malchish.org malchish.org
Это архив форума! Test!
 
 FAQFAQ   ПоискПоиск   ПользователиПользователи   ГруппыГруппы   РегистрацияРегистрация 
 ПрофильПрофиль   Войти и проверить личные сообщенияВойти и проверить личные сообщения   ВходВход 

США и непокорный мир
На страницу 1, 2, 3  След.
 
Начать новую тему       Список форумов malchish.org -> Экономика и финансы
Предыдущая тема :: Следующая тема  
Автор Сообщение
Nadin
Автор


Зарегистрирован: 26.05.2005
Сообщения: 208

СообщениеДобавлено: Ср Авг 10, 2005 6:05 pm    Заголовок сообщения: США и непокорный мир Ответить с цитатой

Бунты СауАрона.
Цитата:
Часто советуют не читать перед обедом газет. Не согласен. Я их (в электронном виде) читаю всегда, они захватывающе интересны.
Новости (политические новости) - как бесконечный детектив с миллионом сюжетов при полном отсутствии стыдливых ограничений, так что насилие возможно всегда, как угодно жестокое и бессмысленное, и если читать бесконечную книгу достаточно долго, появление в сюжете любого злодейства почти гарантировано.

Второе главное достоинство детектива в том, что его печатают частями, притом разные сюжеты с разной скоростью: это рай для любителей отгадывать имя злодея раньше авторов сценария.

Похоже, клубок выскользнул из чьих-то рук, и у нас на глазах начинает быстро разматываться еще вчера незаметная веревочка:

1. "Дипломатические миссии США в Саудовской Аравии будут закрыты в понедельник и во вторник из-за угрозы зданиям США" (далее заметка привычно сбивается на Аль-Каиду и теракты)
http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/08/07/saudi.closings.reut/index.html

2. В этот же день, 7 августа, UPI сообщает, что С.Ар."работает над возвращением в королевство 360 миллиардов средств, инвестированных за рубежом за последние 18 месяцев". Заметка пересказывает официальное сообщение без разъяснений и комментариев.
http://interestalert.com/brand/siteia.shtml?Story=st/sn/08070000aaa02f00.upi&Sys=rmmiller&Fid=WORLDNEW&Type=News&Filter=World%20News

Добавим несколько комментариев.
После переворота в Иране (56?), последнего под руководством явного сотрудника ЦРУ, когда США посадили угодного им шаха-марионетку, их международная колониальная политика была перестроена. Б`ольшую часть работы стали выполнять "экономические советники" работающие в частных фирмах - обеспечивая им deniability в случае ареста. Систему внятно осветил один из бывших таких операторов в своей недавней книге "Economic Hit Man". Я публиковал перевод его интервью; в нем он объяснял, что двумя главными задачами наемных экономических убийц были (а) понуждение стран делать (невозможные для полной выплаты) долги и (б) поворот финансовых потоков назад в США.

Такая операция, собственно, и была осуществлена с Саудовской Аравией (ей в книге посвящена отдельная глава). По тайному договору, заключенному с США после кризиса 70х, нефтяного эмбарго, ПРИБЫЛИ от нефти заворачивались в США (помещались в американские банки) и работали на их экономику. На набегавшие на вклады проценты американские же компании приезжали к арабам домой и отстраивали в стране инфраструктуру. Для русского читателя схема должна быть очевидной - ибо как-то похоже организован "стабилизационный фонд" России, который в силу разных предлогов никогда нельзя потратить
В обмен американцы обязались поддерживать у власти правящую семью и ее не менять. Саудийцы обязались также держать цену нефти в приемлемых для США пределах.
Обе стороны до смерти короля выполняли свои обязательства (как косвенно можно увидеть из массы (не понимающих или умалчивающих об истинных причинах) публикаций о связях, например, семьи Бушей с С.Ар. - или из заказного зубоскальства дешевого Moor в "Фаренгейте 911").

Однако 7 августа 2005 года - сразу после отбытия делегации США - С.Ар. объявила о возвращении иностранных вложений. На долю США по оценкам приходится около 60%, т.е. из экономики США могут оказаться извлечены 216 МИЛЛИАРДОВ долларов! Впрочем, это средняя оценка, и вполне может оказаться, что за последние 18 месяцев в экономику США было вложено совсем не 216 из этих 360ти
Тут же следует второй шаг: в день объявления США закрывают посольства как бы из-за угрозы "терактов Аль-Каиды".

Может ли случиться в эти дни экстремальное и непредвиденное? Один из сюжетов всемирного детективного чтива дошел до своей развязки? СауАронцы взбунтовались против СоеШтАммов?

Неясно, еще неясно. Будем следить за событиями.
А пока что делайте ваши ставки и пишите каракулями на полях имя преступника.

Еще по теме http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_8-8-2005_pg4_2 , http://www.gulf-daily-news.com/Story.asp?Article=118907&Sn=WORL&IssueID=28141 , http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/russian/business/newsid_4130000/4130860.stm
Вернуться к началу
Посмотреть профиль Отправить личное сообщение
Nadin
Автор


Зарегистрирован: 26.05.2005
Сообщения: 208

СообщениеДобавлено: Ср Авг 10, 2005 7:28 pm    Заголовок сообщения: Re: Что происходит в Саудовской Аравии Ответить с цитатой

А в Иране-то в Иране:
В марте 2006 г. в Иране начнёт работать своя нефтяная биржа, на которой все сделки будут осуществляться в евро. Мировой финансовой гегемонии доллара приходит конец. Без доллара как всемирной резервной валюты американскую империю ждёт неминуемый крах.
Цитата:
Petrodollar Warfare: Dollars, Euros and the Upcoming Iranian Oil Bourse
by William R. Clark
(Friday August 05 2005)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"A successful Iranian bourse will solidify the petroeuro as an alternative oil transaction currency, and thereby end the petrodollar's hegemonic status as the monopoly oil currency. Therefore, a graduated approach is needed to avoid precipitous U.S. economic dislocations."


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


"This notion that the United States is getting ready to attack Iran is simply ridiculous...Having said that, all options are on the table."

-- President George W. Bush, February 2005

Contemporary warfare has traditionally involved underlying conflicts regarding economics and resources. Today these intertwined conflicts also involve international currencies, and thus increased complexity. Current geopolitical tensions between the United States and Iran extend beyond the publicly stated concerns regarding Iran's nuclear intentions, and likely include a proposed Iranian "petroeuro" system for oil trade. Similar to the Iraq war, military operations against Iran relate to the macroeconomics of 'petrodollar recycling' and the unpublicized but real challenge to U.S. dollar supremacy from the euro as an alternative oil transaction currency.

