Permanent Irak occupation YES SIR

Past week Bush signed an agreement with Maliki to formalize the permanent occupation of Irak, of course to protect OIL and US interest, ppl mmm doesnt care its all about OIL!!!!


An Occupation Army would never win against local population. Lisa Simpsons War are based on lies. Sun tzu

Soldiers dead at Irak + u have 2 add Blackwater mercenaries and other deaths that Pentagon doesnt count.

President Bush and the Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Al-Maliki signed an agreement Monday paving the way for the long-term occupation of the Middle Eastern country and its transformation into a semi-colonial protectorate of the US.

The “Declaration of Principles for a Long-Term Relationship of Cooperation and Friendship” outlines plans for the establishment of permanent US military bases in Iraq to suppress internal opposition to the US-installed regime and protect US economic and political interests throughout the region. It also provides for preferential treatment for US energy conglomerates and investors to exploit Iraq’s newly opened up oil resources.

The new agreement—signed during a secret videoconference between Bush and Maliki—without the slightest democratic pretenses in each country—exposes the repeated lies, peddled by the White House ever since the April 2003 invasion, that the US had no intention to set up permanent military bases or carry out an long-term occupation of Iraq.

The declaration calls for the current United Nations mandate—which has provided a legal fig leaf for the US occupation—to be extended one more year and thereafter to be replaced by a bilateral economic and security pact between the two countries.

The full details of the pact—including the size of the US occupying force—are to be worked out by July 31, 2008 and are scheduled to take effect in early 2009, i.e., after Bush leaves office. Although the agreement will commit US troops to remain in the country for years, if not decades, the White House insists that it will not rise to the level of a formal treaty, requiring congressional approval.

Maliki signed the declaration without any serious parliamentary debate. Sunni Arab and Shia politicians immediately denounced it, saying the agreement would lead to “US interference for years to come.” The Association of Muslim Scholars, a Sunni group, said the Iraqi signatories of the declaration would be looked on as “collaborators with the occupier.”

Under the proposed formula, Iraqi officials told the Associated Press, Iraqi forces will take charge of internal security, and US troops will relocate to bases outside the cities. They foresee at least 50,000 American troops remaining in the country indefinitely. The White House says the bilateral agreement will not contain timetables for the withdrawal of troops.

White House deputy national security advisor Lieutenant-General Douglas Lute said the declaration signaled that the US “will protect our interests in Iraq, alongside our Iraqi partners, and that we consider Iraq a key strategic partner, able to increasingly contribute to regional stability.”

US forces will protect the interests of American energy companies once the country’s vast oil wealth—the second largest proven oil reserves in the world—are opened up to international and in particular US investment. This is only possible by intensifying US military repression of the Iraqi people and crushing popular opposition to the US-installed regime and the American occupation.

At the same time permanent US bases are being set up to project American military power throughout the Middle East and provide US forces increased capabilities to launch attacks against Iran, Syria and other countries.

Debka-Net-Weekly, a web site associated with Israeli military intelligence, said the US has plans to remove 100,000 troops by the end of 2009, leaving behind 50,000-70,000 in 20 huge land and air bases. “These bases,” the site wrote, “are under construction; they will be secured by broad swathes of space, fortified with weaponry and remote-controlled electronic devices.” US troops will be responsible for protecting Iraq’s borders from “external threats,” Debka reported, adding, “US air strength and special forces in these bases will have rapid deployment capabilities for reaching points outside Iraq at need.”

The US launched the Iraq war to establish unchallenged domination of the Middle East and fend off the growing inroads into the energy-rich region by its economic rivals, such as China and Russia. The economic advantages of occupying Iraq are spelled out in one of the principles outlined in the new US-Iraqi declaration, which calls for “facilitating and encouraging the flow of foreign investment to Iraq, especially American investments, to contribute to the reconstruction and rebuilding of Iraq.”

Another declares US support for aiding Iraq’s “transition to a market economy,” which includes opening up the nationalized oil industry to the control of ExxonMobil, Chevron and other US energy conglomerates.

