Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

Plan B? Well...next time, then!!!

What's on your mind?
General interest discussions, not necessarily related to depletion.

Plan B? Well...next time, then!!!

Unread postby Barbara » Thu 07 Jul 2005, 07:31:52

Just read on italian news:
"Because of the terror attack, the G8 planned discussion about energy, climate and debt will be switched to a terrorism and security issues discussion."

So much for Plan B.

(Guess who has to gain from this... Al Qaida? :x )
**no english mothertongue**
--------
Objects in the rear view mirror
are closer than they appear.
Barbara
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1121
Joined: Wed 26 May 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Zoorope

Unread postby Sys1 » Thu 07 Jul 2005, 08:37:55

Pretty stupid to cancel energy discussions, as Iraq and Afghanistan wars -which fed terrorism- were linked to peak oil.
User avatar
Sys1
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 983
Joined: Fri 25 Feb 2005, 04:00:00

Unread postby Novus » Thu 07 Jul 2005, 08:45:09

The powers that be sercretly want a resource war. They know we can't conserve our way out of this anyway. This was probably an inside job and there will be many more to come on the road to armageddon.

Image
User avatar
Novus
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2450
Joined: Tue 21 Jun 2005, 03:00:00

Unread postby ShawnAvery » Thu 07 Jul 2005, 09:03:30

i think i totally agree with that. resource war as pretext for mass depopulation is an agenda i could definitely see those in power using to preserve their positions. with todays weapons war is more like mass slaughter than anything.

the topic shift of the g8 is really disturbing. shifting the focus like that allows them to avoid responsibility for the real causes of these problems. i know it sounds cold hearted, but we should be addressing the roots of terrorism and working to fight poverty and educate people so these things dont happen rather than militarizing everything.

violence only causes more violence.
"It's a lot easier to get someone who's never been burnt to jump in the fire.." -me
User avatar
ShawnAvery
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 51
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: arizona

Unread postby Raxozanne » Thu 07 Jul 2005, 09:05:58

Next they will track the bombing suspects to Saudi Arabia and Iran and off we go!!!
Hello, my name is Rax. I live in the Amazon jungle with a bunch of women. We are super eco feminists and our favourite passtimes are dangling men by their ankles and discussing peak oil. - apparently
Raxozanne
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 945
Joined: Thu 24 Feb 2005, 04:00:00
Location: UK

Unread postby mgibbons19 » Thu 07 Jul 2005, 09:09:02

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Raxozanne', 'N')ext they will track the bombing suspects to Saudi Arabia and Iran and off we go!!!


Oh god don't even joke.
mgibbons19
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1105
Joined: Fri 20 Aug 2004, 03:00:00

Re: Plan B? Well...next time, then!!!

Unread postby Grimnir » Thu 07 Jul 2005, 09:42:21

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Barbara', 'J')ust read on italian news:
"Because of the terror attack, the G8 planned discussion about energy, climate and debt will be switched to a terrorism and security issues discussion."


Where?
Grimnir
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 851
Joined: Mon 04 Oct 2004, 03:00:00
Location: USA

Unread postby GD » Thu 07 Jul 2005, 10:08:10

This seems like the conspiracy theory thread then, so here goes:

ASPO Newsletters » July 2005 Bilderberger Conference:

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'E')nergy

An American Bilderberger expressed concern over the skyrocketing price of oil. One oil industry insider at the meeting remarked that growth is not possible without energy and that, according to all indicators, the world's energy supply is coming to an end much faster than the world leaders have anticipated. According to sources, Bilderbergers estimate the extractable world's oil supply to be at a maximum of 35 years under current economic development and population. However, one of the representatives of an oil cartel remarked that we must factor into the equation, both the population explosion and economic growth and demand for oil in China and India. Under the revised conditions, there is apparently only enough oil to last for 20 years. No oil spells the end of the world's financial system. So much has already been acknowledged by The Wall Street Journal and the Financial Times, two periodicals who are regularly present at the annual Bilderberg conference.

Conclusion: Expect a severe downturn in the world's economy over the next two years as Bilderbergers try to safeguard the remaining oil supply by taking money out of people's hands. In a recession or, at worst, a depression, the population will be forced to dramatically cut down their spending habits, thus ensuring a longer supply of oil to the world's rich as they try to figure out what to do.