It is now obvious the invasion of Iraq had less to do with any threat from Saddam's long-gone WMD program and certainly less to do to do with fighting International terrorism than it has to do with gaining strategic control over Iraq's hydrocarbon reserves and in doing so maintain the U.S. dollar as the monopoly currency for the critical international oil market. Throughout 2004 information provided by former administration insiders revealed the Bush/Cheney administration entered into office with the intention of toppling Saddam.[1][2] Candidly stated, 'Operation Iraqi Freedom' was a war designed to install a pro-U.S. government in Iraq, establish multiple U.S military bases before the onset of global Peak Oil, and to reconvert Iraq back to petrodollars while hoping to thwart further OPEC momentum towards the euro as an alternative oil transaction currency ( i.e. "petroeuro").[3] However, subsequent geopolitical events have exposed neoconservative strategy as fundamentally flawed, with Iran moving towards a petroeuro system for international oil trades, while Russia evaluates this option with the European Union.

In 2003 the global community witnessed a combination of petrodollar warfare and oil depletion warfare. The majority of the world's governments – especially the E.U., Russia and China – were not amused – and neither are the U.S. soldiers who are currently stationed inside a hostile Iraq. In 2002 I wrote an award-winning online essay that asserted Saddam Hussein sealed his fate when he announced on September 2000 that Iraq was no longer going to accept dollars for oil being sold under the UN's Oil-for-Food program, and decided to switch to the euro as Iraq's oil export currency.[4] Indeed, my original pre-war hypothesis was validated in a Financial Times article dated June 5, 2003, which confirmed Iraqi oil sales returning to the international markets were once again denominated in U.S. dollars – not euros.

The tender, for which bids are due by June 10, switches the transaction back to dollars -- the international currency of oil sales - despite the greenback's recent fall in value. Saddam Hussein in 2000 insisted Iraq's oil be sold for euros, a political move, but one that improved Iraq's recent earnings thanks to the rise in the value of the euro against the dollar. [5]

The Bush administration implemented this currency transition despite the adverse impact on profits from Iraqi's export oil sales.[6] (In mid-2003 the euro was valued approx. 13% higher than the dollar, and thus significantly impacted the ability of future oil proceeds to rebuild Iraq's infrastructure). Not surprisingly, this detail has never been mentioned in the five U.S. major media conglomerates who control 90% of information flow in the U.S., but confirmation of this vital fact provides insight into one of the crucial – yet overlooked – rationales for 2003 the Iraq war.

Concerning Iran, recent articles have revealed active Pentagon planning for operations against its suspected nuclear facilities. While the publicly stated reasons for any such overt action will be premised as a consequence of Iran's nuclear ambitions, there are again unspoken macroeconomic drivers underlying the second stage of petrodollar warfare – Iran's upcoming oil bourse. (The word bourse refers to a stock exchange for securities trading, and is derived from the French stock exchange in Paris, the Federation Internationale des Bourses de Valeurs.)

In essence, Iran is about to commit a far greater "offense" than Saddam Hussein's conversion to the euro for Iraq's oil exports in the fall of 2000. Beginning in March 2006, the Tehran government has plans to begin competing with New York's NYMEX and London's IPE with respect to international oil trades – using a euro-based international oil-trading mechanism.[7] The proposed Iranian oil bourse signifies that without some sort of US intervention, the euro is going to establish a firm foothold in the international oil trade. Given U.S. debt levels and the stated neoconservative project of U.S. global domination, Tehran's objective constitutes an obvious encroachment on dollar supremacy in the crucial international oil market.

From the autumn of 2004 through August 2005, numerous leaks by concerned Pentagon employees have revealed that the neoconservatives in Washington are quietly – but actively – planning for a possible attack against Iran. In September 2004 Newsweek reported:

Deep in the Pentagon, admirals and generals are updating plans for possible U.S. military action in Syria and Iran. The Defense Department unit responsible for military planning for the two troublesome countries is "busier than ever," an administration official says. Some Bush advisers characterize the work as merely an effort to revise routine plans the Pentagon maintains for all contingencies in light of the Iraq war. More skittish bureaucrats say the updates are accompanied by a revived campaign by administration conservatives and neocons for more hard-line U.S. policies toward the countries…'

…administration hawks are pinning their hopes on regime change in Tehran – by covert means, preferably, but by force of arms if necessary. Papers on the idea have circulated inside the administration, mostly labeled "draft" or "working draft" to evade congressional subpoena powers and the Freedom of Information Act. Informed sources say the memos echo the administration's abortive Iraq strategy: oust the existing regime, swiftly install a pro-U.S. government in its place (extracting the new regime's promise to renounce any nuclear ambitions) and get out. This daredevil scheme horrifies U.S. military leaders, and there's no evidence that it has won any backers at the cabinet level. [8]

Indeed, there are good reasons for U.S. military commanders to be 'horrified' at the prospects of attacking Iran. In the December 2004 issue of the Atlantic Monthly, James Fallows reported that numerous high-level war-gaming sessions had recently been completed by Sam Gardiner, a retired Air Force colonel who has run war games at the National War College for the past two decades.[9] Col. Gardiner summarized the outcome of these war games with this statement, "After all this effort, I am left with two simple sentences for policymakers: You have no military solution for the issues of Iran. And you have to make diplomacy work." Despite Col. Gardiner's warnings, yet another story appeared in early 2005 that reiterated this administration's intentions towards Iran. Investigative reporter Seymour Hersh's article in The New Yorker included interviews with various high-level U.S. intelligence sources. Hersh wrote:

In my interviews [with former high-level intelligence officials], I was repeatedly told that the next strategic target was Iran. Everyone is saying, 'You can't be serious about targeting Iran. Look at Iraq,' the former [CIA] intelligence official told me. But the [Bush administration officials] say, 'We've got some lessons learned – not militarily, but how we did it politically. We're not going to rely on agency pissants.' No loose ends, and that's why the C.I.A. is out of there. [10]

The most recent, and by far the most troubling, was an article in The American Conservative by intelligence analyst Philip Giraldi. His article, "In Case of Emergency, Nuke Iran," suggested the resurrection of active U.S. military planning against Iran – but with the shocking disclosure that in the event of another 9/11-type terrorist attack on U.S. soil, Vice President Dick Cheney's office wants the Pentagon to be prepared to launch a potential tactical nuclear attack on Iran – even if the Iranian government was not involved with any such terrorist attack against the U.S.:

The Pentagon, acting under instructions from Vice President Dick Cheney's office, has tasked the United States Strategic Command (STRATCOM) with drawing up a contingency plan to be employed in response to another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States. The plan includes a large-scale air assault on Iran employing both conventional and tactical nuclear weapons. Within Iran there are more than 450 major strategic targets, including numerous suspected nuclear-weapons-program development sites. Many of the targets are hardened or are deep underground and could not be taken out by conventional weapons, hence the nuclear option. As in the case of Iraq, the response is not conditional on Iran actually being involved in the act of terrorism directed against the United States. Several senior Air Force officers involved in the planning are reportedly appalled at the implications of what they are doing – that Iran is being set up for an unprovoked nuclear attack – but no one is prepared to damage his career by posing any objections. [11]

Why would the Vice President instruct the U.S. military to prepare plans for what could likely be an unprovoked nuclear attack against Iran? Setting aside the grave moral implications for a moment, it is remarkable to note that during the same week this "nuke Iran" article appeared, the Washington Post reported that the most recent National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) of Iran's nuclear program revealed that, "Iran is about a decade away from manufacturing the key ingredient for a nuclear weapon, roughly doubling the previous estimate of five years."[12] This article carefully noted this assessment was a "consensus among U.S. intelligence agencies, [and in] contrast with forceful public statements by the White House." The question remains, Why would the Vice President advocate a possible tactical nuclear attack against Iran in the event of another major terrorist attack against the U.S. – even if Tehran was innocent of involvement?

