat Iran waarschijnlijk kernenergie echt zo hard nodig heeft als het land beweert.

Iran is erg afhankelijk van de opbrengsten van de olie-export. De nationale oliemaatschappij moet zo veel mogelijk uitvoeren, want in Iran zelf is geen winst te halen. Dat is een gevolg van de opgelegde prijzen, waardoor de brandstof voor de Iraniërs is gesubsidieerd.

Bevolking

Maar de bevolking stijgt snel in omvang, waardoor er toch veel olie in het land zelf wordt verstookt. Iran importeert zelf producten zoals benzine om aan de stijgende binnenlandse vraag te voldoen, aldus Stern. Die vraag stijgt waarschijnlijk te snel sinds 1980 ten opzichte van de groei van de geproduceerde hoeveelheid olie. Na een hoogtepunt tien jaar geleden is de uitvoer van Iraanse olie gestagneerd volgens Stern. En in de afgelopen anderhalf jaar heeft Iran niet meer voldaan aan de door de OPEC (Organisatie van Petroleum Exporterende Landen) opgegeven exportquota. De productie van olie in Iran moet volgens Stern dalende zijn.

Nationalistische politieke leiders maken de zaak er niet beter op met een slecht investeringsklimaat. In de jaren 1998-2004 werd onvoldoende in de sector geïnvesteerd om de daling in de productie te voorkomen. Kernenergie kan daarom hard nodig zijn wanneer die daling doorzet, denkt Stern.

Bron: http://www.nu.nl/news/926(...)men_met_olie%27.html

quote:

Wit-Rusland tilt onderhandelingen op hoger plan

Uitgegeven: 31 december 2006 10:34
Laatst gewijzigd: 31 december 2006 10:53

MOSKOU - Wit-Rusland heeft zondag in een laatste poging om een crisis te voorkomen over gasleveranties zijn hoogste onderhandelaar naar Moskou gestuurd. Vicepremier Vladimir Semasjko moet voorkomen dat het Russische staatsgasbedrijf Gazprom maandag om 08.00 uur (Nederlandse tijd) de gastoevoer naar Wit-Rusland afsluit.

Tot nog toe beklaagde Gazprom zich er over dat onderhandelingen over een nieuw gascontract vooral verliepen via telefoon en fax en met Wit-Russiche ambtenaren die naar Moskou waren gereisd. Zij zouden te laag in rang zijn om een contract te kunnen sluiten.


De Russische monopolist dreigde afgelopen week de gaskraan naar het buurland dicht te draaien als het niet in zou stemmen met de ruimschoots verdubbelde prijs die het had vastgesteld voor 2007.

Daarop dreigde Minsk de doorvoer van Russisch gas naar Europa te stoppen.

Wit-Rusland verklaarde zich zaterdagavond bereid volgend jaar fors meer te gaan betalen voor Russisch gas. Semasjko zei toen dat zijn land na koortsachtig overleg in Moskou akkoord is gegaan met een prijsverhoging van 46 naar 100 dollar per 1000 kubieke meter.

Een woordvoerder van Gazprom liet evenwel in een reactie weten dat er nog lang geen sprake is van een overeenkomst.

Ongeveer 20 procent van de Russische gasexport naar Europa stroomt door Wit-Rusland. Een vergelijkbare ruzie tussen Gazprom en Oekraïne een jaar geleden zorgde ervoor dat gasleveranties naar West-Europa werden verstoord. Het leidde ook tot vragen over Moskous betrouwbaarheid als energieleverancier.

http://www.nu.nl/news/930(...)n_op_hoger_plan.html

quote:

Wit-Rusland heft belasting op Russische olie

Uitgegeven: 4 januari 2007 12:57
Laatst gewijzigd: 4 januari 2007 13:02

MINSK - Wit-Rusland heeft hoge heffingen ingevoerd op Russische olie die door pijpleidingen op zijn grondgebied naar Europa vloeit.

Rusland moet voortaan 45 dollar per doorgevoerde ton olie betalen. Het Kremlin bevestigde dit donderdag maar liet weten dat de maatregel geen gevolgen zal hebben voor olieleveranties aan Europese landen.

http://www.nu.nl/news/934(...)_Russische_olie.html

quote:

Op donderdag 4 januari 2007 13:24 schreef OpenYourMind het volgende:

[..]

Daarop dreigde Minsk de doorvoer van Russisch gas naar Europa te stoppen.

Ongeveer 20 procent van de Russische gasexport naar Europa stroomt door Wit-Rusland.

quote:

 
Germany's big gas pipeline deal with Russia has been criticised by a US official, in a sign of Washington's mounting unease about Berlin's ties with Moscow.

bron
 

quote:

Op donderdag 4 januari 2007 13:24 schreef OpenYourMind het volgende:

[..]

Klein speldenprikje terug van Wit Rusland...
[..]

Hier zal Rusland het echt niet bij laten. Ze zullen de druk langzaam steeds verder opvoeren en Europa is toch voor een groot deel afhankelijk van het Russische gas...

Voor wat meer info zie mijn post hierboven De ware aard van de oorlog tegen het terrorisme...

quote:

Russia changing its military doctrine

The Academy of Military Sciences will hold a conference in the Defense Ministry in Moscow on January 20. Its president, Army General Makhmut Gareyev, will deliver a report on Russia's new military doctrine.

Military leaders and academics will discuss the changes and amendments to this key document, which will be presented to the military community.

General Gareyev discusses the new doctrine in an interview with Viktor Litovkin.

[...]

Q: What is the gist of the military doctrine?

A: We must analyze what threatens Russia's security and what we should do to provide for an adequate defense. We should then define what military organization we need in order to neutralize and repel potential threats. We should define potential ways of using our armed forces and other troops, as well as the types of wars and armed conflicts that we could encounter today and up to the year 2015. This will determine the direction of military training and education. The main point is that we should know how to prepare the nation for defense, primarily in the economic, military-political, and moral arenas.

It is necessary to avoid excessive emphasis on politics and ideology, instead concentrating on practical efforts to build up defenses.

Ecological and energy factors will be the main causes of political and military conflicts in the next 10-15 years. Some states will try to control the energy resources of others, as happened in Iraq, while others will have no choice but to resist or die. Sooner or later, the world community will have to limit, regulate, and drastically change the scale and nature of production.


RIA Novosti

quote:

Op donderdag 18 januari 2007 23:28 schreef gronk het volgende:
Yup. Mad max.

quote:

Pentagon gebruikte 'dubieuze' inlichtingen

De voormalige Amerikaanse minister van Defensie Donald Rumsfeld liet zijn medewerkers 'alternatieve' rapporten van de inlichtingendiensten maken om de argumenten voor een oorlog tegen Irak te versterken. Dat bleek vrijdag uit een onderzoek van het Pentagon.

quote:

De onderminister voor Defensiebeleid Douglas Feith publiceerde rapporten waarin stond dat de Iraakse president Saddam Hussein had samengewerkt met het terreurnetwerk al-Qaeda. De Democratische senator Carl Levin, die het Pentagon-onderzoek naar buiten bracht, noemde de conclusies een ''vernietigende veroordeling'' van Feith en diens medewerkers.

Medewerkers van de onderminister ''bedachten, maakten en verspreidden vervolgens alternatieve informatie van de inlichtingendiensten over de relatie tussen Irak en al-Qaeda, waarin conclusies stonden die niet spoorden met de algemeen geldende opvattingen van inlichtingendiensten'', blijkt uit het rapport.

quote:

Bovendien baseerden zij zich op ''ruw materiaal van inlichtingendiensten, waaronder rapporten van dubieuze kwaliteit en betrouwbaarheid''. De rapporten werden echter gebruikt door de meest invloedrijke politici, onder wie vicepresident Dick Cheney. ''Vicepresident Cheney noemde de rapporten van Feiths dienst zelfs 'de beste bron van informatie' over de vermeende banden tussen Irak en al-Qaeda.''

Het Amerikaanse Congres gaf in 2005 opdracht voor het onderzoek naar Feiths dienst voor Bijzondere Operaties.

Bron: ANP Pentagon gebruikte 'dubieuze' inlichtingen

quote:

Op dinsdag 28 november 2006 15:32 schreef B.R.Oekhoest het volgende:

[..]

Doe mij maar een biertje.

Wat de neuk doet dit in Nieuws?

quote:

Op vrijdag 19 januari 2007 00:05 schreef Finder_elf_towns het volgende:
Misschien, maar als er een "final showdown" was zou het mij niets verbazen. De wereld is (kennelijk) te klein voor het energieverbruik van de Chinezen, Amerikanen en Russen bij elkaar.

quote:

Prepare for Peak Oil, GAO Warns

The Energy Department and other federal agencies need to develop a strategy to mitigate the effects of a peak in oil production, which most studies show will occur between now and 2040, the Government Accountability Office said today, in a study requested by members of the House Committee on Science and Technology.

...

Efforts to minimize the impact on the U.S., such as increasing alternative fuels like ethanol require costly investments in infrastructure and new technologies. Even optimistic scenarios project that alternative technologies will displace just 4% of projected U.S. consumption by 2015, the GAO said.

Bron: http://blogs.wsj.com/ener(...)-peak-oil-gao-warns/

quote:

"The timing of the peak depends on multiple, uncertain factors that will influence how quickly the remaining oil is used, including the amount of oil still in the ground, how much of the remaining oil can be ultimately produced, and future oil demand," the GAO report said.

It said the amount of oil remaining in the ground is highly uncertain, in part because OPEC controls most of the world's estimated oil reserves. But those reserves largely haven't been verified by independent auditors.

"Other important sources of uncertainty about future oil production are potentially unfavorable political and investment conditions in countries where oil is located," particularly as more than 60% of global reserves "are in countries where relatively unstable political conditions could constrain oil exploration and production."

quote:

Een hoge olieprijs zal de economische groei sterk doen afnemen.

quote:

RTLZ: Olietekort steeds structureler

Zie ook filmpje van RTLZ Olietekort steeds structureler

Het wordt steeds duidelijker dat het tekort aan olie van de laatste jaren steeds structureler wordt. De productie van oude velden in onder meer de Golf van Mexico en op de Noordzee neemt af. Nieuwe velden kunnen dat maar net opvangen.



Bron: http://www.rtl.nl/(/finan(...)kort_structureel.xml

quote:

Shell: olievraag overtreft aanbod afgelopen 2 jaar

In Nederland betalen we gewoon lekker door voor onze dagelijke autorit naar het werk, maar in o.a. Maleisië (foto’s), Australië en Yemen waren consumenten niet zo blij met de hoge olieprijs van de afgelopen jaren. Vrijwel geen enkele journalist echter gewag maakte van de olievraag die het aanbod overstijgt de laatste tijd, behalve journalist en grondstof-expert Willem Middelkoop. (zie RTL-Z, linkjes 1, 2, 3). Dat er een tekort is bleek namelijk uit de cijfers van de Energy Information Administation, de statistische tak van het Amerikaanse departement van Energie. Nu is deze visie op de oliemarkt ook bevestigt door de CEO van Shell Amerika, John Hofmeister: “We have now faced two years of, frankly, unacceptable high price and unnecessary high price because energy demand continues to exceed energy supply … We can get angry, or we can change public policy.”