Earlier this month the Iraqi government, guided by American legal advisors, cancelled a contract originally signed by the Saddam Hussein government in 1997 with the Russian company Lukoil, for the development of the vast oil field in Iraq’s southern desert. The West Qurna fields—with estimated reserves of 11 billion barrels, the equivalent of the worldwide proven oil reserves of ExxonMobil, America’s largest oil company—will now be opened to international, and in particular, US bidders.

Vladimir Tikhomirov, the chief economist at the Russian bank UralSib, told the New York Times, “From the Russian government perspective, Iraq is seen as occupied and its administration directed by Washington, particularly when it comes to oil. The Russians see the cancellation of the contract in Iraq as part of the US drive to keep control over the major oil fields there.”

The declaration of principles is loaded with Orwellian language aimed at concealing its nakedly imperialist aims. The US—which launched an illegal war and occupation that have resulted in the virtual destruction of an entire society and the deaths of more than one million Iraqis—declares its commitment to “deter foreign aggression.” All those who oppose the occupation are “terrorists” and “outlaws” who must be defeated and “uprooted” from Iraq.

The real face of the American military presence was shown this week when US troops fired on vehicles at roadblocks in Baghdad and north of the Iraqi capital, killing at least five people, including three women and a child, in two separate shootings.

The commitment to a long-term occupation hardly provoked a murmur from the Democratic Party. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi criticized Bush for planning to leave office with a “US army tied down in Iraq and stretched to the breaking point, with no clear exit strategy.”

While opposing Bush for failing to efficiently wage the war the Democrats defend the same economic interests as the Republicans and have made it clear they will not end the occupation if they take control of the White House in 2009. In fact the military scenario envisaged in the deal signed by Bush corresponds to the bipartisan plans being worked out between the Bush administration and the Democrats for a “post-surge Iraq.”

Leading Democrats, such as presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, have argued for the reduction of US forces and their redeployment from the cities to “over-the-horizon” positions where they could strike opponents of the US-backed regime, as well as Iran. Clinton in particular has argued that pulling US troops out of the cities would reduce US casualties, thereby making the long-term occupation of Iraq more politically palatable in the US, while still keeping forces available to defend US economic interests.

Iran bye bye Dollar

These may be the last sign of an inminent attack on Iran and a new Oil WAR , Saddam Hussein did the same prior USA illegal attack on Iraq,

Iran is only accepting 15% of Oil payments on Dollars, rest on EUROS and Yens

This can be a VIRUS that can spread thru the Middle East, so they would throw away Dollar and start using EURO, Kuwait has been thinking on that cuz they are loosing lots of Money using Dollars

Here is the story


TEHRAN (AFP) - Iran has slashed the use of the dollar in payment for its oil exports to 15 percent, an official said on Tuesday, amid growing pressure from arch-foe the United States on its financial system.

The vast majority of transactions for oil from OPEC's number two producer are now being carried out in euros, said Mohammad-Ali Khatibi, deputy head of the National Iranian Oil Company in charge of marketing.

"Iran is selling about 85 percent of its oil in the non-dollar currencies," Khatibi was quoted as saying by state television.

"Currently, about 65 percent of the oil sale income is in euros and 20 percent in yen," Khatibi added.

Japan, which purchases 20 percent of Iran's crude oil, has recently agreed to pay for the crude oil in yen, he said.

He also said that the remaining sums being paid in dollars, about 15 percent, are going to shift to "other creditworthy currencies".

Khatibi also cited the United Arab Emirates dirham as one other possible currency for use in oil transactions.

He said the main reason for the move was fluctuations of the dollar on the currency markets and the depreciation of its value since 2004.

Iran had previously announced that 60 percent of its oil transactions for export had been switched into euros.

Iran, the world's fourth largest oil exporter, has massively cut down its dependence on the dollar in the face of US pressures.

The United States has been seeking to make international banking transactions harder for Iran, as another tool to pressure Tehran into backing down over its controversial nuclear programme.

Several European banks have drastically cut business with Iran as a result of US pressure.

However despite problems with inflation and unemployment at home, Iran's economy is being helped by revenue windfalls from current high crude oil prices.

Iran's foreign currency reserves held in banks abroad have risen by 37 percent over the past year to the equivalent of 65 billion dollars as of the end of June 2007, the central bank said in September.