Perhaps one of the answers relates to the same obfuscated reasons why the U.S. launched an unprovoked invasion to topple the Iraq government – macroeconomics and the desperate desire to maintain U.S. economic supremacy. In essence, petrodollar hegemony is eroding, which will ultimately force the U.S. to significantly change its current tax, debt, trade, and energy policies, all of which are severely unbalanced. World oil production is reportedly "flat out," and yet the neoconservatives are apparently willing to undertake huge strategic and tactical risks in the Persian Gulf. Why? Quite simply – their stated goal is U.S. global domination – at any cost.

To date, one of the more difficult technical obstacles concerning a euro-based oil transaction trading system is the lack of a euro-denominated oil pricing standard, or oil 'marker' as it is referred to in the industry. The three current oil markers are U.S. dollar denominated, which include the West Texas Intermediate crude (WTI), Norway Brent crude, and the UAE Dubai crude. However, since the summer of 2003 Iran has required payments in the euro currency for its European and Asian/ACU exports – although the oil pricing these trades was still denominated in the dollar.[13]

Therefore a potentially significant news story was reported in June 2004 announcing Iran's intentions to create of an Iranian oil bourse. This announcement portended competition would arise between the Iranian oil bourse and London's International Petroleum Exchange (IPE), as well as the New York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX). [Both the IPE and NYMEX are owned by U.S. consortium, and operated by an Atlanta-based corporation, IntercontinentalExchange, Inc.]

The macroeconomic implications of a successful Iranian bourse are noteworthy. Considering that in mid-2003 Iran switched its oil payments from E.U. and ACU customers to the euro, and thus it is logical to assume the proposed Iranian bourse will usher in a fourth crude oil marker – denominated in the euro currency. This event would remove the main technical obstacle for a broad-based petroeuro system for international oil trades. From a purely economic and monetary perspective, a petroeuro system is a logical development given that the European Union imports more oil from OPEC producers than does the U.S., and the E.U. accounted for 45% of exports sold to the Middle East. (Following the May 2004 enlargement, this percentage likely increased).

Despite the complete absence of coverage from the five U.S. corporate media conglomerates, these foreign news stories suggest one of the Federal Reserve's nightmares may begin to unfold in the spring of 2006, when it appears that international buyers will have a choice of buying a barrel of oil for $60 dollars on the NYMEX and IPE - or purchase a barrel of oil for ?45 - ?50 euros via the Iranian Bourse. This assumes the euro maintains its current 20-25% appreciated value relative to the dollar – and assumes that some sort of US "intervention" is not launched against Iran. The upcoming bourse will introduce petrodollar versus petroeuro currency hedging, and fundamentally new dynamics to the biggest market in the world - global oil and gas trades. In essence, the U.S. will no longer be able to effortlessly expand credit via U.S. Treasury bills, and the dollar's demand/liquidity value will fall.

It is unclear at the time of writing if this project will be successful, or could it prompt overt or covert U.S. interventions – thereby signaling the second phase of petrodollar warfare in the Middle East. Regardless of the potential U.S. response to an Iranian petroeuro system, the emergence of an oil exchange market in the Middle East is not entirely surprising given the domestic peaking and decline of oil exports in the U.S. and U.K, in comparison to the remaining oil reserves in Iran, Iraq and Saudi Arabia. What we are witnessing is a battle for oil currency supremacy. If Iran's oil bourse becomes a successful alternative for international oil trades, it would challenge the hegemony currently enjoyed by the financial centers in both London (IPE) and New York (NYMEX), a factor not overlooked in the following (UK) Guardian article:

Iran is to launch an oil trading market for Middle East and Opec producers that could threaten the supremacy of London's International Petroleum Exchange.

…Some industry experts have warned the Iranians and other OPEC producers that western exchanges are controlled by big financial and oil corporations, which have a vested interest in market volatility. [emphasis added]

The IPE, bought in 2001 by a consortium that includes BP, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley, was unwilling to discuss the Iranian move yesterday. "We would not have any comment to make on it at this stage," said an IPE spokeswoman. [14]

During an important speech in April 2002, Mr. Javad Yarjani, an OPEC executive, described three pivotal events that would facilitate an OPEC transition to euros.[15] He stated this would be based on (1) if and when Norway's Brent crude is re-dominated in euros, (2) if and when the U.K. adopts the euro, and (3) whether or not the euro gains parity valuation relative to the dollar, and the EU's proposed expansion plans were successful. Notably, both of the later two criteria have transpired: the euro's valuation has been above the dollar since late 2002, and the euro-based E.U. enlarged in May 2004 from 12 to 22 countries. Despite recent "no" votes by French and Dutch voters regarding a common E.U. Constitution, from a macroeconomic perspective, these domestic disagreements do no reduce the euro currency's trajectory in the global financial markets – and from Russia and OPEC's perspective – do not adversely impact momentum towards a petroeuro. In the meantime, the U.K. remains uncomfortably juxtaposed between the financial interests of the U.S. banking nexus (New York/Washington) and the E.U. financial centers (Paris/Frankfurt).

The most recent news reports indicate the oil bourse will start trading on March 20, 2006, coinciding with the Iranian New Year.[16] The implementation of the proposed Iranian oil Bourse – if successful in utilizing the euro as its oil transaction currency standard – essentially negates the previous two criteria as described by Mr. Yarjani regarding the solidification of a petroeuro system for international oil trades. It should also be noted that throughout 2003-2004 both Russia and China significantly increased their central bank holdings of the euro, which appears to be a coordinated move to facilitate the anticipated ascendance of the euro as a second World Reserve Currency. [17] [18] China's announcement in July 2005 that is was re-valuing the yuan/RNB was not nearly as important as its decision to divorce itself form a U.S. dollar peg by moving towards a "basket of currencies" – likely to include the yen, euro, and dollar.[19] Additionally, the Chinese re-valuation immediately lowered their monthly imported "oil bill" by 2%, given that oil trades are still priced in dollars, but it is unclear how much longer this monopoly arrangement will last.