Bron: http://www.peakoil.nl/?p=1306

quote:

Olievoorraden dalen onverwacht

Woensdag 18 April 2007 17:07

AMSTERDAM (Dow Jones) -- De voorraden ruwe olie in de VS zijn afgelopen week onverwacht gedaald, terwijl de voorraden benzine en destillaten sterker afnamen dan verwacht. Dit meldt de Amerikaanse overheid woensdag in zijn wekelijkse update over de energievoorraden.

De voorraad ruwe olie nam af met 1 miljoen vaten tot 332,4 miljoen vaten, waar de markt rekende op een toename van 500.000 vaten.

De benzinevoorraad daalde met 2,7 miljoen vaten tot 197 miljoen vaten, terwijl analisten waren uitgegaan van 1,45 miljoen vaten minder.

De voorraad destillaten - waaronder stookolie en diesel - kwam 800.000 vaten lager uit dan een week eerder, waar de markt uitging van een afname van 400.000 miljoen vaten.

De raffinagecapaciteit steeg met 0,2 procentpunt tot 90,4%. Analisten rekenden op een stijging van 0,4 procentpunt.

Bron: http://www.beurs.nl/nieuws/artikel.php?id=219791&taal=NL

quote:

Op vrijdag 24 november 2006 13:41 schreef gronk het volgende:
Twee vraagjes:

-hoe krijgen die conspiracy-jongens het toch iedere keer weer voorelkaar om ellenlange lulverhalen in te kloppen (tijd over?)
-waarom posten ze nooit eens naar recentere links, maar altijd naar dezelfde oude koeien uit 2002, 2003 etc. Alsof de wereld niet veranderd is in die tijd.

quote:

Op donderdag 19 april 2007 07:23 schreef Perrin het volgende:

[..]

Gronk, als je niet inhoudelijk wil reageren, reageer dan lekker niet. (tvp)

quote:

Op donderdag 19 april 2007 05:30 schreef concac het volgende:
tuurlijk

dus de conclusie is Bush wil alleen olie?
of was de oorlog tegen het terrorisme al begonnen toen Clinton aan de macht was, toen Al-Qaeda de ambasades in Tanzania en Kenia opblies, en de aanslag op de USS Cole?

als ze voor de olie gingen.
waarom zoveel moeite op Irak aan te vallen als Canada en Venezuela om de hoek ligt?

Canada heeft een grotere olie reserve dan Iran en Irak.

https://www.cia.gov/cia/p(...)korder/2178rank.html

quote:

Op donderdag 19 april 2007 03:00 schreef OpenYourMind het volgende:
Drie artikelen waaruit blijkt dat de vraag naar olie nu al twee jaar groter is dan het aanbod. In hoevere dit beleid is van de olieproducerende landen of daadwerkelijk schaarste durf ik niet te zeggen. Wel snoept dit langzaam olie uit de westerse olievoorraden.
[..]

quote:

Op donderdag 19 april 2007 17:34 schreef gorgg het volgende:

[..]

Ik vind het nog steeds onzin wat Willem Middelkoop zegt over een structureel tekort. Hij vergeet simpelweg dat het aanbod ook bepaald wordt door voorraadwijzigingen. Eind 2006 waren de voorraden op recordhoogte (nieuwsberichten hierover zorgen voor een sterke daling in de olieprijs toen). De speculatie op olie is volgens mij ook wat vermindert. Dus niet erg onlogisch imo dat de voorraden volgend jaar lager zullen zijn. Die daling (die de EIA verwacht) erbij tellen leidt ertoe dat de vraag perfect overeenkomt met het aanbod. Ik heb hem een mail gestuurd hierover, benieuwd of ik antwoord krijg.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/steo/pub/3tab.html

quote:

'Mogelijk dubbel zoveel olie in Irak als vermoed'

Irak beschikt mogelijk over bijna dubbel zoveel aardoliereserves als tot dusver werd vermoed. Experts van het Amerikaanse consultancybedrijf inzake energie IHS gaan er, na intensief bodemonderzoek, van uit dat in het woestijngebied in het westen van het land nog zo'n 100 miljard vaten (van 159 liter) kunnen opgehaald worden.

Dat schrijft donderdag de Britse zakenkrant Financial Times.

Als die analyse -die niet echt als een verrassing komt- klopt, betekent dit dat Irak na Saoedi-Arabië over de grootste oliereserves ter wereld beschikt. Momenteel staat Irak nog op de derde plaats, na de Saoedi's en Iran. In oliemiddens gold Irak al enkele jaren als het mogelijke nieuwe El Dorado.

Een en ander maakt het belang van Irak duidelijk voor de internationale oliegiganten die megawinsten kunnen opstrijken van zodra of in het geval het 'conflict' in het land wordt overwonnen, schrijft de krant. Die winsten worden des te groter mocht het Iraakse parlement de door de Amerikanen opgestelde oliewet goedkeuren, volgens dewelke de olie-industrie enkel nominaal in overheidshanden blijft, maar die de multinationals via variaties op de PSA's (Production Sharing Agreements) toestaat het leeuwendeel van de oliewinsten op te strijken. Daarbij komt dat de olie zich relatief goedkoop laat oppompen en dat het zwarte goud onder de Iraakse bodem van uitstekende kwaliteit is (en amper nog raffinage behoeft).

De IHS-studie baseert zich op gegevens, waaronder geologische analyses, die zowel voor als na de Anglo-Amerikaanse invasie van maart 2003 werden gewonnen. IHS-deskundige Robert Mobed had het in de krant over 'unieke mogelijkheden' en een 'gouden kans' voor het westerse bedrijfsleven.

Bron: http://www.tijd.be/nieuws/buitenland/artikel.asp?Id=2862338
Oorspronkelijke bron: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2(...)9f-00000e2511c8.html

quote:

Quotes van de belangrijkste stukken uit dit boek:

"Ever since the continents started interacting politically, some five hundred years ago, Eurasia has been the center of world power." (p. xiii.)

"The last decade of the twentieth century has witnessed a tectonic shift in world affairs. For the first time ever, a non-Eurasian power has emerged not only as a key arbiter of Eurasian power relations but also as the world's paramount power. The defeat and collapse of the Soviet Union was the final step in the rapid ascendance of a Western Hemisphere power, the United States, as the sole and, indeed, the first truly global power." (p. xiii)

"But in the meantime, it is imperative that no Eurasian challenger emerges, capable of dominating Eurasia and thus of also challenging America. The formulation of a comprehensive and integrated Eurasian geostrategy is therefore the purpose of this book." (p. xiv)

"The attitude of the American public toward the external projection of American power has been much more ambivalent. The public supported America’s engagement in World War II largely because of the shock effect of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.” (p. 24-5)

"For America, the chief geopolitical prize is Eurasia) Now a non-Eurasian power is preeminent in Eurasia -- and America’s global primacy is directly dependent on how long and how effectively its preponderance on the Eurasian continent is sustained.” (p.30)

"America’s withdrawal from the world or because of the sudden emergence of a successful rival -- would produce massive international instability. It would prompt global anarchy." (p. 30)

"In that context, how America ‘manages’ Eurasia is critical. Eurasia is the globe’s largest continent and is geopolitically axial. A power that dominates Eurasia would control two of the world’s three most advanced and economically productive regions. A mere glance at the map also suggests that control over Eurasia would almost automatically entail Africa’s subordination, rendering the Western Hemisphere and Oceania geopolitically peripheral to the world’s central continent. About 75 per cent of the world’s people live in Eurasia, and most of the world’s physical wealth is there as well, both in its enterprises and underneath its soil. Eurasia accounts for 60 per cent of the world’s GNP and about three-fourths of the world’s known energy resources." (p.31)

"Two basic steps are thus required: first, to identify the geostrategically dynamic
Eurasian states that have the power to cause a potentially important shift in the international distribution of power and to decipher the central external goals of their respective political elites and the likely consequences of their seeking to attain them; second, to formulate specific U.S. policies to offset, co-opt, and/or control the above." (p. 40)

"To put it in a terminology that harkens back to the more brutal age of ancient empires, the three grand imperatives of imperial geostrategy are to prevent collusion and maintain security dependence among the vassals, to keep tributaries pliant and protected, and to keep the barbarians from coming together." (p.40)

Bron: http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/RUP111B.pdf

quote:

"Henceforth, the United States may have to determine how to cope with regional coalitions that seek to push America out of Eurasia, thereby threatening America’s status as a global power." (p.55)

"Uzbekistan -- with its much more ethnically homogeneous population of approximately 25 million and its leaders emphasizing the country’s historic glories -- has become increasingly assertive in affirming the region’s new postcolonial status." (p.95)

"Thus, even the ethnically vulnerable Kazakhstan joined the other Central Asian states in abandoning the Cyrillic alphabet and replacing it with Latin script as adapted earlier by Turkey. In effect, by the mid-1990s a bloc, quietly led by Ukraine and comprising Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Azerbaijan and sometimes also Kazakhstan, Georgia and Moldova, had informally emerged to obstruct Russian efforts to use the CIS as the tool for political integration." (p.114)

"Hence, support for the new post-Soviet states -- for geopolitical pluralism in the space of the former Soviet empire -- has to be an integral part of a policy designed to induce Russia to exercise unambiguously its European option. Among these states. Three are geopolitically especially important: Azerbaijan, Uzbekistan, and Ukraine." (p. 121)

"Uzbekistan, nationally the most vital and the most populous of the central Asian states, represents the major obstacle to any renewed Russian control over the region. Its independence is critical to the survival of the other Central Asian states, and it is the least vulnerable to Russian pressures." (p. 121)

quote:

Referring to an area he calls the "Eurasian Balkans" and a 1997 map in which he has circled the exact location of the current conflict ( describing it as the central region of pending conflict for world dominance - Brzezinski writes:

"Moreover, they [the Central Asian Republics] are of importance from the standpoint of security and historical ambitions to at least three of their most immediate and more powerful neighbors, namely Russia, Turkey and Iran, with China also signaling an increasing political interest in the region. But the Eurasian Balkans are infinitely more important as a potential economic prize: an enormous concentration of natural gas and oil reserves is located in the region, in addition to important minerals, including gold." (p.124)

The world’s energy consumption is bound to vastly increase over the next two or three decades. Estimates by the U.S. Department of energy anticipate that world demand will rise by more than 50 percent between 1993 and 2015, with the most significant increase in consumption occurring in the Far East. The momentum of Asia’s economic development is already generating massive pressures for the exploration and exploitation of new sources of energy and the Central Asian region and the Caspian Sea basin are known to contain reserves of natural gas and oil that dwarf those of Kuwait, the Gulf of Mexico, or the North Sea." (p.125)

"Kazakhstan is the shield and Uzbekistan is the soul for the region’s diverse national awakenings." (p.130)

"Uzbekistan is, in fact, the prime candidate for regional leadership in Central Asia." (p.130)

"Once pipelines to the area have been developed, Turkmenistan’s truly vast natural gas reserves augur a prosperous future for the country’s people. (p.132)

"In fact, an Islamic revival -- already abetted from the outside not only by Iran but also by Saudi Arabia -- is likely to become the mobilizing impulse for the increasingly pervasive new nationalisms, determined to oppose any reintegration under Russian -- and hence infidel -- control." (p. 133).