Hard Oil ERA NOW

Very nice article u should read ASAP, about Oil Peak and how would affect lives everywhere

When "peak oil" theory was first widely publicized in such path breaking books as Kenneth Deffeyes' Hubbert's Peak (2001), Richard Heinberg's The Party's Over (2002), David Goodstein's Out of Gas (2004), and Paul Robert's The End of Oil (2004), energy industry officials and their government associates largely ridiculed the notion. An imminent peak -- and subsequent decline -- in global petroleum output was derided as crackpot science with little geological foundation. "Based on [our] analysis," the U.S. Department of Energy confidently asserted in 2004, "[we] would expect conventional oil to peak closer to the middle than to the beginning of the 21st century."

Recently, however, a spate of high-level government and industry reports have begun to suggest that the original peak-oil theorists were far closer to the grim reality of global-oil availability than industry analysts were willing to admit. Industry optimism regarding long-term energy-supply prospects, these official reports indicate, has now given way to a deep-seated pessimism, even in the biggest of Big Oil corporate headquarters.

The change in outlook is perhaps best suggested by a July 27 article in the Wall Street Journal headlined, "Oil Profits Show Sign of Aging." Although reporting staggering second-quarter profits for oil giants Exxon Mobil and Royal Dutch Shell -- $10.3 billion for the former, $8.7 billion for the latter -- the Journal sadly noted that investors are bracing for disappointing results in future quarters as the cost of new production rises and output at older fields declines. "All the oil companies are struggling to grow production," explained Peter Hitchens, an analyst at the Teather and Greenwood brokerage house. "[Yet] it's becoming more and more difficult to bring projects in on time and on budget."

To appreciate the nature of Big Oil's dilemma, peak-oil theory must be briefly revisited. As originally formulated by petroleum geologist M. King Hubbert in the 1950s, the concept holds that worldwide oil production will rise until approximately half of the world's original petroleum inheritance has been exhausted; once this point is reached, daily output will hit a peak and begin an irreversible decline. Hubbert's successors, including professor emeritus Kenneth Deffeyes of Princeton, contend that we have now consumed just about half the original supply and so are at, or very near, the peak-production moment predicted by Hubbert.

Since the concept burst into public consciousness several years ago, its proponents and critics have largely argued over whether or not we have reached maximum worldwide petroleum output. In a way, this is a moot argument, because the numbers involved in conventional oil output have increasingly been obscured by oil derived from "unconventional" sources -- deep-offshore fields, tar sands, and natural-gas liquids, for example -- that are being blended into petroleum feedstocks used to make gasoline and other fuels. In recent years, this has made the calculation of petroleum supplies ever more complicated. As a result, it may be years more before we can be certain of the exact timing of the global peak-oil moment.

On Tap: The Tough-Oil Era

There is, however, a second aspect to peak-oil theory, which is no less relevant when it comes to the global-supply picture -- one that is far easier to detect and assess today. Peak-oil theorists have long contended that the first half of the world's oil to be extracted and consumed will be the easy half. They are referring, of course, to the oil that's found on shore or near to shore; oil close to the surface and concentrated in large reservoirs; oil produced in friendly, safe, and welcoming places.

The other half -- what (if they are right) is left of the world's petroleum supply -- is the tough oil. They mean oil that's buried far offshore or deep underground; oil scattered in small, hard-to-find reservoirs; oil that must be obtained from unfriendly, politically dangerous, or hazardous places. An oil investor's eye-view of our energy planet today quickly reveals that we already seem to be entering the tough-oil era. This explains the growing pessimism among industry analysts as well as certain changes in behavior in the energy marketplace.

In but one sign of the new reality, the price of benchmark U.S. light, sweet crude oil for next-month delivery soared to new highs on July 31, topping the previous record for intraday trading of $77.03 per barrel set in July 2006. Some observers are predicting that a price of $80 per barrel is just around the corner; while John Kildruff, a perfectly sober analyst at futures broker Man Financial, told Bloomberg.com, "We're only a headline of significance away from $100 oil." New disruptions in Nigerian or Iraqi supplies, or a U.S. military strike against Iran, he explained, could trigger such a price increase in the energy equivalent of a nano-second.