Furthermore, the geopolitical stakes for the Bush administration were raised dramatically on October 28, 2004, when Iran and China signed a huge oil and gas trade agreement (valued between $70 - $100 billion dollars.) [20] It should also be noted that China currently receives 13% of its oil imports from Iran. In the aftermath of the Iraq invasion, the U.S.-administered Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) nullified previous oil lease contracts from 1997-2002 that France, Russia, China and other nations had established under the Saddam regime. The nullification of these contracts worth a reported $1.1 trillion created political tensions between the U.S and the European Union, Russia and China. The Chinese government may fear the same fate awaits their oil investments in Iran if the U.S. were able to attack and topple the Tehran government. Despite U.S. desires to enforce petrodollar hegemony, the geopolitical risks of an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities would surely create a serious crisis between Washington and Beijing.

It is increasingly clear that a confrontation and possible war with Iran may transpire during the second Bush term. Clearly, there are numerous tactical risks regarding neoconservative strategy towards Iran. First, unlike Iraq, Iran has a robust military capability. Secondly, a repeat of any "Shock and Awe" tactics is not advisable given that Iran has installed sophisticated anti-ship missiles on the Island of Abu Musa, and therefore controls the critical Strait of Hormuz – where all of the Persian Gulf bound oil tankers must pass.[22] The immediate question for Americans? Will the neoconservatives attempt to intervene covertly and/or overtly in Iran during 2005 or 2006 in a desperate effort to prevent the initiation of euro-denominated international crude oil sales? Commentators in India are quite correct in their assessment that a U.S. intervention in Iran is likely to prove disastrous for the United States, making matters much worse regarding international terrorism, not to the mention potential effects on the U.S. economy.

…If it [ U.S.] intervenes again, it is absolutely certain it will not be able to improve the situation…There is a better way, as the constructive engagement of Libya's Colonel Muammar Gaddafi has shown...Iran is obviously a more complex case than Libya, because power resides in the clergy, and Iran has not been entirely transparent about its nuclear programme, but the sensible way is to take it gently, and nudge it to moderation. Regime change will only worsen global Islamist terror, and in any case, Saudi Arabia is a fitter case for democratic intervention, if at all. [21]

A successful Iranian bourse will solidify the petroeuro as an alternative oil transaction currency, and thereby end the petrodollar's hegemonic status as the monopoly oil currency. Therefore, a graduated approach is needed to avoid precipitous U.S. economic dislocations. Multilateral compromise with the EU and OPEC regarding oil currency is certainly preferable to an 'Operation Iranian Freedom,' or perhaps another CIA-backed coup such as operation "Ajax" from 1953. Despite the impressive power of the U.S. military, and the ability of our intelligence agencies to facilitate 'interventions,' it would be perilous and possibly ruinous for the U.S. to intervene in Iran given the dire situation in Iraq. The Monterey Institute of International Studies warned of the possible consequences of a preemptive attack on Iran's nuclear facilities:

An attack on Iranian nuclear facilities…could have various adverse effects on U.S. interests in the Middle East and the world. Most important, in the absence of evidence of an Iranian illegal nuclear program, an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities by the U.S. or Israel would be likely to strengthen Iran's international stature and reduce the threat of international sanctions against Iran. [23]

Synopsis:

It is not yet clear if a U.S. military expedition will occur in a desperate attempt to maintain petrodollar supremacy. Regardless of the recent National Intelligence Estimate that down-played Iran's potential nuclear weapons program, it appears increasingly likely the Bush administration may use the specter of nuclear weapon proliferation as a pretext for an intervention, similar to the fears invoked in the previous WMD campaign regarding Iraq. If recent stories are correct regarding Cheney's plan to possibly use a another 9/11 terrorist attack as the pretext or casus belli for a U.S. aerial attack against Iran, this would confirm the Bush administration is prepared to undertake a desperate military strategy to thwart Iran's nuclear ambitions, while simultaneously attempting to prevent the Iranian oil Bourse from initiating a euro-based system for oil trades.

However, as members of the U.N. Security Council; China, Russia and E.U. nations such as France and Germany would likely veto any U.S.-sponsored U.N. Security Resolution calling the use of force without solid proof of Iranian culpability in a major terrorist attack. A unilateral U.S. military strike on Iran would isolate the U.S. government in the eyes of the world community, and it is conceivable that such an overt action could provoke other industrialized nations to strategically abandon the dollar en masse. Indeed, such an event would create pressure for OPEC or Russia to move towards a petroeuro system in an effort to cripple the U.S. economy and its global military presence. I refer to this in my book as the "rogue nation hypothesis."

While central bankers throughout the world community would be extremely reluctant to 'dump the dollar,' the reasons for any such drastic reaction are likely straightforward from their perspective – the global community is dependent on the oil and gas energy supplies found in the Persian Gulf. Hence, industrialized nations would likely move in tandem on the currency exchange markets in an effort to thwart the neoconservatives from pursuing their desperate strategy of dominating the world's largest hydrocarbon energy supply. Any such efforts that resulted in a dollar currency crisis would be undertaken – not to cripple the U.S. dollar and economy as punishment towards the American people per se – but rather to thwart further unilateral warfare and its potentially destructive effects on the critical oil production and shipping infrastructure in the Persian Gulf. Barring a U.S. attack, it appears imminent that Iran's euro-denominated oil bourse will open in March 2006. Logically, the most appropriate U.S. strategy is compromise with the E.U. and OPEC towards a dual-currency system for international oil trades.

Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes...known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few…No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.

-- James Madison, Political Observations, 1795

Footnotes:

[1]. Ron Suskind, The Price of Loyalty: George W. Bush, the White House, and the Education of Paul O' Neill, Simon & Schuster publishers (2004)

[2]. Richard A. Clarke, Against All Enemies: Inside America's War on Terror, Free Press (2004)

[3]. William Clark, "Revisited - The Real Reasons for the Upcoming War with Iraq: A Macroeconomic and Geostrategic Analysis of the Unspoken Truth," January 2003 (updated January 2004)
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/RRiraqWar.html


[4]. Peter Philips, Censored 2004, The Top 25 Censored News Stories, Seven Stories Press, (2003) General website for Project Censored: http://www.projectcensored.org/
Story #19: U.S. Dollar vs. the Euro: Another Reason for the Invasion of Iraq
http://www.projectcensored.org/publications/2004/19.html


[5]. Carol Hoyos and Kevin Morrison, "Iraq returns to the international oil market," Financial Times, June 5, 2003

[6]. Faisal Islam, "Iraq nets handsome profit by dumping dollar for euro," [UK] Guardian, February 16, 2003
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12239,896344,00.html


[7]. "Oil bourse closer to reality," IranMania.com, December 28, 2004. Also see: "Iran oil bourse wins authorization," Tehran Times, July 26, 2005

[8]. "War-Gaming the Mullahs: The U.S. weighs the price of a pre-emptive strike," Newsweek, September 27 issue, 2004. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6039135/site/newsweek/

[9]. James Fallows, 'Will Iran be Next?,' Atlantic Monthly, December 2004, pgs. 97 – 110