"For Pakistan, the primary interest is to gain Geostrategic depth through political influence in Afghanistan -- and to deny to Iran the exercise of such influence in Afghanistan and Tajikistan -- and to benefit eventually from any pipeline construction linking Central Asia with the Arabian Sea." (p.139)

"Moreover, sensible Russian leaders realize that the demographic explosion underway in the new states means that their failure to sustain economic growth will eventually create an explosive situation along Russia’s entire southern frontier." (p.141) [This would explain why Putin would welcome U.S. military presence to stabilize the region.]

"Turkmenistan has been actively exploring the construction of a new pipeline through Afghanistan and Pakistan to the Arabian Sea" (p.145)

quote:

"It follows that America’s primary interest is to help ensure that no single power comes to control this geopolitical space and that the global community has unhindered financial and economic access to it." (p148)

"China’s growing economic presence in the region and its political stake in the area’s independence are also congruent with America’s interests." (p.149)

"America is now the only global superpower, and Eurasia is the globe’s central arena. Hence, what happens to the distribution of power on the Eurasian continent will be of decisive importance to America’s global primacy and to America’s historical legacy." (p.194)

"the Eurasian Balkans -- threatens to become a cauldron of ethnic conflict and great-power rivalry." (p.195)

"Without sustained and directed American involvement, before long the forces of global disorder could come to dominate the world scene. And the possibility of such a fragmentation is inherent in the geopolitical tensions not only of today’s Eurasia but of the world more generally." (p.194)

"With warning signs on the horizon across Europe and Asia, any successful American policy must focus on Eurasia as a whole and be guided by a Geostrategic design." (p.197)

"That puts a premium on maneuver and manipulation in order to prevent the emergence of a hostile coalition that could eventually seek to challenge America’s primacy" (p. 198)

"The most immediate task is to make certain that no state or combination of states gains the capacity to expel the United States from Eurasia or even to diminish significantly its decisive arbitration role." (p. 198)

"In the long run, global politics are bound to become increasingly uncongenial to the concentration of hegemonic power in the hands of a single state. Hence, America is not only the first, as well as the only, truly global superpower, but it is also likely to be the very last." (p.209)

"Moreover, as America becomes an increasingly multi-cultural society, it may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus on foreign policy issues, except in the circumstance of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat." (p. 211) [Emphasis added]

Bron: http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/RUP111B.pdf
Boek: The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and its Georstrategic Imperative

quote:

Question: The former director of the CIA, Robert Gates, stated in his memoirs ["From the Shadows"], that American intelligence services began to aid the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan 6 months before the Soviet intervention. In this period you were the national security adviser to President Carter. You therefore played a role in this affair. Is that correct?

Brzezinski: Yes. According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.

Q: Despite this risk, you were an advocate of this covert action. But perhaps you yourself desired this Soviet entry into war and looked to provoke it?

B: It isn't quite that. We didn't push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would.

Q: When the Soviets justified their intervention by asserting that they intended to fight against a secret involvement of the United States in Afghanistan, people didn't believe them. However, there was a basis of truth. You don't regret anything today?

B: Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter. We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war. Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire.

Q: And neither do you regret having supported the Islamic fundamentalism, having given arms and advice to future terrorists?

B: What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?

Q: Some stirred-up Moslems? But it has been said and repeated Islamic fundamentalism represents a world menace today.

B: Nonsense! It is said that the West had a global policy in regard to Islam. That is stupid. There isn't a global Islam. Look at Islam in a rational manner and without demagoguery or emotion. It is the leading religion of the world with 1.5 billion followers. But what is there in common among Saudi Arabian fundamentalism, moderate Morocco, Pakistan militarism, Egyptian pro-Western or Central Asian secularism? Nothing more than what unites the Christian countries.

Bron: http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/BRZ110A.html

quote:

World events since the attacks of September 11, 2001 have not only been predicted, but also
planned, orchestrated and -- as their architects would like to believe -- controlled. The
current Central Asian war is not a response to terrorism, nor is it a reaction to Islamic
fundamentalism. It is in fact, in the words of one of the most powerful men on the planet, the
beginning of a final conflict before total world domination by the United States leads to the
dissolution of all national governments. This, says Council on Foreign Relations (CFR)
member and former Carter National Security Advisor, Zbigniew Brzezinski, will lead to
nation states being incorporated into a new world order, controlled solely by economic
interests as dictated by banks, corporations and ruling elites concerned with the maintenance
(by manipulation and war) of their power.

quote:

Op vrijdag 20 april 2007 15:43 schreef Falco het volgende:
Wat een lang zeurtopic. Over 20 jaar werkt die kernfusiereactor in Frankrijk en is die hele olie overbodig .

quote:

Op vrijdag 20 april 2007 17:51 schreef Autoreply het volgende:

[..]

Ach, tis zonder meer een interessante analyse. Inhoudelijk heb je echter wel gelijk, de nieuwe economie draait vooral op kennis (energie is via kernenergie, van welke vorm dan ook redelijk globaal verdeeld, net als de productie van waterstof) en daardoor zal een supermacht niet meer in z'n huidge vorm kunnen bestaan

quote:

The global war on terror is not limited to Earth's air, land and sea -- its being fought in space too, according to Air Force Space Command's most senior officer.
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/milspace-04k.html

quote:

Op vrijdag 20 april 2007 17:51 schreef Autoreply het volgende:

[..]

Ach, tis zonder meer een interessante analyse. Inhoudelijk heb je echter wel gelijk, de nieuwe economie draait vooral op kennis (energie is via kernenergie, van welke vorm dan ook redelijk globaal verdeeld, net als de productie van waterstof) en daardoor zal een supermacht niet meer in z'n huidge vorm kunnen bestaan

quote:

A Cold War Legacy of Persian Gulf Conflict
Central Command assures 'unimpeded flow of oil'


Modern struggles in the Persian Gulf are inseparable from the region’s oil, so crucial to the economic interests of the world's great powers.

The Central Command itself was formed 20 years ago as both a consequence of and a solution to those struggles.

In the latest Persian Gulf conflict, weapons of mass destruction and the crimes of Saddam Hussein are cited in newspapers, U.N. resolutions and the Oval Office as the prime motives of war.

But it is the Cold War legacy of the Central Command that makes war possible at all.


One Sentence

By January 1980, Hendrik Hertzberg had been writing speeches for President Jimmy Carter for three years. He’d grown familiar with the routine of drafts and revisions, recommendations and more rewrites; now he and his colleagues were sharpening their pencils for the State of the Union Address.

But this time, Hertzberg received an unprecedented order. One key sentence was to be inserted into the speech, and it could not be altered.

Write what you will to introduce this sentence, he was told, but this language could not be touched.

"That was the only part that came delivered in a sealed envelope, almost," Hertzberg recalled.

The orders came directly from National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski, author of the pivotal clause that would later be known as "the Carter Doctrine":

Let our position be absolutely clear: An attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force.

"I did write that phrase and insisted that it be incorporated in the speech," Brzezinski wrote in an email to Newsdesk.org. "It was designed to make it very clear that the Soviets should stay away from the Persian Gulf."

The Soviet Union had sent troops into Afghanistan a month earlier, and the country was reeling from an oil shortage brought on by the hostage crisis in Iran.

Carter’s speech, presented to Congress on January 21, 1980, detailed the strategic importance of the Persian Gulf region and its petroleum resources to the U.S. economy.

”The region which is now threatened by Soviet troops in Afghanistan is of great strategic importance: It contains more than two-thirds of the world's exportable oil. The Soviet effort to dominate Afghanistan has brought Soviet military forces to within 300 miles of the Indian Ocean and close to the Straits of Hormuz, a waterway through which most of the world's oil must flow.”

Carter was drawing a line in the sand, but lacked the military force to back it up.

"We knew that we didn’t really have the teeth to back up the Carter Doctrine," said Hertzberg. "We had nuclear weapons, but not the conventional forces to make it stick if the Soviets chose to challenge it."

At the time, Persian Gulf countries were reluctant to accept U.S. military bases, so the U.S. needed a plan to get stateside troops deployed to the region quickly. Brzezinski decided to develop a rapid deployment force.

According to Brzezinski, "the Rapid Deployment Joint Task Force was the product of a series of NSC (National Security Council) meetings initiated by me and organized by then Col. (now Gen.) William Odom to give some muscle to the Carter Doctrine."

The idea of a military unit that could be sent anywhere in the world at a moment’s notice was not new, but with the Carter Doctrine, the project took on a new urgency.

Originally conceived of as a global force, the Rapid Deployment Joint Task Force evolved into a unified command for the Persian Gulf, Central Asia and North Africa.

Petroleum continued to play a large role in the strategic milieu.

In 1982, the Washington Quarterly quoted the commanding officer, General Robert Kingston, saying that the task force's basic mission was to "to assure the unimpeded flow of oil from the Arabian Gulf."

Bron: http://www.artsandmedia.n(...)2003/03/18_centcom_1

quote:

In 2003, the Central Command has been called on again, and Iraq is once more in the crosshairs.

And the Central Command's mission remains unchanged. Its website states plainly the significance of the energy resources in the territory under its jurisdiction, in words that echo the Carter Doctrine:

"The region contains more than 65 percent of the world’s oil reserves. Its security is vital to the global economy ... Ships navigating these waters … carry the petroleum products that fuel the economies of our European and Asian allies."

General Tommy Franks, in an April 2001 interview with the American Forces Press Service, concurs:

"One of our responsibilities -- in fact, one of our objectives -- is to maintain access to these energy resources at the same time that we maintain access to markets in the region."


Supply and Demand

The Bush administration sees dependence on the region’s resources growing in the United States as well, stating in its National Energy Policy in May 2001 that "by 2020, Gulf oil producers are projected to supply between 54 and 67 percent of the world’s oil ... This region will remain vital to U.S. interests."

The policy report, based on the findings of Vice President Dick Cheney's National Energy Policy Development Group, predicts that U.S. oil consumption will increase 33 percent in the next 20 years and that natural gas demand will rise more than 50 percent.

Domestic petroleum production, it says, will decline.

The document reads: "On our present course, America 20 years from now will import nearly two out of every three barrels of oil -- a condition of increased dependency on foreign powers that do not always have America’s best interests at heart."

Of those foreign powers, Iraq stands out as one of the most problematic.

According to the U.S. Department of Energy website, "Iraq contains 112 billion barrels of proven oil reserves, the second largest in the world (behind Saudi Arabia) along with roughly 220 billion barrels of probable and possible resources. Iraq’s true resource potential may be far greater than this, however, as the country is relatively unexplored due to years of war and sanctions ... Iraq’s oil production costs are amongst the lowest in the world, making it a highly attractive oil prospect."

Despite the sanctions in place in the wake of the first Gulf War, in 2002 the U.S. imported an average of 449,000 barrels of oil per day from Iraq, although the amount dropped precipitously toward the latter half of the year.

That’s about twice as much as the U.S. imports from Kuwait, and a third of the 1.5 million barrels per day from Saudi Arabia.

Total oil imported from the Persian Gulf is 2.24 million barrels of oil per day, almost 24 percent of total US imports.