A signal of another sort was provided by the government of Kazakhstan in oil-rich Central Asia on August 7. It warned the private operators of the giant offshore Kashagan oil project -- in the Kazakh sector of the Caspian Sea -- to cut costs and speed the onset of production or face a possible government takeover. In an interview, Prime Minister Karim Masimov said threateningly: "We are very disappointed with the execution of this project. If the operator can't resolve these problems, then we don't exclude their possible replacement."

Kashagan, it must be borne in mind, is not just any oil project: it is the largest field to be developed anywhere in the world since the discovery of Alaska's Prudhoe Bay some 40 years ago. With estimated oil reserves of 9-13 billion barrels, it is crucial to the hopes of its principal developers -- Exxon, ConocoPhillips, Shell, Total (of France), and Eni (of Italy) -- to increase their output in the years ahead. Consistent with the "tough oil" aspect of peak-oil theory, Kashagan is, however, proving dauntingly difficult to turn into a successful font of petroleum. The oil reservoir itself is buried beneath high-pressure strata of gas, making its extraction exceedingly tricky, and it contains abnormally high levels of deadly hydrogen sulfide; moreover, the entire field is located in a shallow area of the Caspian Sea that freezes over for five months of the year and is the breeding ground for rare seals and beluga sturgeon.

As a result of these and other problems, the Kashagan operating consortium has seen the price-tag for launching the project nearly double -- from $10 billion to $19 billion -- and has postponed the onset of initial production from 2005 to 2010, infuriating the Kazakh government, which had hoped to be earning billions of dollars in taxes and royalties by now.

A Demanding World

And then there are those reports from high-level agencies and organizations on the global energy picture, all coming to the same basic conclusion: Whether or not the peak in world oil output is at hand, the future of the global oil supply in a world of endlessly growing demand appears grim.

The first of these recent warnings, entitled the "Medium-Term Oil Market Report," was released on July 8 by the International Energy Agency (IEA), an arm of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), the club of major industrial powers. Although filled with statistics and technical analyses, the report, assessing the global oil supply-and-demand equation through 2012, seemed to leak anxiety and came to a distinctly worrisome conclusion: Because world oil demand is likely to keep rising at a rapid tempo and the development of new oil fields is not expected to keep pace, significant shortfalls are likely to emerge within the next five years.

The IEA report predicts that world economic activity will grow by an average of 4.5% per year during this period -- driven largely by unbridled growth in China, India, and other Asian dynamos. Global oil demand will rise, it predicts, by about 2.2% per year, pushing world oil consumption from an estimated 86.1 million barrels per day in 2007 to 95.8 million barrels by 2012. With luck and substantial new investment, the global oil industry may be able to increase output sufficiently to satisfy this higher level of demand -- but, if so, just barely. Beyond 2012, the production outlook appears far grimmer. And keep in mind, this is the best-case scenario.

Underlying the report's conclusions are a number of specific fears. Despite rising fuel prices, neither the mature consumers of the OECD countries, nor newly affluent consumers in the developing world are likely to significantly curb their appetite for petroleum. "Demand is growing, and as people become accustomed to higher prices, they are starting to return to their previous trends of high consumption," was the way Lawrence Eagles, an oil expert at the IEA, summed the situation up. This is clearly evident in the United States, where record-high gasoline prices have not stopped drivers from filling up their tanks and driving record distances.

In addition, oil output in the United States and most other non-members of the Organization of Petroleum-Exporting Countries (OPEC) has peaked, or is about to do so, which means that the net contribution of non-OPEC suppliers will only diminish between now and 2012. That, in turn, means that the burden of providing the required additional oil will have to fall on the OPEC countries, most of which are located in unstable areas of the Middle East and Africa.

The numbers are actually staggering. Just to satisfy a demand for an extra 10 million or so barrels per day between now and 2012, two million barrels per day in new oil would have to be added to global stocks yearly. But even this calculation is misleading, as Eagles of the IEA made clear. In fact, the world would initially need "more than 3 million barrels per day of new oil each year [just] to offset the falling production in the mature fields outside of OPEC" -- and that's before you even get near that additional two million barrels.