[10]. Seymour Hersh, "The Coming Wars," The New Yorker, January 24th – 31st issue, 2005, pgs. 40-47
Posted online January 17, 2005. Online: http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?050124fa_fact


[11]. Philip Giraldi, "In Case of Emergency, Nuke Iran," American Conservative, August 1, 2005

[12]. Dafina Linzer, "Iran Is Judged 10 Years From Nuclear Bomb U.S. Intelligence Review Contrasts With Administration Statements," Washington Post, August 2, 2005; Page A01

[13]. C. Shivkumar, "Iran offers oil to Asian union on easier terms," The Hindu Business Line (June 16, ` 2003). http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/bline/2003/06/17/stories/
2003061702380500.htm


[14]. Terry Macalister, "Iran takes on west's control of oil trading," The [UK] Guardian, June 16, 2004
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/story/0,3604,1239644,00.html


[15]. "The Choice of Currency for the Denomination of the Oil Bill," Speech given by Javad Yarjani, Head of OPEC's Petroleum Market Analysis Dept, on The International Role of the Euro (Invited by the Spanish Minister of Economic Affairs during Spain's Presidency of the EU) (April 14, 2002, Oviedo, Spain)
http://www.opec.org/NewsInfo/Speeches/sp2002/spAraqueSpainApr14.htm


[16]. "Iran's oil bourse expects to start by early 2006," Reuters, October 5, 2004 http://www.iranoilgas.com

[17]. "Russia shifts to euro as foreign currency reserves soar," AFP, June 9, 2003
http://www.cdi.org/russia/johnson/7214-3.cfm


[18]. "China to diversify foreign exchange reserves," China Business Weekly, May 8, 2004
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2004-05/08/content_328744.htm


[19]. Richard S. Appel, "The Repercussions from the Yuan's Revaluation," kitco.com, July 27, 2005
http://www.kitco.com/ind/appel/jul272005.html


[20]. China, Iran sign biggest oil & gas deal,' China Daily, October 31, 2004. Online: Online: http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2004-10/31/content_387140.htm

[21]. "Terror & regime change: Any US invasion of Iran will have terrible consequences," News Insight: Public Affairs Magazine, June 11, 2004 http://www.indiareacts.com/archivedebates/nat2.asp?recno=908&ctg=World

[22]. Analysis of Abu Musa Island, www.globalsecurity.org
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iran/abu-musa.htm


[23]. Sammy Salama and Karen Ruster, "A Preemptive Attack on Iran's Nuclear Facilities: Possible Consequences," Monterry Institute of International Studies, August 12, 2004 (updated September 9, 2004) http://cns.miis.edu/pubs/week/040812.htm

http://usa.mediamonitors.net/content/view/full/17450


[/url]
Вернуться к началу
Посмотреть профиль Отправить личное сообщение
maxon
Site Admin


Зарегистрирован: 06.08.2004
Сообщения: 5657

СообщениеДобавлено: Чт Авг 11, 2005 4:58 am    Заголовок сообщения: Re: Что происходит в Саудовской Аравии Ответить с цитатой

И кого же теперь будут бомбить США? Саудовцев или иранцев? Теряюсь в догадках... Rolling Eyes
Вернуться к началу
Посмотреть профиль Отправить личное сообщение
Nadin
Автор


Зарегистрирован: 26.05.2005
Сообщения: 208

СообщениеДобавлено: Чт Авг 11, 2005 10:37 am    Заголовок сообщения: Re: Что происходит в Саудовской Аравии Ответить с цитатой

Продолжение догадок в том же ЖЖ
Цитата:
Тянем-потянем.. (неоконы, ядерные теракты и тактическая ядерная война).

Попробуем потянуть другую ниточку и развернуть следующий конспирологический сюжет - или клубок сюжетов бесконечного детектива (см.предыд.пост).

Перевод статьи
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/august2005/100805fourstargeneral.htm

4-звездочный генерал уволен за организацию заговора против неоконов?
Paul Joseph Watson & Alex Jones | August 10 2005


Глава Командования по Обучению и Доктринам Форта Монроу, 4-звездочный генерал Кевин Бёрнз, во вторник был уволен по причине морального несоответствия, как сообщают официальные источники [якобы за внебрачную связь с женщиной; генерал в данный момент разводится; возможно ли увольнение за простую "аморалку" на таком уровне - в армии США всего одиннадцать 4-звездочных - мы оставим решать читателю - перев.]
Другие источники однако предложили иное объяснение увольнению Бёрнза, связанное с непопулярными планами Буша по нападению на Иран и организации ложной атаки на США, которая могла бы создать для него предлог.

По словам репортера Грега Жимански, анонимные военные источники говорили, что Бёрнз был лидером группы, которая готовилась совершить бунт против неоконсерватров в попытке помешать развязать глобальный конфликт.
Похоже, что - как и в случае мнений среди гражданского населения - половина военных настроена против планов неоконов, и половина их поддерживает.
Дополнительные сведения были добавлены журналистом Леландом Лерманом, который сегодня появился в Alex Jones Show.
Армейские источники Лермана, которые включают бывшего капитана разведки, были разъярены, когда они узнали, что официальная история событий 911 невозможна.
Они сообщили, что грядущие Northcom Nuclear Terror Exercise в Чарльстоне, S.C., в которых ядерная боеголовка похищается с судна и подрывается, должны были "to go live" (т.е. произойти по-настоящему) - учения стали бы прикрытием для "операции под чужим флагом" [false flag attack - когда "свои" совершают акт под видом врагов - перев.].
Наш вебсайт многократно обсуждал подобные учения, которые имели место утром 9/11 и утром 7/7 в Лондоне.
"Есть предположения, что он (генерал) возможно обнаружил тот факт, что учения должны были превратиться в реальност, и что он п-ытался остановить их, и есть также предположения, что он мог быть частью военного заговора направленного на предотвращение идиотской идеи развязывания ядерной войны с Ираном," - заявил Лерман.

Лерман сказал, что другие источники ему сообщили, что все увольнения в армии запрещены начиная с 7 сентября, что возможно указывает на то, что война будет объявлена в это время.

Официальные представители Northcom ("северного командования") признали, что CNN использовало штабную комнату командования в качестве своей студии.

Ранее на этой неделе Washington Post сообщила что Пентагон разрабатывает первые в истории военные планы для операций внутри континентальных США, когда террористические нападения будут использованы как предлог для введения военного положения в городах и регионах всей страны.

American Conservative Magazine недавно передавал, что Дик Чейни отдал приказания немедленно вторгнуться в Иран после (в случае) террористического нападения на США, даже если доказательства, что Иран к ним прочастен не будет.

Правительство и обслуживающие СМИ в последние недели нагнетали страхи о том, что ядерное нападение на США может вот-вот произойти. Время для Глобалистов провести такую атаку самое подходящее, т.к. это предотвратит любые потенциальные судебные преследования против администрации Буша в скандале с незаконным разглашением имени агента ЦРУ Валери Плейм.
В то время, как утверждения, что indictments против Буша и Чейни уже состоялись, следует рассматривать с большой степенью осторожности, существование самого расследования - факт, который нельзя рассматривать как слух.