Bron: http://www.artsandmedia.n(...)2003/03/18_centcom_2

quote:

Critics cite a January 16 article in the Wall Street Journal, describing a meeting between State Department officials and oil company executives.

"The Bush administration is eager to secure Iraq's oil fields and rehabilitate them, industry officials say," the article reads. "They say Mr. Cheney's staff hosted an informational meeting with industry executives in October, with Exxon Mobil Corp., ChevronTexaco Corp., ConocoPhillips and Halliburton among the companies represented. Both the Bush administration and the companies say such a meeting never took place."

Former Green Party presidential candidate Ralph Nader believes the meetings happened, and said that "41 members of the administration have ties to the industry."

The meetings took place during the formation of Bush's National Energy Policy, and included executives from companies like Halliburton (where Cheney was an executive officer) and ExxonMobil.

On January 22, Secretary of State Colin Powell told reporters that oil profits from post-war Iraq "will be held for and used for the people of Iraq. It will not be exploited for the United States’ own purpose."

Bron: http://www.artsandmedia.n(...)2003/03/18_centcom_3

quote:

Op donderdag 26 april 2007 22:16 schreef francorex het volgende:
John Kerry luisterd en reageert op vragen van het publiek. Vragen over 9/11.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zXOtTfeEAYU

quote:

Op zondag 12 november 2006 15:15 schreef OpenYourMind het volgende:

[..]

Of de VS de hand hebben gehad in 9/11 kan ik niet met 100% zekerheid zeggen. Het zou mij niets verbazen en ik acht het zeer goed mogelijk. Alle informatie wijst voor mij in die richting.

Wat betreft de aanval op Afghanistan heb ik al aangegeven dat dit al gepland en deels in uitvoering was (materieel verplaatsen) voor 9/11.

quote:

De taliban haalde ook een grote hoeveelheid geld uit de wereldbanken voor 9/11 en vernietigde een groot deel van de opiumvelden. Dit kan je op zich al een act of war zien, omdat dit directe en indirecte gevolgen heeft voor de economie van de VS.

quote:

De invasie in Afghanistan zelf en het vestigen van een puppet regime komt ook overeen met de plannen voor het buitensluiten van China, Rusland en India van toegang tot de grondstoffen in Eurasia. Dit is slechts een vervolg op het decennia lange beleid van de VS voor Afghanistan.

quote:

Ik stel dus dat ook de invasie van Afghanistan een geopolitieke zet was en dat de bestrijding van terrorisme ook hier slechts bijzaak is. Terrorisme is slechts gebruikt als excuus, want in feite is er aan terrorismebestrijding niet veel gedaan en bestrijd je terrorisme veel beter met speciale teams en infiltranten.

quote:

DUSSSSSS 1977 was de laatste groote terror aanslag in Nederland (Als ik mij niet vergis)
Vanwaar dan al die onzin waar men ons zo bang mee wil maken ?

quote:

Op vrijdag 27 april 2007 22:54 schreef Apropos het volgende:

[..]

Zie je nu zelf niet hoe stupide deze redenering is?

quote:

Op vrijdag 27 april 2007 23:20 schreef MMXMMX het volgende:

[..]

Nee

quote:

Op vrijdag 27 april 2007 23:22 schreef Apropos het volgende:

[..]

Dus jij stapt zometeen op je paard om een aflaat te kopen?

quote:

Op vrijdag 27 april 2007 23:26 schreef MMXMMX het volgende:

[..]

Gaat dit topic over mij ?

Of dwaal jij nu af ?

quote:

Op vrijdag 27 april 2007 23:29 schreef Apropos het volgende:

[..]

Waarom zou het van belang zijn wanneer de laatste terroristische aanslag in Nederland plaatsvond? (November 2004, overigens.) De tijden veranderen nu eenmaal.

quote:

Op vrijdag 27 april 2007 23:39 schreef gronk het volgende:

[..]

Bij een 'terroristische aanslag' denk ik toch echt aan die-hards die zichzelf opblazen, gebouwen aan gort gooien, of aan malloten die met een AK-47 los gaan op de kalverstraat. Niet aan labiele pubers die een enkele dikke relcolumnist aan 't mes rijgen.

quote:

Op vrijdag 27 april 2007 23:42 schreef Apropos het volgende:

[..]

Nee, inderdaad, iemand op straat afslachten, nagenoeg onthoofden en een lijst met doodsbedreigingen aan hem hechten is een daad die niets uitstaande heeft met de wens om angst te zaaien. Late puberteit, trouwens.

quote:

Op vrijdag 27 april 2007 23:42 schreef Apropos het volgende:

[..]

Nee, inderdaad, iemand op straat afslachten, nagenoeg onthoofden en een lijst met doodsbedreigingen aan hem hechten is een daad die niets uitstaande heeft met de wens om angst te zaaien. Late puberteit, trouwens.

quote:

Op zaterdag 28 april 2007 00:15 schreef gronk het volgende:

[..]

Van gogh is niet 'nagenoeg onthoofd'.

quote:

En als je zo'n actie genoeg vindt om heel nederland om te turnen in een politiestaat, sodemieter dan effe snel op naar amerika, overspannen standje.

quote:

Van gogh was een matige columnist. De eer die jij 'm toebedeelt is echt veel te veel,

quote:

Het feit dat sommige lui zo overspannen reageren, zegt meer over het gemak waarmee je sommige mensen kunt opzwepen. Dat lijkt me veel ernstiger dan iemand die van gogh vermoord.

quote:

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

[..]

Heb je daar een bron voor? Ik was juist verbaasd dat het de VS meer dan een maand kostte om aan te vallen, dus echt helemaal klaar stonden ze echt niet.
[..]

quote:

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:

Decennialang beleid? Voordat de Soviets binnenvielen had niemand in de States ooit van Afghanistan gehoord. Nadat de Soviets vertrokken ging de CIA ook weer weg. Het was een slagveld in de koude oorlog, niet meer en niet minder.
[..]

quote:

En wat is dan het grote nut van Afghanistan voor de VS? Echt, je moet je in heel veel bochten wringen wil je met iets plausibels komen.

quote:

En terrorismebestrijding gebeurt daar echt wel hoor. Inderdaad met speciale teams. Ook Nederlandse commandos doen daaraan mee.

quote:

Op vrijdag 20 april 2007 15:43 schreef Falco het volgende:
Wat een lang zeurtopic. Over 20 jaar werkt die kernfusiereactor in Frankrijk en is die hele olie overbodig .

quote:

1998: US and Uzbekistan Begin Conducting Joint Operations against Taliban and Al-Qaeda

Beginning in 1998, if not before, Uzbekistan and the CIA secretly create a joint counterterrorist strike force, funded and trained by the CIA. This force conducts joint covert operations against the Taliban and al-Qaeda in Afghanistan. [Times of India, 10/14/2001; Washington Post, 10/14/2001; Vanity Fair, 11/2004] In February 1999, radical Muslims fail in an attempt to assassinate the leader of Uzbekistan. Following this, the CIA is allowed to step up their secret operations in Uzbekistan. The CIA and NSA are allowed to install monitoring equipment to intercept Taliban and al-Qaeda communications. Intelligence is shared, and Uzbek military bases are made available for small-scale CIA operations. Uzbekistan borders Afghanistan to the north. By contrast, the other nations surrounding Afghanistan—Iran, Pakistan, Kyrgyzstan, Turkmenistan, and Tajikistan, do not cooperate with the US on these matters very much or at all.


December 19, 2000: US Seeks Taliban Overthrow; Considers Russia-US Invasion of Afghanistan

The Washington Post reports, “The United States has quietly begun to align itself with those in the Russian government calling for military action against Afghanistan and has toyed with the idea of a new raid to wipe out Osama bin Laden. Until it backed off under local pressure, it went so far as to explore whether a Central Asian country would permit the use of its territory for such a purpose.” Russia and the US are discussing “what kind of government should replace the Taliban. Thus, while claiming to oppose a military solution to the Afghan problem, the United States is now talking about the overthrow of a regime that controls nearly the entire country, in the hope it can be replaced with a hypothetical government that does not exist even on paper.” [Washington Post, 12/19/2000] It appears that all pre-9/11 plans to invade Afghanistan involve attacking from the north with Russia.


March 15, 2001: India, Iran, Russia, and US Work in Concert to Remove Taliban

Jane’s Intelligence Review reports that the US is working with India, Iran, and Russia “in a concerted front against Afghanistan’s Taliban regime.” India is supplying the Northern Alliance with military equipment, advisers, and helicopter technicians and both India and Russia are using bases in Tajikistan and Uzbekistan for their operation. [Jane's Intelligence Review, 3/15/2001]


May 2001: US Military Drafts Scenario for Afghan Operation

General William Kernan, commander in chief of the Joint Forces Command, later mentions: “The details of Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan which fought the Taliban and al-Qaeda after the September 11 attacks, were largely taken from a scenario examined by Central Command in May 2001.” [Agence France-Presse, 7/23/2002] This seems to contradict other accounts suggesting the military made no Afghanistan invasion plans or preparations after Bush took office (see December 2000).

June 26, 2001: US, Russia, and Regional Powers Cooperate to Oust Taliban

An Indian magazine reports more details of the cooperative efforts of the US, India, Russia, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, and Iran against the Taliban regime: “India and Iran will ‘facilitate’ US and Russian plans for ‘limited military action’ against the Taliban if the contemplated tough new economic sanctions don’t bend Afghanistan’s fundamentalist regime.” Earlier in the month, Russian President Vladimir Putin told a meeting of the Confederation of Independent States that military action against the Taliban may happen, possibly with Russian involvement using bases and forces from Uzbekistan and Tajikistan as well. [IndiaReacts, 6/26/2001]

Late Summer 2001: US Contingency Plans to Attack Afghanistan

According to a later Guardian report, “reliable western military sources say a US contingency plan exist[s] on paper by the end of the summer to attack Afghanistan from the north.” [Guardian, 9/26/2001]


Bron: http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&before_9/11=huntForBinLaden

quote:

Op vrijdag 20 april 2007 15:43 schreef Falco het volgende:
Wat een lang zeurtopic. Over 20 jaar werkt die kernfusiereactor in Frankrijk en is die hele olie overbodig .

quote:

Op zaterdag 28 april 2007 14:50 schreef gronk het volgende:

[..]

Sowieso past dit topic beter in TRU dan in NWS.

quote:

Op zaterdag 28 april 2007 15:29 schreef OpenYourMind het volgende:
Oh je wilt z'n discussie starten... nee dankje!

Ik onderbouw mijn visie met bronnen,

quote:

het is een geopolitieke analyse en als jij het af wil doen als schimmige conspiracy theorietjes moet jij dat weten. Als je verder niet inhoudelijk wil reageren dan kan je beter wegblijven.

quote:

Op zaterdag 28 april 2007 15:17 schreef OpenYourMind het volgende:

[..]

Nieuws en Achtergronden.

Alle bronnen die ik aanhaal zijn officieel, mainstream of geopolitieke studies en de bronnen zijn verifieerbaar.