:shock:

And as for the London Bombers?
I'm expecting an Iran "connection" to emerge...
User avatar
GD
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 151
Joined: Tue 01 Feb 2005, 04:00:00
Location: Devon, UK

Unread postby Barbara » Thu 07 Jul 2005, 10:08:49

On La Repubblica, 1st italian newspaper:

http://www.repubblica.it/2005/g/dirette ... index.html

Scroll the page to the news of 12:49.
**no english mothertongue**
--------
Objects in the rear view mirror
are closer than they appear.
Barbara
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1121
Joined: Wed 26 May 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Zoorope

Unread postby gnm » Thu 07 Jul 2005, 10:31:41

Can you translate please Barbara?
gnm
 

Unread postby Barbara » Thu 07 Jul 2005, 10:55:46

12:49 Esplosioni incidono su G8
Le esplosioni di Londra incidono sull'agenda del vertice del G8 a Gleneagles, da dove il premier britannico Tony Blair si appresta a parlare alla nazione. Se la natura terroristica delle esplosioni sarà confermata, l'accento della riunione si sposterà sui temi della sicurezza e della lotta al terrorismo, rispetto all'agenda iniziale che vedeva in primo piano l'ambiente e gli aiuti allo sviluppo.

12:49 Explosions influence G8
London explosions influence G8 agenda in Gleneagles, where premier Tony Blair is expected to address the nation. If terrorist origin of explosion will be confirmed, the riunion discussion will switch on security and war on terror, instead of original agenda which planned climate and international aid.

(Or something like that LOL...)
**no english mothertongue**
--------
Objects in the rear view mirror
are closer than they appear.
Barbara
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1121
Joined: Wed 26 May 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Zoorope

Unread postby sklump » Thu 07 Jul 2005, 11:07:17

IRA ... IRAn ... IRAq ?

Coincidence :?
As Canadian as ... possible, under the circumstances
User avatar
sklump
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 172
Joined: Tue 17 May 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Ottawa, Canada

Unread postby DriveElectric » Thu 07 Jul 2005, 15:46:23

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('GD', '
')And as for the London Bombers?
I'm expecting an Iran "connection" to emerge...


Why? Are the Iranians holding back any oil? They appear to be pumping at maximum and investing billions of dollars in expanding production. Invading Iran would just disrupt oil supplies and cause prices to skyrocket, thus hurting corporate profits and causing stock prices to plunge. The rich, including the Bush cabal, typically own lots of stock in those companies.

So tell me again why we would be framing Iran?
User avatar
DriveElectric
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 599
Joined: Sat 12 Mar 2005, 04:00:00

Unread postby GD » Thu 07 Jul 2005, 16:49:33

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')Why? Are the Iranians holding back any oil? They appear to be pumping at maximum and investing billions of dollars in expanding production. Invading Iran would just disrupt oil supplies and cause prices to skyrocket, thus hurting corporate profits and causing stock prices to plunge. The rich, including the Bush cabal, typically own lots of stock in those companies.

So tell me again why we would be framing Iran?



Remember the 2002/03 mantra?

Terrorism, WMD... Osama Bin Laden, Saddam Hussein... Terrorism, WMD... Osama Bin Laden, Saddam Hussein... Terrorism, WMD... Osama Bin Laden, Saddam Hussein...

Skip forward to the last 6 months:

Iran, Terrorism, Nucular (sic) weapons, Iran, Nucular programme, Iran WMD, Terrorism... Iran, Terrorism, Nucular weapons, Iran, Nucular programme, Iran, WMD, Terrorism...
User avatar
GD
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 151
Joined: Tue 01 Feb 2005, 04:00:00
Location: Devon, UK
Top

Unread postby DriveElectric » Thu 07 Jul 2005, 17:40:13

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('GD', '
')Remember the 2002/03 mantra?

Terrorism, WMD... Osama Bin Laden, Saddam Hussein... Terrorism, WMD... Osama Bin Laden, Saddam Hussein... Terrorism, WMD... Osama Bin Laden, Saddam Hussein...

Skip forward to the last 6 months:

Iran, Terrorism, Nucular (sic) weapons, Iran, Nucular programme, Iran WMD, Terrorism... Iran, Terrorism, Nucular weapons, Iran, Nucular programme, Iran, WMD, Terrorism...


Iraq sort of makes sense to invade. We could never allow Hussein free of sanctions, but at the same time we needed to be able to get investment into Iraq's oil fields and eventually expand output to 4 or 5 million bpd.

But the scenario just doesn't make sense to invade Iran or any other oil countries in the ME. None of them are withholding oil from the markets. They are all investing massively to expand output.

The only country where I see the USA potentially invading for regime change is Venezuela. Hugo Chavez could use a visit from a CIA sniper. Then allow the real oil people to get back to work in the state run oil company. Right now Chavez has fired them all and has political hacks screwing up everything.

But Iran? No real reason for an invasion scenario makes sense. Perhaps at most a bombing of their nuke facilities.