[конец текста статьи]
Добавим вторую статью, чтобы сгустить краски:
10 aug 05 -- BND report on prepared Iran attack
http://www.waynemadsenreport.com/


США готовы захватить югозападную провинцию, богатую нефтью и населенную в основном арабами после насыщенных бомбардировок (saturation bombing) иранских ядерных, химических, а также командных целей, и целей управления, связи и разведки.

Как указывают источники в Немецкой Федеральной Разведывательной Службе ( Bundesnachrichtendienst - BND), администрация Буша подготовила планы удара по (перечисленным) целям с помощью интенсивных насыщенных бомбометаний с использованием бомб для подрыва бункеров и тактических ядерных вооржений. Атака будет скоординирована с саботажем городской и сельской критической инфраструктуры, который проведут элементы НАродных Муджахеддинов (MEK), группы для особых операций Пентагона (т.е. спецназ), а также другие Иранские диссидентские группы.
Немецкие разведданные исходят из засекреченных информирующих документов, которые были предоставлены элементами в ЦРУ, озабоченными тем, что неоконы в администрации Буша атаковав Иран запустят цепочку событий, которая приведет к мировой войне. Разведданные о планах США атаковать Иран также были переданы агентами ЦРУ своим коллегам во Франции, Британии, Канаде и Австралии. Военные планы Буша также включают быстрый захват югозападной провинции Хузестан, в которой находится большая часть Иранской нефти и обрабатывающих ее предприятий.
Большинство населения Х. составляют арабы-шииты, которые поддерживают теьные связи со своими религиозными братьями в Ираке. План Буша предусматривает военный удар США от Иракской границы и со стороны морских сил в Персидском Заливе в ответ на призыв к помощи от " Al Ahwaz Popular Democratic Front" и повстанческих сил Liberation Organization в Хузестане, которые объявят о создании независимого арабского государства, Демократической Республики Ахваз, и попучат дипломатическое признание от США и немногих близких их союзников.
После первой мировой сойны Хузестан был аннексирован Ираном (тогда - Персия).
Также существуют планы по возбуждению восстаний других меньшинств Ирана, включая Азеров и Туркменов в нефтеносных районах Каспия. Прочие меньшинства, попавшие в планы неоконсерваторов - Иранские Курды вдоль Иракской и Турецкой границ и Балучи (Белуджи) вдоль границы с Пакистаном.
План неоконов пытается отделить Иран от источников нефти и создать "Иранский треугольник" с центром в персидских исторических областях.
В преддверии атаки США шпионская подлодкa "Джимми Картер" поместила подслушивающие устройства на коммуникационные кабели на дне Персидского залива, которые передают иранскую коммерческую, дипломатическую и военную информацию.
В дополнение к этим мерам, Task Force 121 - секретные силы - провели рекогносцировку Ирана под видом журналистов и бизнесменов чтобы подтвердить будущие цели.

Планы неоконов напасть на Иран включают откол провинции Хузестан от страны и объявление ее независимым государством "Ахваз"

Из комментариев
Цитата:
Вообще же, задумка у неоконов интересная: без нефти Хузестана Иран резко ослабеет и начнёт терять национальные окраины (предпосылки к этому есть - собственно персов в Иране всего лишь порядка 50%).
Что касается иранских курдов, то их отделение, при уже почти независимом иракском Курдистане, означает неминуемый развал Турции и образование единого курдского государства.
Таким образом, планируется балканизация Среднего Востока.
Вернуться к началу
Посмотреть профиль Отправить личное сообщение
penzevkot
Писатель


Зарегистрирован: 10.08.2004
Сообщения: 422
Откуда: г. Дальнегорск Приморский край

СообщениеДобавлено: Чт Авг 11, 2005 3:36 pm    Заголовок сообщения: Re: Что происходит в Саудовской Аравии Ответить с цитатой

Жуткие страсти кипят на коммунальной кухне. Вообще у США есть две схемы взаимодействия с внешним миром: 1я - мошенничество (дипломатия доллара) незаконное присвоение чужого имущества путем обмана, т.е. всякого рода финансовые аферы типа долларовой пирамиды сопровождаемые предупредительным похрюкиванием из пентагона, 2я - грабеж (дипломатия канонерок) незаконное присвоение чужого имушества путем открытого вооруженного насилия совершенного группой лиц с особой дерзостью и цинизмом, т.е. всякого рода демократизация нефтеносных месторождений, сопровождаемая радостным повизгиванием федеральной резервной системы.
То что, дескать, доллар "рухнет" и империя США рухнет в след за ним очень сомнительное предположение. Если рухнет доллар, то рухнут те кому Америка должна. Все жалкие (на сегодняшний момент) попытки образумить зажравшееся и оборзевшее американское животное обречены, но по крайней мере небесполезны.
То что происходит в настоящее время есть смены политики от дипломатии доллара к дипломатии канонерок, т.е. от мошенничества к вооруженному разбою.
А четырехзвездочного генерала (пусть их хоть двое на североамериканский континент) вполне могли выпереть за аморалку, поскольку старая скотина очевидно не только по бл..ям бегала, но и шнапс жрала вероятно по конски. В общем достал наверное всех мятым кителем и перегаром.
_________________
Все врут, но это не имеет значения, потому что никто не слушает.
Вернуться к началу
Посмотреть профиль Отправить личное сообщение
Nadin
Автор


Зарегистрирован: 26.05.2005
Сообщения: 208

СообщениеДобавлено: Пт Авг 26, 2005 1:17 pm    Заголовок сообщения: А в Венесуэле? Ответить с цитатой

В американской армии отменены все увольнительные?

По упорно циркулирующим слухам, в американской армии отменены все увольнительные на сентябрь и октябрь. Некоторые обозреватели также обращают внимание на строительство военной базы в Парагвае. В сочетании со стремительно падающей популярностью Дж. Буша-младшего и всем известными событиями в Венесуэле, можно предположить, что правительство планирует очередную военную операцию.


All US military leave has been cancelled … something big is in the works!

“US is preparing for war in South America” Monday, August 22, 2005
Bylined to: Bob Chapman
THE INTERNATIONAL FORECASTER editor Bob Chapman writes: The US military is building a new base and conducting secretive operations in Paraguay … our Embassy there refuses to acknowledge a base exists and describes the military activity as routine.

The base is in Mariscal Estigarribia, 200 km (127 miles) from the Bolivian border and will handle large aircraft and accommodate 16,000 troops.

There are now 500 of our troops there with planes, weapons, equipment and ammunition. Either before, during, or after the coming presidential election we expect the US to intervene or better put, invade Bolivia to control its natural gas reserves.