Reageer anders eens een keer inhoudelijk...

quote:

Op zaterdag 28 april 2007 17:43 schreef OpenYourMind het volgende:
Ik plaats hier slechts mijn analyse waarin ik zoveel mogelijk objectief probeer te zijn en waardeoordelen als goed en slecht probeer te vermijden. Iedereen heeft zijn/haar vooroordelen en basseert zich op een bepaald wereldbeeld dat hij of zij heeft. In mijn analyse probeer ik zoveel mogelijk mijn theorie te beschrijven zonder daarbij oordelen te vellen.

Ik probeer gewoon wat meer kennis te verkrijgen over de gebeurtenissen in de wereld en de machtsstructuren en deel mijn visie en informatie hier. That's all. Dat ik daarbij mijn visie onderbouw en verdedig lijkt mij vrij logisch.

quote:

Op zaterdag 28 april 2007 14:50 schreef gronk het volgende:

Sowieso past dit topic beter in TRU dan in NWS.

quote:

Op vrijdag 20 april 2007 17:51 schreef Autoreply het volgende:

[..]

Ach, tis zonder meer een interessante analyse. Inhoudelijk heb je echter wel gelijk, de nieuwe economie draait vooral op kennis (energie is via kernenergie, van welke vorm dan ook redelijk globaal verdeeld, net als de productie van waterstof) en daardoor zal een supermacht niet meer in z'n huidge vorm kunnen bestaan

quote:

Op zondag 29 april 2007 06:22 schreef NorthernStar het volgende:

Met zulke hoge belangen hebben we tot nu toe slechts voorspel gezien vrees ik.

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:

A radio message broadcast across the province assured local farmers that the Nato-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) would not interfere with poppy fields currently being harvested.

"Respected people of Helmand. The soldiers of ISAF and the Afghan national army do not destroy poppy fields," it said. "They know that many people of Afghanistan have no choice but to grow poppy. ISAF and the Afghan national army do not want to stop people from earning their livelihoods."

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:

Op zaterdag 28 april 2007 17:43 schreef OpenYourMind het volgende:
Ik plaats hier slechts mijn analyse waarin ik zoveel mogelijk objectief probeer te zijn en waardeoordelen als goed en slecht probeer te vermijden. Iedereen heeft zijn/haar vooroordelen en basseert zich op een bepaald wereldbeeld dat hij of zij heeft. In mijn analyse probeer ik zoveel mogelijk mijn theorie te beschrijven zonder daarbij oordelen te vellen.

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:

Op vrijdag 29 juni 2007 00:14 schreef Drugshond het volgende:
Deze past nu beter in [BNW]

quote:

Op vrijdag 29 juni 2007 00:15 schreef BaajGuardian het volgende:

[..]

Want?

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 vrijdag 29 juni 2007 00:21 schreef Drugshond het volgende:

[..]

Vauit de visie van de OP.
Het is een eigen 'plausibele' theorie van een hogere orde/plan/macht.... en geen actueel lostaand[NWS]-feitje wat verschenen is in de media.

quote:

Op donderdag 5 juli 2007 21:20 schreef Hallulama het volgende:
Fantastisch verhaal van George Galloway over het recentelijke terroristen geneuzel in Engeland:

George Galloway - Glasgow Airport Attack

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:

Vrijheid is hierin denk ik inderdaad een fundamenteel onderdeel. Maar ook wat maakt een mens een mens en wat is het doel van het leven... wat is een goed leven, hoe zouden we moeten leven, etc...

quote:

Thomas Paine - Founding Father: "These are the times that try men's souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph."

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 maandag 3 september 2007 21:16 schreef gorgg het volgende:
Mss. interessant:
Deze woensdag om 22.45 tot 0.15 de documentaire 'A crude awakening: The oil crash' op canvas.
http://www.canvas.be/canv(...)dezeweek/index.shtml

quote:

Op vrijdag 20 april 2007 02:03 schreef OpenYourMind het volgende:
Volgens het analysebedrijf IHS Energy zou Irak mogelijk tot 2 keer zoveel olie in de grond hebben als eerder werd aangenomen. Komt dat even mooi uit.
[..]

Achja, maar olie had er toch niks mee te maken? Dat zeiden Bush en Blair zelf!

De National Energy Policy Development Group (NEPDG), beter bekend als de Cheney Energy Task Force heeft in 2000 en 2001 verschillende meetings gehad met de top van de oliegiganten. Uit dit onderzoek zijn kaarten vrijgegeven die precies laten zien waar de olie zit en welke bedrijven daar contracten hebben.

Hoe duidelijk willen jullie het hebben?

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:

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 maandag 3 september 2007 23:45 schreef OpenYourMind het volgende:
Zeker wel interresant. Van wat ik me kan herinneren vond ik hem niet super als documentaire maar wel redelijk informatief. Misschien kwam dat ook wel omdat het al laat was en ik al teveel van dit soort documentaires gezien heb. Is dan meer een herhaling van dezelfde informatie.

Voor de duidelijkheid:
De film die Lambiekje heeft gevonden op video google is niet de documentaire maar een presentatie van iemand.


Edit:
Heb de documentaire A Crude Awakening net even opnieuw gezien en hij is toch wel erg goed. Veel oud beeldmateriaal en experts aan het woord. Geen sensatie documentaire maar een rustige en informatieve documentaire.

Aanrader dus voor iedereen die hierin geinteresseerd is!

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.?

quote:

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

Even een vraag meldt Volkskrant dit soort problemen.?

quote:

Op donderdag 9 november 2006 13:50 schreef OpenYourMind het volgende:
...en de bezetting van Irak?

Met de kennis die ik heb kan...< afijn heel verhaal over alles wat los en vastzit om het maar te bewijzen >

quote:

VS willen Irak voor miljarden wapens verkopen
Uitgegeven: 26 september 2007 16:40
Laatst gewijzigd: 26 september 2007 17:01

WASHINGTON - Het Amerikaanse ministerie van Defensie heeft toestemming gegeven voor een grootschalige verkoop van wapens en andere militair materieel aan de regering in Irak. Volgens Amerikaanse media gaat het om onder meer kleine wapens, voertuigen, explosieven en helikopteronderdelen voor een bedrag van 1,6 miljard euro.

Het Pentagon heeft het Congres gevraagd in te stemmen met de verkoop door - overigens nog niet nader genoemde - Amerikaanse ondernemingen. De verkopen zijn bedoeld om het Iraakse leger verder op poten te zetten. Dat leger moet uiteindelijk de taken overnemen van de Amerikanen in Irak.

quote:

Economic Cooperation Organization of Caspian States to be established

Deputies Prime Ministers of Caspian states and responsible ministers of Economics will have meeting in Moscow in summer 2008, President of Iran Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said in press conference on the outcomes of Tehran summit, APA reports.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad underlined that these meetings is a step taken for establishing Economic Cooperation Organization for uniting Caspian states. He said that Russian President Vladimir Putin will chair this organization.

quote:

The summit took place in Iran’s capital, Tehran, and the presidents of all the four countries were present and agreed that they will not allow the territory of their countries to be used by a third for attacks under any circumstances.

[bron]

quote:

Op dinsdag 16 oktober 2007 23:58 schreef NorthernStar het volgende:
De Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) krijgt er volgend jaar een klein zusje bij.

De "Caspian Sea Cooperation Organization."

Leden: Iran, Russia, Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan en Turkmenistan.

[ afbeelding ]
[..]

Is het ineens ook duidelijk waarom men niet wilde dat Poetin naar Iran zou gaan. Er zijn gelijk al wat afspraken gemaakt.
[..]

Zo die staat.

Btw: Iemand er ook maar iets van gelezen in de kranten hier?

quote:

Op donderdag 9 november 2006 16:16 schreef nonzz het volgende:
Dit is typisch zo'n OP waar je (of iig ik) niets mee kan.....

quote:

'Levering energie moet strategisch doel EU worden'

Uitgegeven: 5 januari 2008 10:13
Laatst gewijzigd: 5 januari 2008 10:15

AMSTERDAM - De gegarandeerde levering van energie moet een strategisch doel van het gemeenschappelijk buitenlands- en veiligheidsbeleid van de Europese Unie worden.

Dat schrijven de ministers Verhagen (Buitenlandse Zaken) en Van der Hoeven (Economische Zaken) in een verhandeling in Het Financieele Dagblad van zaterdag.

Kwetsbaar

De ministers refereren aan de winter van 2006 toen Rusland op eigen houtje besloot de gaskraan dicht te draaien. "Dit voorval maakte opeens voor velen de kwetsbaarheid van de energietoevoer duidelijk."

De groep aanbieders van, voornamelijk nog fossiele brandstoffen, wordt steeds kleiner. En veel van die aanbieders staan onder directe controle van de staat. "Energie is dus politiek."

Ook energieveiligheid, de veiligheid van transport en infrastructuur van energie, verdient volgens de bewindslieden meer aandacht "overigens ook binnen de NAVO."

Kernenergie

De ministers grijpen in hun essay de energievoorzieningszekerheid aan om wederom te pleiten voor meer eigen productie van kernenergie. Ook al heeft het huidige kabinet afgesproken geen centrales te bouwen.

"Dat laat onverlet dat er wel een discussie gevoerd kan worden over kernenergie. Het is hypocriet om je uit te spreken tegen kernenergie, maar tegelijkertijd wel kernenergie te importeren."

Bron: http://www.nu.nl/news/137(...)el_EU_worden%27.html

quote:

Op donderdag 18 oktober 2007 10:18 schreef mgerben het volgende:

[..]




Zijn achtergrondinfo is zeer grondig.
Alleen wanneer hij naar de conclusie toespringt dat het Midden-Oosten tussen de VS en Engeland verdeeld gaat worden en dat er een 'endgame' oorlog met rusland komt is het van het kader 'grote stappen snel thuis'.

quote:

Ten eerste zie je dat Amerika helemaal niet in Irak wil blijven; congres en Amerikaanse volk willen troepenvermindering. In Engeland: precies hetzelfde beeld. Doel is om Irak op eigen (democratische) benen te laten staan.
Als je kijkt naar:
- troepenvermindering
- doel: zelfstandig irak
- gi-gantische kosten van de oorlog en GEEN FINANCIËLE BATEN
zie ik niet dat ze snel nog een paar oorlogen in de regio gaan voeren. Veel te duur.
Ze willen wel de olie van Irak, maar die willen ze gewoon kunnen kopen.

Daarbij zijn er flink wat wapenverkopen aan het midden oosten (Koeweit, Saudi-Arabië). Een beetje mal om die landen van wapens te voorzien voordat je ze binnenvalt.

quote:

Tot slot kan Amerika Rusland helemaal niet aanvallen, omdat dat een kernoorlog betekent. Dat betekent de vernietiging van beide landen.

quote:

En in dat licht is 9/11 niet 'dus' een inside-job; dat is naar jezelf toe redeneren. Niet alles is gepland. Regeren is niet alles van tevoren plannen maar omgaan met gebeurtenissen.

quote:

Dus: Goede situatieschets, maar de conclusies:

quote:

Op woensdag 26 september 2007 19:40 schreef r.liong het volgende:

[..]

Goh..is er eentje wakker geworden met een conclussie over iets waar de meesten in 2004 het al over eens waren nl.: Neoconservatisme en Olie waren de voornaamste ingrediënten voor de Irak oorlog.

quote:

Op maandag 21 januari 2008 23:04 schreef Moondreamer het volgende:
World War 3 is in de maak.
Vergelijk het eens met de toestanden die geleidt hebben tot World War 2.