In other words, what's actually needed is five million barrels of new oil each year, a truly daunting challenge since almost all of this oil will have to be found in Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Algeria, Angola, Libya, Nigeria, Venezuela, and one or two other countries. These are not places that exactly inspire investor confidence of a sort that could attract the many billions of dollars needed to ramp up production enough to satisfy global requirements.

Read between the lines and one quickly perceives a worst-case scenario in which the necessary investment is not forthcoming; OPEC production does not grow by five million barrels per day year after year; ethanol and other substitute-fuel production, along with alternate fuels of various sorts, do not grow fast enough to fill the gap; and, in the not-too-distant future, a substantial shortage of oil leads to a global economic meltdown.

The Missing Trillions

A very similar prognosis emerges from a careful reading of "Facing the Hard Truths About Energy," the second major report to be released in July. Submitted to the U.S. Department of Energy by the National Petroleum Council (NPC), an oil-industrial association, this report encapsulated the view of both industry officials and academic analysts. It was widely praised for providing a "balanced" approach to the energy dilemma. It called for both increased fuel-efficiency standards for vehicles and increased oil and gas drilling on federal lands. Contributing to the buzz around its release was the identity of the report's principal sponsor, former Exxon CEO Lee Raymond. Having previously expressed skepticism about global warming, he now embraced the report's call for the taking of significant steps to curb carbon-dioxide emissions.

Like the IEA report, the NPC study does claim that -- with the perfect mix of policies and an adequate level of investment -- the energy industry would be capable of satisfying oil and gas demand for some years to come. "Fortunately, the world is not running out of energy resources," the report bravely asserts. Read deep into the report, though, and these optimistic words begin to dissolve as its emphasis switches to the growing difficulties (and costs) of extracting oil and gas from less-than-favorable locations and the geopolitical risks associated with a growing global reliance on potentially hostile, unstable suppliers.

Again, the numbers involved are staggering. According to the NPC, an estimated $20 trillion in new investment (that's trillion, not billion) will be needed between now and 2030 to ensure sufficient energy for anticipated demand. This works out to "$3,000 per person alive today" in a world in which a good half of humanity earns substantially less than that each year.

These funds, which can only come from those of us in the wealthier countries, will be needed, the council notes, in "building new, multi-billion-dollar oil platforms in water thousands of feet deep, laying pipelines in difficult terrain and across country borders, expanding refineries, constructing vessels and terminals to ship and store liquefied natural gas, building railroads to transport coal and biomass, and stringing new high-voltage transmission lines from remote wind farms." Adding to the magnitude of this challenge, "future projects are likely to be more complex and remote, resulting in higher costs per unit of energy produced." Again, think tough oil.

The report then notes the obvious: "A stable and attractive investment climate will be necessary to attract adequate capital for evolution and expansion of the energy infrastructure." And this is where any astute observer should begin to get truly alarmed; for, as the study itself notes, no such climate can be expected. As the center of gravity of world oil production shifts decisively to OPEC suppliers and to state-centric energy producers like Russia, geopolitical rather than market factors will come to dominate the energy industry and a whole new set of instabilities will characterize the oil trade.

"These shifts pose profound implications for U.S. interests, strategies, and policy-making," the report states. "Many of the expected changes could heighten risks to U.S. energy security in a world where U.S. influence is likely to decline as economic power shifts to other nations. In years to come, security threats to the world's main sources of oil and natural gas may worsen."

Read from this perspective, the recent reports from pillars of the Big- Oil/wealthy-nation establishment suggest that the basic logic of peak-oil theory is on the mark and hard times are ahead when it comes to global oil-and-gas sufficiency. Both reports claim that with just the right menu of corrective policies and an unrealistic streak of pure luck -- as in no set of major Katrina-like hurricanes barreling into oil fields or refineries, no new wars in Middle Eastern oil producing areas, no political collapse in Nigeria -- we can somehow stagger through to 2012 and maybe just beyond without a global economic meltdown. But in an era of tough oil, the odds tip toward tough luck as well. Buckle your seatbelt. Fill up that gas tank soon. The future is likely to be a bumpy ride toward cliff's edge.