Paraguay has approved of the troops being there and given them total immunity, free from Paraguayan law and the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court. George and the neocons have threatened to withdraw $24.5 million in aid to Peru, Ecuador, Venezuela and Paraguay if they didn’t grant immunity to the US military.

You cannot believe a word Washington says about the base being a humanitarian undertaking, when they are struggling to fill the ranks in Iraq.

Why would they be on a humanitarian mission in Paraguay?

They said the same thing in Manta, Ecuador, which houses an $80 million US military base. The US is preparing for war in South America—make no mistake about it.

In Bolivia if Evo Morales, or someone like him is elected, then you can expect a US invasion.
Paraguay, bordered by Brazil and Argentina is one of the wildest places on earth. This is a very aggressive move by the US and all South American governments should be very concerned. George Bush and the neocons are using international terrorism as an excuse to appropriate natural resources and subject people to their brand of democracy, which is corporatist fascism.

All military leaves for September and October have been cancelled … something big is in the works … there is a buildup of material and equipment … personnel at draft board offices are waiting for the word to activate.
http://neverknwo.gnn.tv/blogs/8296/All_US_military_leave_has_been_cancelled_something_big_is_in_the_works

Админу
Искала-искала тему где статья про Боливию была, не нашла... Question


Последний раз редактировалось: Nadin (Пт Авг 26, 2005 1:21 pm), всего редактировалось 1 раз
Вернуться к началу
Посмотреть профиль Отправить личное сообщение
Nadin
Автор


Зарегистрирован: 26.05.2005
Сообщения: 208

СообщениеДобавлено: Пт Авг 26, 2005 1:20 pm    Заголовок сообщения: А в Иране? Ответить с цитатой

Открытие нефтяной биржи в Иране может забить последний гвоздь в гроб доллара

Killing the dollar in Iran
By Toni Straka

Could the proposed Iranian oil bourse (IOB) become the catalyst for a significant blow to the influential position the US dollar enjoys? Manifold supply fears have driven the price of crude oil to its recent high of US$67.10 - only a notch below its highest price in inflation-adjusted dollar terms. With the world facing a daily bill of roughly $5.5 billion for crude oil at current price levels, it becomes apparent that sellers and purchasers of the black gold are looking into all ways that could lead to a financial improvement on their respective sides.

Non-US-dollar holders so far have been the victim of additional transaction costs in the oil trade. The necessary conversion of local currencies into oil-buying greenbacks can be considered a hidden tax, charged and enjoyed by the international banking sector. The IOB, by eliminating this transaction cost, will become a factor that could unsettle the dollar's dominant position. While the worldwide bottleneck of inadequate refining facilities and partly dramatic declines in production - for example in the North Sea - are two factors that cannot be eliminated in the short term, there is one area left which could result in smiling faces of oil producers as well as most buyers.

Oil consumers are entangled in a web of supply fears that span the globe. In Venezuela, President Hugo Chavez threatens to divert oil supplies from the US to China, which faces severe gasoline and diesel shortages these days. Attacks on Iraqi oil installations have slowed exports there. Ecuador's oil industry is still recovering from a strike, while Nigerian oil companies are in the middle of efforts to avoid a strike there.

Until now, oil has been solely priced, traded and paid for in the greenback on markets in both London and New York. But monthly worldwide oil revenues of over $110 billion (on a 20-trading-day basis) - a third of which ends up with OPEC (Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries) members - raise the question of what happens to these cash mountains. According to the most recent data from the US Treasury Department, OPEC members have parked only a skimpy $120 billion in direct dollar holdings, which are almost equally split between equities and American debt paper. This is a clear indication that oil producers are investing their windfalls elsewhere. The yield spread between US and EU debt papers in favor of the EU is another hint where the petrodollars might be heading.

Especially in the case of Iran, it does not make sense to accept dollars only for its much-desired commodity. Given that Iran is seen as a hostile country by the current US administration for its intention to build its own nuclear reactors, one wonders whether the new IOB will not try to attract buyers other than Americans. Iran has recently announced that the new oil exchange will start up its computers in March 2006.

The proposal to set up a petroleum bourse was first voiced in Iran's development plan for 2000-2005. Last July, Heydar Mostakhdemin-Hosseini, who heads the board of directors of the Iranian Stock Exchange council, said authorities had agreed in principle to the establishment of the IOB, where petrochemicals, crude oil and oil and gas products will be traded. The oil exchange would strive to make Iran the main hub for oil deals in the region and most deals will be conducted via the Internet. Experts from London's International Petroleum Exchange (IPE) and the New York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX) have reportedly confirmed the feasibility of the project.

The IOB can count on two sharp arrows in its holster. It can - and probably will - lure European buyers with oil prices quoted in euros, saving them dollar transaction costs. And it can strike barter deals with oil-hungry giants like China and India who have a lot of products and commodities to offer. One doubts whether American hamburgers and legal services will be considered adequate collateral for the world's most after-sought resource.

Worse than an Iranian nuclear attack?
Weaned off the almighty commodity, the US dollar can have a deeper impact on the US economy than a direct nuclear attack by Iran. The permanent demand for dollar-denominated paper stems substantially from the fact that until now almost all resources of the world are quoted in it. While this led to the eurodollar (US dollar-denominated deposits at foreign banks or foreign branches of American banks) market in the 1970s, the new terms of trade could ring in the demise of the dollar as the premier reserve currency.

With the world economy depending so much on oil, the black gold itself can be seen as a reserve currency that will be handed out against only the best collateral in the future. Last month, the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco published a paper about the progress of the diversification of central banks' reserves around the world. It concluded that the dollar's position is on the decline in many countries. China, the new industrial giant, has officially declared that it will diversify a part of its forex holdings into oil by building a strategic petroleum reserve. Construction of storage tanks has begun this year and will take several years until completion. China has not yet said how many barrels of oil it wants to store. The implications for the oil market can only be guessed as China wants to use its future reserves to smooth out spikes in oil price.

Iran holds a strong hand as the No 2 producer of crude behind Saudi Arabia, pumping 5% of the world's oil demand. Politicians there will also keep in mind that dollar deposits might become a burden in the future, if the US steps up its current war of words to the level of economic sanctions in the attempt to halt construction of Iran's nuclear power plants. Money in the bank does not help when you have no access to it. Substituting Iran's domestic oil demand partly with nuclear power will place the country in a win-win situation. Cheaper nuclear energy and increases in oil exports from the current level of roughly 2.5 million barrels a day will result in a profitable equation for Iran.

Only one major actor stands to lose from a change in the current status quo: the US, which with less than 5% of the global population, consumes roughly one third of global oil production. Oil in euros would benefit millions more in the EU and its trading partners, though. And it would loosen the grip the US has on OPEC members. Thinking of the rapid growth of hostilities between the US and Arab nations in recent years, a renunciation of the dollar appears to be more than just an Arab daydream.