Same old story........alleen in een ander jasje gestopt !

quote:

Op zaterdag 20 oktober 2007 03:30 schreef Orwell het volgende:
[quote]Op donderdag 18 oktober 2007 10:18 schreef mgerben het volgende:

[..]


- gi-gantische kosten van de oorlog en GEEN FINANCIËLE BATEN

quote:

The new law offers the barrelling buccaneers of the West a juicy set of production-sharing agreements (PSAs) that will maintain a fig leaf of Iraqi ownership of the nation's oil industry - while letting Bush's Big Oil buddies rake off up to 75 percent of all oil profits for an indefinite period up front, until they decide that their "infrastructure investments" have been repaid. Even then, the agreements will give the Western oil majors an unheard-of 20 percent of Iraq's oil profits - more than twice the average of standard PSAs, the Independent notes.
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/010807A.shtml

quote:

Op woensdag 26 september 2007 19:40 schreef r.liong het volgende:

[..]

Goh..is er eentje wakker geworden met een conclussie over iets waar de meesten in 2004 het al over eens waren nl.: Neoconservatisme en Olie waren de voornaamste ingrediënten voor de Irak oorlog.

quote:

The West must be prepared to carry out pre-emptive nuclear strikes to halt the spread of nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction, a radical new manifesto argues.

The document - written by five of the West's most senior military officers and strategists - has been presented to the Pentagon and NATO's secretary-general.

They argue there is a need for urgent and comprehensive reform of NATO, The Guardian reports.

A new pact - involving the United States, NATO and the European Union - was also essential to face the challenges ahead, they said.

The manifesto is likely to be discussed at a NATO summit in Bucharest, Romania, in April, the paper said.

The authors include some of the top defence minds in the West, including General John Shalikashvili, the former chairman of the U.S. joint chiefs of staff and NATO's ex-supreme commander in Europe.

The others are General Klaus Naumann, Germany's former top soldier and ex-chairman of NATO's military committee; General Henk van den Breemen, a former Dutch chief of staff; Admiral Jacques Lanxade, a former French chief of staff; and Lord Inge, field marshal and ex-chief of the general staff and the defence staff in the United Kingdom.

The former armed forces chiefs from the U.S., Britain, Germany, France and the Netherlands insist that a "first strike" nuclear option remains an "indispensable instrument" as there is "simply no realistic prospect of a nuclear-free world", The Guardian reports.

quote:

Op dinsdag 22 januari 2008 19:11 schreef Perrin het volgende:
Pre-Emptive Nuke Strikes Weighed
[..]

quote:

Op dinsdag 22 januari 2008 10:39 schreef BaajGuardian het volgende:

[..]

De 2e wereld oorlog heeft de pionnen op het bord gezet, en nu gaan ze schaken.

quote:

A New World Order (Novus Ordo Mundi) is a conspiracy theory that refers to a plan in which a powerful and secretive group, most often referred to as the Illuminati, is to be conspiring to eventually rule the world

quote:

via an autonomous world government, which would replace sovereign states and other checks and balances in world power struggles. In the new world order, many significant occurrences are caused by a powerful secret group.

quote:

Historical and current events are seen as steps in an on-going plot to rule the world primarily through a combination of political finance, social engineering, mind control, and fear-based propaganda[1].

quote:

Op dinsdag 22 januari 2008 18:36 schreef OpenYourMind het volgende:
Een kort kattebelletje...

De financiele crisis, schaarser wordende grondstoffen, overbevolking, welvaartsgroei in derde wereldlanden en de hierdoor groter wordende geopolitieke spanningen leiden Gordon Brown ertoe om de wereld aan te sporen tot nauwere samenwerking. Gordon Brown is een typisch voorbeeld van een door de elite geinstrueerd en naar voren geschoven leider net zoals Hillary Clinton die ongetwijfeld de volgende Amerikaanse president zal worden. Zij zijn beide volledig bekend met de problematiek van de wereld en streven allebei naar global governance onder leiding de Verenigde Naties en het Westerse economische systeem.

BBC - Brown wants a 'new world order' (19-01-2008)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6277747.stm

Independent - UN transformation proposed to create 'new world order' (21-01-2008)
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/article3356210.ece


Ik schets twee mogelijke toekomst scenarios.

Vanwege de geopolitieke spanningen die bovengenoemde problemen met zich meebrengen is het van essentieel belang om op wereldschaal samenwerking tussen landen te bevorderen. Dit is al enkele tientalle jaren het doel van de elite. De tijd zal het leren of ze hierin gaan slagen. Om de spanningen te sussen zal er geprobeerd worden om de Verenigde Naties sterker te maken en global security te promoten door China, India e.a. als volwaardig lid te gaan zien en uiteindelijk de VN meer dan alleen politieke invloed te geven. Private bedrijven zullen hierin een grote rol spelen voor het uitvoeren van militaire en ordehandhavingstaken. Wanneer het toch verkeerd gaat en er een wereldwijd conflict ontstaat zal dit gelijk zo hevig zijn dat global governance onvermijdelijk is. Iets zo erg als WWIII mag dan namelijk nooit meer voorkomen.


Historisch overzicht met betrekking tot het gebruik van de term New World Order in de politiek en international relations. (verreweg niet compleet)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_world_order

Het wordt hier gepresenteerd alsof de term New World Order in verschillende geopolitieke situaties iets anders betekend, maar in werkelijkheid is het de term en de achterliggende visie van de New World Order die constant blijft en de verschillende politieke gebeurtenissen die gebruikt worden om die visie te bewerkstelligen.

quote:

Jan. 18, 2008
Alan Watt "Cutting Through The Matrix" LIVE on RBN:
"Plan for Post-Human Efficient Chimeric Huxlian ZooMan"
(Link: "Life After People" show on History Channel, Jan. 21, 2008 9PM.)

Jan. 17, 2008
Alan Watt "Cutting Through The Matrix" LIVE on WTPRN:
"Cashing in on Chips for an Enslaved New World"
(Articles: "Prisoners 'to be chipped like dogs'" by Brian Brady, Whitehall Editor (independent.co.uk) - Jan. 13, 2008.)
"HARSH TREATMENT In China, Brain Surgery Is Pushed on the Mentally Ill" by Nicholas Zamiska, Wall Street Journal (wsj.com) - Nov. 2, 2007.)
"Green light for hybrid research" BBC News (bbc.co.uk) - Jan. 17, 2008.)
"Pentagon, Big Pharma: Drug Troops to Numb Them to Horrors of War" by Penny Coleman, AlterNet.org - Jan. 10, 2008.) )
(Book: "The Next Million Years" by Charles Galton Darwin.)

Jan. 16, 2008
Alan Watt "Cutting Through The Matrix" LIVE on RBN:
"Close Lips, Wear Chips, and Don't Think of Me in that Tone of Expression -- Microsoft Patent to Monitor the Workers"
(Article: "Microsoft seeks patent for office 'spy' software" by Alexi Mostrous and David Brown, The Times (timesonline.co.uk) - Jan. 16, 2008.)
(Movie: "THX 1138" with Robert Duvall.)

Jan. 14, 2008
Alan Watt "Cutting Through The Matrix" LIVE on RBN:
"Utopia minus You - Paradise for the Few (Soon No Place to Run in Agenda 21)

quote:

(Novum/AP) - De Amerikaanse president George Bush en hoge functionarissen binnen zijn regering hebben in de twee jaar na de aanslagen van 11 september 2001 honderden keren onwaarheden verkondigd over de dreiging die Irak vormde voor de nationale veiligheid. Dat is de conclusie van een dinsdag gepubliceerd onderzoek van de journalistieke non-profitorganisaties Center for Public Integrity en de Fund for Independence in Journalism.

Volgens het onderzoek maakten deze honderden valse verklaringen deel uit van een zorgvuldig geregisseerde campagne, die de publieke opinie uiteindelijk voor zich wist te winnen en de Verenigde Staten onder valse voorwendselen een oorlog in leidde.

quote:

Op woensdag 23 januari 2008 10:47 schreef Perrin het volgende:
Onderzoek: Bush voerde valse campagne over Irak
[..]

quote:

Op dinsdag 22 januari 2008 23:31 schreef francorex het volgende:

[..]

Openyourmind Heb jij al gehoord van Allen Watt?

http://www.alanwattsentie(...)/currentEnglish.html

Echt een aanrader de website van Allen Watt, check onder shows/current voor zijn radioprogramma.

Veel informatie over de VN, NWO, eugenics, brave new world, Huxley, Club of rome, agenda 21 ... enz

Enkele van de recente show topics;


[..]

Naar mijn aanvoelen is Allan Watt het betere werk, laat me weten wat jouw mening is.
groetjes

quote:

“The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. ... We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized. Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner if they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society. ... In almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons ... who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind.”

quote:

Bremner, Bird and Fortune

Bremner, Bird and Fortune is an award-winning satirical British television programme produced by Vera Productions for Channel Four, uniting the longstanding satirical team of John Bird and John Fortune ("the Two Johns") with the satirical impressionist Rory Bremner.

The show, which started in 1999, is currently in its 12th series.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bremner,_Bird_and_Fortune

quote:

Op donderdag 24 januari 2008 17:47 schreef BaajGuardian het volgende:
Sowieso zijn mensen die giftige materialen loslaten op de wereld om mensen mee om te leggen zelf terroristen.

quote:

Op zondag 27 januari 2008 00:47 schreef OpenYourMind het volgende:
Geweldige komische introductie tot de geschiedenis van Irak.

korte impressie

Bremner, Bird, and Fortune: George Parr (Iraq oil)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ptzml1qQvZE


Carr: "And also, the violence justifies the American's in building their bases."

Interviewer: "Sorry, what bases?"
Carr: "Oh ah, the're building five permanent militairy bases (kuch) in Iraq. Each will take about 20.000 troops. And the one that's already build, Balaath, has next to Heathrow the bussiest runway in the world."

Interviewer: "You're not saying that despite all the... including the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi deaths and thousands of American and British casualties... this is all part of an american plan, is it?"
Carr: "Well... I mean what has happend is that the situation is an excuse for the Americans to have their troops there."

Interviewer: "So...so the mess, which we think of as a mess isn't really a mess at all?"
Carr: "Well if you call a mess, uhm... sitting on a quarter of the worlds oil... and getting it cheaply for the next thirthy years, I imagine its a mess they are very happy to be in."

Interviewer: "So...This can mean only one thing."
Carr: "Only one thing. It means that George bush is a genius..."

haha echt te grappig.
[..]

The impressionist Rory Bremner and comedians Bird and Fortune take a look at the history of Iraq through a series of sketches, monologues and jokes. They begin with the formation of Iraq by the British in the early 20th Century, through the bombing of villages to control the tribes, the establishment of a king in the area through to the modern day trade meetings with Saddam Hussein. To do this they simply present historical fact. They of course have jokes and humour which naturally show events in the light they themselves view them, but basically the essence is a matter of public record.