Syria? No oil there worth invading over. Maybe a few bombs as a warning shot to behave.
User avatar
DriveElectric
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 599
Joined: Sat 12 Mar 2005, 04:00:00
Top

Unread postby Barbara » Thu 07 Jul 2005, 17:51:14

>But the scenario just doesn't make sense to invade Iran
>or any other oil countries in the ME.
>None of them are withholding oil from the markets.

Didn't Iran just sign an agreement to sell oil to China? Buy some oil from Iran is something, CONTROLLING the whole production is quite another story. That's the reason to invade. Always remember Peak Oil is coming, and everything will fall in place ;) .
**no english mothertongue**
--------
Objects in the rear view mirror
are closer than they appear.
Barbara
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1121
Joined: Wed 26 May 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Zoorope

Unread postby DriveElectric » Thu 07 Jul 2005, 18:30:16

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Barbara', '&')gt;But the scenario just doesn't make sense to invade Iran
>or any other oil countries in the ME.
>None of them are withholding oil from the markets.

Didn't Iran just sign an agreement to sell oil to China? Buy some oil from Iran is something, CONTROLLING the whole production is quite another story. That's the reason to invade. Always remember Peak Oil is coming, and everything will fall in place ;) .


Oil is very liquid. A single country cannot control it or withhold it from the market. The black market will get around those government mandates and smuggle the oil out to the highest bidder (like the USA, Europe, Japan).

The classic example of this is countries who are Oil producers/exporters, yet they have massive gasoline shortages. Quite often the governments mandate below market gasoline prices for the local population. But the wholesale distributor has an incentive to sell the oil/gasoline on the black market instead of delivering it as an artifically cheap price to local citizens.

It doesn't matter if China has an oil deal with Iran. If China is paying below market prices, a large amount of the oil is going to end up on the open market and not in China. China free market capitalists are going to divert the oil and try to get Brent prices.
User avatar
DriveElectric
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 599
Joined: Sat 12 Mar 2005, 04:00:00
Top

Unread postby Bandidoz » Thu 07 Jul 2005, 19:23:15

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('DriveElectric', 'S')o tell me again why we would be framing Iran?

Petrodollars.
The Olduvai Theory is thinkable http://www.dieoff.com/page224.pdf
Easter Island - a warning from history : http://www.dieoff.org/page145.htm
User avatar
Bandidoz
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 147
Joined: Wed 02 Mar 2005, 04:00:00
Location: UK
Top

Unread postby GD » Fri 08 Jul 2005, 05:05:05

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Bandidoz', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('DriveElectric', 'S')o tell me again why we would be framing Iran?

Petrodollars.


Indeed, the Euro challenge to US$ hegemony (actually I think it's intended to join the party, not take over, but never mind). I doubt the black market will take care of that.

Anyway, I never had too much time to reply in full last night, so here's a bit more.

One of the lesser stated things with the Iraq invasion is the (other) state assets (apart from the oil) which are to be privatised (that will keep the corporate sponsors happy).

In order to open up the state's markets to global corps, you have to install a puppet govt. Iran is currently sanctioned up to the eyeballs, and the state laws prevent selling off state assets. Thinking of oil production, the Iranians are loathe to increase out of tune with their needs (and simply won't). Michael Klare's "Blood & Oil" really is the source on this. As far as PO figures, all the govt is concerned about is what happens on thier watch, never mind in 5-10years from now.

There's also this report I read a while back, from Scott Ritter (and this guy knows what he's on about!):

Thread on Scott Ritter's quotes.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'R')itter said the United States has been conducting secret reconnaissance missions inside Iran since last summer. He said people would be stunned to know that the U.S. is at war with Iran. "There hasn't been a national debate and the president hasn't declared war."

He said it all sounds very familiar. "The war in Iraq began in September of 2002, not March of 2003 like most would think," said Ritter. "And the Bush administration fabricated intelligence to back up its decision to go to war. Later, it manipulated the results of Iraq's elections," he said.

"We're being told a lot of lies and the media is following blindly and parroting information," said Ritter.

He said the Bush administration's goal for Iran is the destruction of the country's alleged program to develop nuclear weapons. Ritter said he believes the goal is to attack the oil-rich nation with the hopes of leading to a regime change as in Iraq.



It might not make sense to you, but when you put Neo-Con Goggles[TM] on, the world works incredibly differently. (You see, Iraq really is a terrific success, and all is going well...)

More info here (and probably the best place to discuss the ins and outs of attacking Iran):
The Iran geopolitics thread.
We have no Plan B. Haven't we? Discuss!
User avatar
GD
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 151
Joined: Tue 01 Feb 2005, 04:00:00
Location: Devon, UK
Top


Return to Open Topic Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

cron