US Death toll in Middle East 3 Millions

I read 3 reports about how many deaths are because USA politics there, since Iran Iraq War 1 Millions, USA funded and gave weapons to Saddam just to attack Iran (his biggest Nemesis in the region), another 1 millions of Iraq people died during the UN sanctions, and now another we are going to reach another 1 million by the end of 2007.

This mean a true GENOCIDE of the Iraq people, but for W. Bush (in his crazy mind) now Irak is living better than under Saddam, I would said they are living a true HELL on Earth.

related Links

American Genocide In The Middle East: Three Million and Counting

600,000 Iraqies Died since USA invasion

PENTAGON vs Peak Oil

On 1991 a US soldier consumed 4 gallons of oil per day now the consumed 16.

Pentagon is the world biggest consumer of Oil in the World

“US forces must expand geographically and be more mobile and expeditionary so that they can be engaged in more theaters and prepared for expedient deployment anywhere in the world”

How much OIL DOD consumes on their wars let see 16 Gallons of Oil per day, Multiply this by 162,000 soldiers (Iraq), 24,000 in Afghanistan, and 30,000 on ships and bases in the Persian Area and you get aprox. 3.5 million gallons daily of oil in the Middle East “war” zone, in 1 year you get 1.3 billion gallons

Pentagon Oil consuming machines are:

As of September 30, 2005 the US Air Force had 5,986 aircraft in service.

At the beginning of 2006 the US Navy had 285 combat and support ships, and around 4,000 operational aircraft (planes and helicopters).

At the end of 2005, the US Army had a combat vehicle fleet of approximately 28,000 armored vehicles (tracked vehicles such as Abrams tanks and Bradley Fighting Vehicles). Besides those the Army and the Marine corps have tactical wheeled vehicles such as 140,000 High-Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicles. The US Army has also over 4,000 combat helicopters and several hundred fixed wing aircraft.

Add all those also 187,493 fleet vehicles (passenger cars, busses, light trucks etc) the US Department of Defense (DOD) uses.

RELATED LINKS

US Army Oil Pains

Energy Bulletin: Pentagon Vs Oil Peak

Michel Chossudovsky's: USA “War” On terror

Joe Liberman wants Iran blood

US BASES surrounding Iran (click on image for bigger size)

This past week on a CBS program these US Senator ask for an immediate attack on IRAN, he says that with Iran support more and more Irak people are killing the troops of US but he doesn’t have any proof of that. This senator has a strong support ($$$) of AIPAC and Isreael support office that is why the real causes of these senator to go to war are not clear.

IRAN nuclear Installations

This past June 8 Russia gave a green light to deliver the Nuclear Fuel to Busher Iran nuclear plant via Caspian Sea and being delivered on Bandar Anzili Port, maybe the fuel arrive the plan of june 11.

Liberman doesn’t know that Iran has the most lethal weapon every produced by the Soviet call SS-N-22 Sunburn (NATO codename) reaching a speed of Mach 3 its consider the most fastest antiship missile of the world, with a effective range of 250 km and capable of carrying a warhead of 705 pound (nuclear capable). This state of the art missile is capable evading the AEGIS system making elusive and violent maneuvers, after being lauch is nearly impossible to stop them so the US Navy ship are floating tombs.

If the US Navy lost ships the response of the Empire would be ruthless, with a result of high rocket price of Oil, but if they plan to invade Iran this would be the greatest mistake of Bush cuz the people of that country would be united to fight the Invader that want to take the spoils (oil).

Since Clinton presidency, Samuel Huntingon knew that most of the World sees USA as the worst danger for World Peace, and a TIME poll in Europe reveal that 85% of ppl believe that also, that is why most countries are searching for WMD to protect against an illegal attack like the one on Irak.

RELATED LINKS

Senator Lieberman advocates military strike on Iran (video)

Cheny Pushing for attack on Iran

BBC US biggest global peace threat

Moscow Releases Nuclear Fuel for Iran’s Bushehr Reactor

TIME: USA biggest Threat to Peace: 85% of Europeans

Can you spell Sunburn missiles, Senator Joe Lieberman?