Between Iraq and a Hard Place (aired on Channel 4 in Jan 2003 - before the war)
Examining the reasons (lies) of going to war
http://nl.youtube.com/watch?v=by43joQLYj8

Beyond Iraq and a Hard Place (aired on Channel 4 in May 2003 - after the war)
Examining the current situation and the possible future of Iraq
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i2JCLwhwTmM

Beneath Iraq and a Hard Place (aired on More4 in early 2006 - three years after the war ended)
Examining the result of three years of nation building and spending
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ipa8DuKyN6I

quote:

Op zondag 27 januari 2008 01:37 schreef Petre het volgende:

[..]

Britisch american tobacco dan ook.. Dat lijkt me een beetje te scherpe stelling..

quote:

Op zondag 27 januari 2008 15:59 schreef Babyloniaa het volgende:
Dit is een speciaal berichtje voor de MODeratoren hier zegt het voort!
IN de Vietnam oorlog is een ontbladeringsprodukt verkocht geweest door monsanto aan het Pentagon om de
guerillias, de burger weerstand, te bestrijden. Dit giftige product heette Agent Orange
http://www.snopes.com/photos/medical/orange.asp
http://nl.handicapinternational.be/index.php?action=article&numero=565
In Irak heeft men DU gebruikt een zwaar metaal.
Een website van DU babies
http://mindprod.com/politics/iraqdubabiespix.html

quote:

Op zondag 27 januari 2008 14:52 schreef Resonancer het volgende:

[..]

Ik denk dat er gedoeld wordt op, Agent Orange, Verarmd Uranium, etc.

quote:

Op zondag 27 januari 2008 17:18 schreef Stupendous76 het volgende:

[..]

En waar kennen we Monsanto dan nog meer van? --> klik

quote:

Op zondag 27 januari 2008 18:02 schreef OpenYourMind het volgende:
Het pattenteren van gewassen en varkens om zo een monopoliepositie op de voedselmarkt te krijgen. Dit lukt ze ook aardig onder andere doordat Monsanto heel veel vrienden op strategische plaatsen heeft. (zie bovenstaande link van Stupendous76)

Dit lijkt off topic, maar uiteindelijk gaat het allemaal over dezelfde kliek die d.m.v. het economische systeem en het samensmelten van intelligence, big business, bankiers en corrupte politici een nieuwe wereld orde nastreven in handen van enkele organisaties.

quote:

1 oktober 1985

Monsanto, de producent van het recombinant runder groeihormoon, genetisch gemanipuleerde sojabonen, de pesticide Roundup en veel andere industriële en landbouwchemische producten, koopt Searle voor $2,7 miljard.

quote:

Het duurde nog tot 1983 voordat de zoetstof door de Amerikaanse keuringsdienst van waren, de FDA, op de markt werd toegelaten. Aan het gebruik bleken nogal wat bezwaren verbonden te zijn, zoals het ontstaan van kankergezwellen bij proefdieren. Aangezien alle onderzoeken betaald werden door de het grote concern Monsanto, die Searle had overgenomen, werden zodoende negatieve testresultaten uit de publiciteit gehouden. Nog steeds worden negatieve reacties, in publicaties over de zoetstof 'aspartaam' (NutraSweet) van zelfstandige onderzoekers, krachtig ontkend door betaalde onderzoekers van Monsanto.

quote:

Op maandag 28 januari 2008 18:37 schreef atmosphere2 het volgende:
Een bewijs van machthebbers die iets anders als de waarheid aan de man willen brengen is wel de oprichting van het "Office of Strategic Influence "
Later is de naam geschrapt maar de taken zijn gewoon elders onder gebracht.

Na de slechte ervaringen met eerlijke berichtgeving gedurende de vietnam oorlog is men meer invloed gaan uitoefenen op de berichtgeving vanaf het oorlogsfront . ' War on terror' ook in de media

quote:

Olieprijs weer boven de 100 dollar

Uitgegeven: 21 februari 2008 10:29
Laatst gewijzigd: 21 februari 2008 10:29

SINGAPORE - De prijs van een vat ruwe olie is donderdag op de oliemarkt in Singapore door de grens van 100 dollar per vat gebroken. Volgens analisten zijn geruchten dat de Organisatie voor Olie-Exporterende Landen (OPEC) volgende maand besluit de productie omlaag te brengen, de oorzaak van de prijsstijging.

Een vat ruwe olie kostte donderdagochtend 100,14 dollar. In de elektronische handel bereikte de prijs eerder een record van 101,32 dollar.

In januari bereikte de olieprijs in New York gedurende de handel voor het eerst een prijs van meer dan 100 dollar per vat (van 159 liter). Na signalen dat de Verenigde Staten op een recessie afstevenen, daalde de olieprijs weer. Recent zijn de prijzen weer aan het oplopen. Afgelopen dinsdag sloot de olieprijs in New York voor het eerst boven de 100 dollar.

Kartel

De OPEC, die voorziet in 40 procent van 's werelds olieproductie, hield bij de vorige vergadering begin februari de productie gelijk. Dat gebeurde ondanks verzoeken van de VS en Europa om een verhoging. Het oliekartel is beducht voor een lagere vraag als gevolg van de slechte economische omstandigheden in de VS.

Er zouden nu binnen de organisatie stemmen opgaan om bij de volgende vergadering de productie naar beneden te brengen.

Bron: http://www.nu.nl/news/144(...)n_de_100_dollar.html

quote:

Op zondag 27 januari 2008 18:02 schreef OpenYourMind het volgende:

[..]

Het pattenteren van gewassen en varkens om zo een monopoliepositie op de voedselmarkt te krijgen. Dit lukt ze ook aardig onder andere doordat Monsanto heel veel vrienden op strategische plaatsen heeft. (zie bovenstaande link van Stupendous76)

Documentaire van Ter Zake.
Ter Zake - Monsanto patenteert varkens

Dit lijkt off topic, maar uiteindelijk gaat het allemaal over dezelfde kliek die d.m.v. het economische systeem en het samensmelten van intelligence, big business, bankiers en corrupte politici een nieuwe wereld orde nastreven in handen van enkele organisaties.

quote:

The Hand-Over That Wasn't: Illegal Orders give the US a Lock on Iraq's Economy

Officially, the U.S. occupation of Iraq ended on June 28, 2004. But in reality, the United States is still in charge: Not only do 138,000 troops remain to control the streets, but the "100 Orders" of L. Paul Bremer III remain to control the economy.

These little noticed orders enacted by Bremer, the now-departed head of the now-defunct Coalition Provisional Authority, go to the heart of Bush administration plans in Iraq. They lock in sweeping advantages to American firms, ensuring long-term U.S. economic advantage while guaranteeing few, if any, benefits to the Iraqi people.

The Bremer orders control every aspect of Iraqi life — from the use of car horns to the privatization of state-owned enterprises. Order No. 39 alone does no less than "transition [Iraq ] from a … centrally planned economy to a market economy" virtually overnight and by U.S. fiat.

Although many thought that the "end" of the occupation would also mean the end of the orders, on his last day in Iraq Bremer simply transferred authority for the orders to Prime Minister Iyad Allawi — a 30-year exile with close ties to the CIA and British intelligence.

Further, the interim constitution of Iraq, written by the U.S.-appointed Iraqi Governing Council, solidifies the orders by making them virtually impossible to overturn.

A sampling of the most important orders demonstrates the economic imprint left by the Bush administration: Order No. 39 allows for: (1) privatization of Iraq's 200 state-owned enterprises; (2) 100% foreign ownership of Iraqi businesses; (3) "national treatment" — which means no preferences for local over foreign businesses; (4) unrestricted, tax-free remittance of all profits and other funds; and (5) 40-year ownership licenses.

Thus, it forbids Iraqis from receiving preference in the reconstruction while allowing foreign corporations — Halliburton and Bechtel, for example — to buy up Iraqi businesses, do all of the work and send all of their money home. They cannot be required to hire Iraqis or to reinvest their money in the Iraqi economy. They can take out their investments at any time and in any amount.

Orders No. 57 and No. 77 ensure the implementation of the orders by placing U.S.-appointed auditors and inspector generals in every government ministry, with five-year terms and with sweeping authority over contracts, programs, employees and regulations.

Order No. 17 grants foreign contractors, including private security firms, full immunity from Iraq's laws. Even if they, say, kill someone or cause an environmental disaster, the injured party cannot turn to the Iraqi legal system. Rather, the charges must be brought to U.S. courts.

Order No. 40 allows foreign banks to purchase up to 50% of Iraqi banks.

Order No. 49 drops the tax rate on corporations from a high of 40% to a flat 15%. The income tax rate is also capped at 15%.

Order No. 12 (renewed on Feb. 24) suspends "all tariffs, customs duties, import taxes, licensing fees and similar surcharges for goods entering or leaving Iraq." This led to an immediate and dramatic inflow of cheap foreign consumer products — devastating local producers and sellers who were thoroughly unprepared to meet the challenge of their mammoth global competitors.

Clearly, the Bremer orders fundamentally altered Iraq's existing laws. For this reason, they are also illegal. Transformation of an occupied country's laws violates the Hague regulations of 1907 (ratified by the United States) and the U.S. Army's Law of Land Warfare. Indeed, in a leaked memo, the British attorney general, Lord Goldsmith, warned Prime Minister Tony Blair that "major structural economic reforms would not be authorized by international law."

Bron: http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0805-07.htm

quote:

Iraqi Order 81 Update It is Even Worse Than Originally Reported

"Prior to the U.S. invasion, agriculture in Iraq was flourishing. The Fertile Crescent had developed a system of farming that was the envy of the world. Now, under Occupation, centuries of progress have been destroyed, almost overnight."

On August 8, 2005 Reuters reported that the Iraqi seed supply is at risk. Below is an excerpt from the Reuters report.

"... The war in Iraq destroyed the country's seed industry, putting the country's domestic food supply at risk, the United Nations food agency said on Monday as it appealed for aid to rebuild farming.

The Food and Agriculture Organisation said it needed $5.4 million to help the agriculture ministry rebuild a seed industry destroyed by the fighting and looting.

"Iraq had a relatively stable and functioning public-sector-controlled seed industry before the war in 2003. After the war, research and seed production facilities have greatly deteriorated," FAO said in a statement.

Iraq can now cover only 4 percent of its demand for quality seeds from its own resources....

If no immediate action is taken, serious seed shortages can be expected in the near future, threatening the country's food security...."

How convenient...perfect timing. What a break for U.S. corporations, such as Monsanto. First outlaw the seeds and then destroy them, or did it happen the other way around. Were the seeds destroyed first and then outlawed? This news story has thus far received very little attention.

The news story about the Iraqi Orders has been virtually ignored by the U.S. press. Order 81 is just one of 100 Orders that have been imposed on the people of Iraq by the U.S. government. These orders are sometimes referred to as the Bremmer Orders. No one in the U.S. or Iraq was ever allowed to cast a vote in the ballot box for any of these Orders. This says a lot about the kind of democracy that the U.S. is imposing on the people of Iraq.

The important information about Iraqi Order 81 is that it was designed to have a major impact on the way farming is done in Iraq. This order prohibits Iraqi farmers from using the methods of agriculture that they have used for centuries. The practice of saving seeds from one year to the next is now illegal in Iraq. Order 81 wages war on Iraqi farmers. They have lost the freedom to choose their own methods of agriculture. The legalese in which the orders are written creates confusion about their exact meaning, but the desired result is obvious. Order 81 prohibits the farmers from using their own seeds, on their own farms, to grow their own crops.