As this development poses a very real danger to the superior status of the greenback and the interests of the US, the "president of war" can be expected to take a strong line against the winds blowing from the Middle East. One may be reminded that Saddam Hussein had entered into discreet talks with the EU, proposing to sell his oil for euros. That was in the year before the first oil war of this century.

The IOB could help the euro to become the interim primary reserve currency before China and India rise to the first two slots in the global economic ranking in the next few decades. A decline of the dollar's position in oil trading might also open the floodgates in other commodity markets where the dollar is the medium of exchange but where the US has only a minority market share. A global economy driven by tough efficiency demands in the light of thin profit margins almost everywhere is a good primer for accounting changes in other commodity markets as well. This process could begin in resources like steel and energy and spread to all other resources that are marketed globally. The world outside the US has a lot to gain from it.

Toni Straka is a Vienna, Austria-based independent financial analyst and portfolio manager, who worked as a financial journalist for over 15 years and now evaluates global market trends. He runs a blog, The Prudent Investor, where this piece first appeared.
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/GH26Dj01.html
Вернуться к началу
Посмотреть профиль Отправить личное сообщение
maxon
Site Admin


Зарегистрирован: 06.08.2004
Сообщения: 5657

СообщениеДобавлено: Пт Авг 26, 2005 1:57 pm    Заголовок сообщения: Про Боливию? Ответить с цитатой

Вот тут:
http://malchish.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=917#917

А вообще не разбрасывайся. Действительно пора тему специальную по Латинской Америке открывать. И все посты туда слить...

Да, интересно всё будет этой осенью... Устоит ли Венесуэла? Вряд ли... Международный жандарм всё же слишком силён. И опытен. Вьетнам всё же мы поддерживали. Теперь защитить некому.
Вернуться к началу
Посмотреть профиль Отправить личное сообщение
Arslan
Гость





СообщениеДобавлено: Пт Авг 26, 2005 2:04 pm    Заголовок сообщения: Про Боливию? Нет, про Питер. Ответить с цитатой

maxon писал(а):
Да, интересно всё будет этой осенью... Устоит ли Венесуэла?


Угу. Да и у нас, похоже, тоже будет интересно. Отпуска и каникулы заканчиваются, начинаются будни. Вот и "колыбель революции" потихоньку начинает раскачиваться...

http://www.rzd-partner.ru/comments/index.php?action=view&st=1124855524&id=0
Вернуться к началу
maxon
Site Admin


Зарегистрирован: 06.08.2004
Сообщения: 5657

СообщениеДобавлено: Пт Авг 26, 2005 2:11 pm    Заголовок сообщения: Re: Про Боливию? Нет, про Питер. Ответить с цитатой

Ерунда. Масштаб не тот. Локально для Питера и только из-за зарплаты.
Вернуться к началу
Посмотреть профиль Отправить личное сообщение
Arslan
Гость





СообщениеДобавлено: Пт Авг 26, 2005 2:33 pm    Заголовок сообщения: Re: Про Боливию? Нет, про Питер. Ответить с цитатой

maxon писал(а):
Ерунда. Масштаб не тот. Локально для Питера и только из-за зарплаты.


Царя тоже свергли пустые кастрюли.
Вернуться к началу
maxon
Site Admin


Зарегистрирован: 06.08.2004
Сообщения: 5657

СообщениеДобавлено: Пн Сен 12, 2005 2:07 pm    Заголовок сообщения: Re: А в Венесуэле? Ответить с цитатой

Что там нового?

Цитата:
Российский "Газпром" выиграл тендер по двум лицензиям на разработку шельфовых газовых месторождений в Венесуэле. Об этом в Каракасе заявил министр энергетики и нефти латиноамериканской страны Рафаэль Рамирес.


http://www.finiz.ru/cfin/tmpl-art_news/id_art-947568

Забавно?
Вернуться к началу
Посмотреть профиль Отправить личное сообщение
Nadin
Автор


Зарегистрирован: 26.05.2005
Сообщения: 208

СообщениеДобавлено: Пн Сен 19, 2005 7:31 am    Заголовок сообщения: Re: А в Венесуэле? Ответить с цитатой

Речь Уго Чавеса
Цитата:
The people of the United States have always been very rigorous in demanding the truth to their leaders; the people of the world demand the same thing. There were never any weapons of mass destruction; however, Iraq was bombed, occupied and it is still occupied. All this happened over the United Nations. That is why we propose this Assembly that the United Nations should leave a country that does not respect the resolutions taken by this same Assembly. Some proposals have pointed out to Jerusalem as an international city as an alternative. The proposal is generous enough to propose an answer to the current conflict affecting Palestine. Nonetheless, it may have some characteristics that could make it very difficult to become a reality. That is why we are bringing a proposal made by Simуn Bolнvar, the great Liberator of the South, in 1815. Bolнvar proposed then the creation of an international city that would host the idea of unity.

Интернациональный город Иерусалим? Shocked Скажите, пожалуйста, что у меня паранойя...
Вернуться к началу
Посмотреть профиль Отправить личное сообщение
penzevkot
Писатель


Зарегистрирован: 10.08.2004
Сообщения: 422
Откуда: г. Дальнегорск Приморский край

СообщениеДобавлено: Пн Сен 19, 2005 1:03 pm    Заголовок сообщения: Re: Что происходит в Саудовской Аравии Ответить с цитатой

Пожалуйста!!! У Вас, Надин, паранойя и вам всюду мерещится жидомасонский заговор. А еще Вы антисемитка. Very Happy
_________________
Все врут, но это не имеет значения, потому что никто не слушает.
Вернуться к началу
Посмотреть профиль Отправить личное сообщение
Nadin
Автор


Зарегистрирован: 26.05.2005
Сообщения: 208

СообщениеДобавлено: Сб Окт 08, 2005 11:41 pm    Заголовок сообщения: Ай да Чавес!.. Ответить с цитатой

Венесуэла ликвидировала все свои вклады в государственные облигации США и перевела все свои валютные резервы в Европу.

Уго Чавес продолжает дразнить американского тигра .
За уклонение от уплаты налогов в Венесуэле закрыты местные отделения Ай-би-эм, Майкрософта и многих других американских и транснациональных компаний. Билл Гейтс готовится разделить участь Михаила Ходорковского? Laughing

Вот думаю, ему как в Ираке устроят или по тихому покушение , смертник практически Crying or Very sad .
Вернуться к началу
Посмотреть профиль Отправить личное сообщение
Показать сообщения:   
Начать новую тему   Эта тема закрыта, вы не можете писать ответы и редактировать сообщения.    Список форумов malchish.org -> Экономика и финансы Часовой пояс: GMT + 3
На страницу 1, 2, 3  След.
Страница 1 из 3

 
Перейти:  
Вы не можете начинать темы
Вы не можете отвечать на сообщения
Вы не можете редактировать свои сообщения
Вы не можете удалять свои сообщения
Вы не можете голосовать в опросах


Реклама. . . .
Powered by phpBB.