Moskit SS-N-22 (FACTS)

China, Africa and OIL .(and USA)

Africa means 30% of Oil to Chinese big growing economy that also became the 2^nd largest importer of Oil with 6.5 millions barrels a day, Chinese has a very effective way of getting the oil using their $1.3 trillions dollars reserves, they are giving lots of money to the continent and building lots of school, roads and other things to help this poor continent.

Last year China closed great contract with Nigeria (USA provider) to take control of 45% of a big Oil deposit, at the end of 2006 China give loans to Nigeria, Angola and Mozambique for $8,000 millions of Dollars, in contrast World Bank only gave $2,300 MOD, best of all is that Chinese loans doesn’t have special rules like open the market to USA or privatize this and this…

The conflict on Darfur is for Human rights and genocide incited by USA just to get OIL, they are giving tactical training and WEAPONS to Chad and Ethiopia to get Sudan cut in 2 states and they would control the Oil rich of course, with that conflict USA want full MILITARY access of UN so they can protect the Oil opps Innocent people from there; SUDAN has received $15,000 MOD from China and it gives them 8% Oil china needs.

AFRICA Oil & Gas Reserves, Here a bigger picture

On 2006 Chinese represents visit all the continent searching for Oil contract and secure the Oil Fountain that Africa represent today.

Controlling Darfur means having a US base to secure the Horn of Africa and the transit of most of the Oil, US company began exploring for Oil on the continent on 1970’s but they decide to abandon project cuz the Regional conflicts, now Chevron (back by Condi Rice) has a big pipeline of $3.6 billion dollars to transport 160,000 Barrels a day from Chad to the Atlantic ocean Refineries to be shipped to USA.

NEWS LINKS

China and USA in New Cold War over Africa’s Oil Riches Darfur? It’s the Oil, Stupid...

Oil Production of 42 countries in the World

U.S. "imperialism" means new arms race: Putin

OIL WARS

As soon as we close to Oil Peak between 2010 or 2015 we would be witness of more and more wars like IRAK (secure and control of Black GOLD), all the planet would be harmed by the search for ENERGY (life & blood of Capitalism), then most of the powerful States would take Fascist positions “obtain at any cost what they need” for their societies no matter the consequences.

During the last 60 years Oil Industry has manage to satisfy the soaring thirst of the World for Oil, World Oil demand was 15 millions of barrels a day on 1955 and now it’s 82 millions (2005), a growth of 450%. Because of China & India high economic growth the demand of Oil would continue growing. USA devour 7.500 millions of Barrels every year.

Today there 1.3 trillions of barrels of Oil in the World, CIA report of 2002.

Countries in decreasing order of oil consumption. (Barrels per day, as of 2003.)

United States	20,033,504
Japan	5,578,386
China	5,550,000
Germany	2,677,443
Russia	2,675,000
India	2,320,000
Canada	2,193,263
South Korea	2,168,128
Brazil	2,100,000
France	2,059,843
Mexico	2,015,232
Italy	1,874,380
Saudi Arabia	1,775,000
United Kingdom	1,722,419
Spain	1,544,260
Iran	1,425,000
Indonesia	1,155,000

That is why most of the World greatest economies are moving around the globe to secure reserves of 3^rd world, an example is Caspian Sea where USA is backing up despotic Regimes in exchange of Oil, China is also buying reserves on Africa and Iran.

Although Black Gold would be depleted soon, there are other energy sources like GAS and Uranium (FINIT), that is why UN started to make a Global Forum to search for new sources of Energy that can help all the world and don’t endanger the ecosystem like today with Fossil fuels.

LINKS

Black Gold TOP 10

End of Oil Could Fuel 'End of Civilization as We Know It'

Origin of Oil

World Oil Reserves

Oil Consumers by Country

PENTAGON 2 Protect OIL

Since the end of 80’s and with the struggle of Arabian Oil Embargo, Jimmy Carter states his doctrine “under any mean necessary we must protect the flow of oil to the West (USA)”.

Then they created the CENTCOM Central Command that has direct control of all US forces on the Persian area.