Prior to the U.S. invasion, agriculture in Iraq was flourishing. The Fertile Crescent had developed a system of farming that was the envy of the world. Now, under Occupation, centuries of progress have been destroyed, almost overnight.

The food chain has been under worldwide assault by U.S. corporations for some time now. The Master Race of corporations has seized control of the very essence of life itself. We are now in the age of Genetically Modified Doomsday Seeds. The USDA was complicit in the development of these bastard seeds.

This is not a new phenomenon. It has been a gradual takeover. Remember Percy Schmeiser, the Canadian farmer, who was sued by Monsanto? Not enough people stood up for Percey, so then they came for other farmers. In fact, Monsanto has sued so many farmers that a national hotline (1-888-FARMHLP) has now been set up to assist them.

[...]

Why did the U.S. destroy the seeds? Did the Pentagon mistake the seeds for bombs and WMD's? Think of that as a headline for tomorrow's paper, "CIA confuses pomegranate seeds with WMD's." This sounds like a comedy "headline" from the Leno show. If the survival of thousands of people was not an issue, we could all laugh at the absurdity of this saga. The propagandists will try to convince the world that the destruction of the Iraqi seeds was just a mistake, an accident of war...collateral damage. Iraqi Order 81 proves otherwise. Iraqi Order 81 is proof that the U.S. had a strategic plan which would insure that U.S. corporations would not have to compete with the Iraqi farmers. U.S. corporations don't like competition. The idea of free markets is just a myth. The Predatory Capitalism of the U.S. could not survive without the threat of the military behind it.

Can it be denied that U.S. corporations are seeking total control of the food supply of the planet? After all of the seeds that are owned by farmers are destroyed, it will be necessary for the farmers to purchase them. Those most likely to profiteer are U.S. seed companies. General Smedley Butler was right. War is still a racket.

Bron: http://world.mediamonitor(...)_originally_reported

quote:

Na jaren studie bleek dit het enige zinnige wat er over de hele situatie in de wereld te zeggen valt,

quote:

Op dinsdag 6 mei 2008 21:10 schreef Ali_Kannibali het volgende:
Wat versta jij onder onderzoeken?

quote:

Het kromme is dat het gros van de wereld het met de gepresenteerde maatregelen tegen terrorisme eens zal zijn, omdat het gros van de wereld misleid is en in een leugen gelooft.

quote:

Op dinsdag 6 mei 2008 22:45 schreef Ali_Kannibali het volgende:
Ik vind dit trouwens een vrij flauw punt om me op aan te vallen. Doet er niet echt toe he.

quote:

Op dinsdag 6 mei 2008 22:55 schreef Apropos het volgende:

[..]

Het spijt me, maar als je nou je meer aardse beweringen aannemelijk wist te maken, was 't misschien minder moeilijk om de sprong te wagen naar geloven aan God en Satan en hun ingrijpen.

quote:

Op woensdag 7 mei 2008 07:56 schreef Perrin het volgende:
Beste Ali, om even terug te komen op jouw visie van goed vs kwaad.. Wat ik niet precies uit je verhaal kan opmaken: wie strijden er volgens jou nu aan de kant van 't goede?

quote:

Blood and Oil

The notion that oil is a reason for America’s military engagements in the Middle East is
often disregarded as nonsense or mere conspiracy theory. Blood and Oil, a new
documentary based on the critically acclaimed work of Nation magazine defense
correspondent Michael T. Klare, challenges this conventional wisdom to correct the
historical record. The film unearths declassified documents and highlights forgotten
passages in prominent presidential doctrines to show how concerns about oil have been at
the core of American foreign policy for more than 60 years — rendering our
contemporary energy and military policies virtually indistinguishable.

At the heart of this story is a meeting between President Franklin Delano Roosevelt and
Saudi King Abdul Aziz Ibn Saud on Valentine’s Day, 1945, aboard the USS Quincy in
Egypt’s Great Bitter Lake. In that meeting, President Roosevelt made a pact with the
King that still resonates today: the United States will provide military protection for
Saudi Arabia in exchange for privileged American access to Saudi Arabia’s vast oil
reserves. With methodical precision, Klare details how this meeting has spawned a series
of events and presidential policies that have resulted in repeated American military
operations and wars in the Persian Gulf.

In the end, Blood and Oil calls for a radical re-thinking of US energy policy, warning that
unless we change direction, we stand to be drawn into one oil war after another as the
global hunt for diminishing world petroleum supplies accelerates.


Blood and Oil covers the relationship between US foreign policy and US energy policy
from FDR to the present and is composed of the following seven sections.

Introduction

Klare emphasizes the extent to which the American economy is dependent on oil and
how increasingly that oil must be imported from foreign countries in unstable parts of the
world.

A Declaration of Dependence

Klare describes how Franklin Roosevelt was the first American President to make oil a
central feature of foreign policy. He focuses on Roosevelt’s 1945 meeting with the King
of Saudi Arabia, the oil-for-protection partnership that resulted, and how this agreement
continues to resonate today.

By Any Means Necessary

Klare details how the Truman, Eisenhower, Nixon and Carter doctrines were motivated
by the need to protect and maintain US dominance in the Persian Gulf. The most striking
doctrine is from Jimmy Carter who, in his 1980 State of the Union Address, declared
explicitly that the United States would use military force to protect American access to
Middle Eastern oil.

CENTCOM

Klare discusses the creation of the Central Command in 1983 and how Reagan clearly
intended for CentCom’s focus to be the protection of the flow of Middle East oil.
Examples include the escorting of Kuwaiti tankers through the Straight of Hormuz by US
warships in 1987 and the original rationale for the first President Bush’s decision to use
military force to expel Iraqi troops from Kuwait in the Gulf War.

Fueling Terror

With Saddam Hussein left in power at the end of the Gulf War, Klare explains, President
George H.W. Bush decided the United States would need to keep a significant number of
American troops in Saudi Arabia to effectively prevent Hussein from further regional
aggression. The presence of these American military personnel enraged many religiously
conservative Saudis, including Osama bin Laden, who then created the terrorist network
Al Qaeda. Bin Laden immediately began calling on his followers to attack US interests
in the Middle East as well as the United States itself.

Maximum Extraction

Klare emphasizes that President George W. Bush’s first stated priority upon taking office
was to develop a new, comprehensive national energy policy. Dick Cheney headed the
National Energy Policy Development Group and concluded that the United States might
have to intervene aggressively to ensure that oil-producing states increase their output to
keep up with global demand.

A Higher Purpose

Klare argues that Americans are unwilling to sacrifice the lives of their fellow citizens in
wars over resources. But he warns that unless we delink our energy and military policies,
we face a future of increasingly dangerous competition over the control of oil and natural
gas between the United States and rising powers like Russia and China.


http://www.bloodandoilmovie.com/download/Blood_and_Oil_EPK.pdf
http://www.bloodandoilmovie.com/

quote:

Op zondag 6 juli 2008 21:32 schreef Sjetan het volgende:
2. Er worden al sinds de jaren 80 geen grote olievelden meer gevonden, alle olievelden zijn nu z'n beetje wel ontdekt.

dit is bullshit .. de olie is nog lang niet op, op deze wereld.
Alaska ligt vol met olie alleen de amerikanen doen er niks mee omdat als ze er iets mee doen dan stort de dollar in.. En doordat ze hun olie in het middenoosten kopen lossen ze hun staatsschuld op.

quote:

Russia takes control of Turkmen gas

From the details coming out of Ashgabat in Turkmenistan and Moscow over the weekend, it is apparent that the great game over Caspian energy has taken a dramatic turn. In the geopolitics of energy security, nothing like this has happened before. The United States has suffered a huge defeat in the race for Caspian gas. The question now is how much longer Washington could afford to keep Iran out of the energy market.

Gazprom, Russia's energy leviathan, signed two major agreements in Ashgabat on Friday outlining a new scheme for purchase of Turkmen gas.

verder: Asia Times

quote:

As the bad news unfolds in the Caspian Basin that the US is being 'shut out' of its delusional Grand Chessboard scheme, there are other forest fires, tornados, hurricanes, earthquakes, volcanoes erupting in the US and UK that may well spell the doom of BushCo and the Imbecile Great Decider at the helm.

Some time around 2000, there was an "investment club" created. They had all purchased front row seats to get at those trillions, and trillions and trillions of dollars in Caspian oil and gas. I hope they enjoy their front row seat for the aria, as the Fat Lady begins to sing, and that they lose those billions of still more stupidity of what they thought they could pull off and rip-off via the Caspian Basin.

If this were a hockey game it would be Russia 50, US 0. If it were a basketball game it would be Russia 100, US 0. If it were a tennis match it would be Russia 6-0, 6-0, 6-0.

We lost, that's the proverbial bottom line. Game, set and match. It is over. Finis.

hele artikel

quote:

Op maandag 4 augustus 2008 02:45 schreef Hallulama het volgende:
Zaterdagavond Nova nog gezien? De moeite waard wat the big picture betreft. Iran en het kernprogramma aldaar was het onderwerp. Interview met o.a. Thomas Erdbrink (http://onzemaninteheran.com/) en ene Seyyed Mohammad Marandi uit Iran.

Zie eventueel hier.

quote:

Op maandag 4 augustus 2008 08:03 schreef NorthernStar het volgende:

[..]

Bedankt voor de tip. Vanavond even kijken.

Gezien de laatste ontwikkelingen denk ik dat de nucleaire issue van Iran langzaam uit beeld zal verdwijnen.

quote:

Op donderdag 3 juli 2008 18:16 schreef OpenYourMind het volgende:
Een nieuwe documentaire over olie als geopolitieke redenen voor de aanwezigheid van het Westen in het Midden Oosten met unieke beelden waarvan (o.a. een stuk uit de speech van Cheney voor de Senate Armed Services Committee)

Zie Youtube: Blood and Oil - A Declaration of Dependence
[..]

Zie ook het boek van Michael T. Klare "Rising Powers, Shrinking Planet: The New Geopolitics of Energy"

quote:

Synopsis

The notion that oil motivates America's military engagements in the Middle East has long been dismissed as nonsense or mere conspiracy theory. Blood and Oil, a new documentary based on the critically-acclaimed work of Nation magazine defense correspondent Michael T. Klare, challenges this conventional wisdom to correct the historical record. The film unearths declassified documents and highlights forgotten passages in prominent presidential doctrines to show how concerns about oil have been at the core of American foreign policy for more than 60 years – rendering our contemporary energy and military policies virtually indistinguishable. In the end, Blood and Oil calls for a radical re-thinking of US energy policy, warning that unless we change direction, we stand to be drawn into one oil war after another as the global hunt for diminishing world petroleum supplies accelerates.

quote:

Miljarden in bodem Afghanistan.

In Afghanistan blijken veel meer delfstoffen in de grond te zitten dan tot nu toe werd aangenomen.De vondst kan van Afghanistan een grote exporteur maken, maar ook tot nieuwe binnenlandse conflicten leiden.

http://www.trouw.nl/nieuw(...)m_Afghanistan__.html