This command World be in charge in any case of attack against IRAN and the protection of Ormuz strait. Carter Doctrine was extended to Caspian Sea by Clinton, nowadays Bush want to put that doctrine on the horn of Africa (Nigeria 5^th source of oil for USA).

US troops deploy in Iraq and Afghanistan consumes daily an average of 16 gallons per day, that means 3.5 million of gallons daily on Irak and 3.5 millions daily for both armies and in 1 year the consume 1.3 billions gallons more than Bangladesh (150 million people) consume in a year.

By using the Army against any country USA always said “is for the sake of the World”, “they have WMD”, “they oppose a thereat to neighbors”, but the main benefactor of all that actions is always USA (Military Complex)!!!, even if that means the lifes of young soldiers.

PENTAGON main goal: PROTECT OIL AT ANY COST.

Now the Military spends 40% of every Dollar of Taxes in USA.

Related LINKS

737 Pentagon Bases in the World = US GLOBAL EMPIRE

PENTAGON VS. PEAK OIL (ENERGY BULLETIN)


CAN WE END THE AMERICAN EMPIRE BEFORE IT ENDS US?

The Trillion-Dollar Defense Budget Is Already Here

The Military-Industrial-Congressional Complex

Defense spending soars to highest levels since World War II

Attack on IRAN APRIL

Some Russian News agency has been saying that the attack agains IRAN should come on the first week of april (RIA NOVOSTI), just because it's a special religious day of Islamic culture, and also Russian Military intelligence has been spotting with satellites a large build up of troops and ABM systems along the border of Iran.

Also US fifth fleet is making some "exercises" all this week, also some British troops were captured while invading Iranian waters so the WAR GAME of Bush is coming.

The military action agains Iran would be very hard 4 USA 'cuz now the have TOR M-1 missile system capable of shutdown a Tomahawk or other aircraft of USA, so the would not go without any casualty. Iran is capable of giving weapons to more than 1,000.000 people with some military training, and also their people has a strong patriotic feeling capable of facing an invading force only interested on OIL.

Aircraft carrier group on Persian Waters

LINKS

News about possible USA Attack


http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20070328/62741920.html

What is US. Navy strategy against anti-ship missile threat from Iran?

XXI century Great Game

During XIX century 2 great empires (British & Zarist Russia) where fighting for the dominance of Central Asia Region (from turkey to India) and this was call “Great Game”, now this region is a key element because of all Gas & Oil reserves, making it a battlefield of USA, Russia, and China. Even that Russia lost most of its influence in the region (4 million of kilometers² and 50 millions of people) with the breakdown of USSR, now Russia under the leadership of Comrade Putin all the country has been rebuild and retaken most of the power lost and its rightful place.

Azerbaijan Oil lake.

Dick Cheney has been traveling on Kazakhastan (2006) and other neighbors to secure those oil reserves and offer US “help”, Cheney has also been talking against Russia saying that “Russia is using all his Energetic reserves blackmailing the entire region and intimidating”.

Many of the countries in that region are autocratic and all the presidents has been there since the fall of the Soviet Union (15 years ago), USA doesn’t care that they don’t have any democracy they only want to secure Oil for their American Way of Life.

Shangai Cooperation Organization (SCO) was created in 1991 by China, Russia, Kazakhastan, Uzbekistán, Kirgystan y Tadjikistan to secure the interest in the region one of their best movements was to expel US from a base in Uzbekistán used in the war against Taliban.

USA consider that organization a bad influence to the region because it invites most of the members to China and show them: "Look I have a communist government and autoritary and my economy is open and everything is ALL RIGHT", Kazakhastan is a great example the president there give money and some state contracts only to his family but even with that he has made the country grow more than 9.1% last year, this country in the past was a Soviet Gulag and nuclear dump and test site.

FACTS

· Caspian region has between 17,000 and 44,000 millions of barrels but in all Great Game region it might be 80 and 150 mil millions of barrels

· SCO continue getting more influence inviting India and Pakistan and Iran as observer

· Russian Oil Export are 15.2% of world oil with reserves of 68,000 millions of barrels and nearly 25.8% of World Gas

· For 2010 the region could give 5% to World oil production.

Caspian Sea Oil Data

Russia Reinvented Empire