US-Truppen im Irak

The sources said that the United States had presented a plan for emergency economic aid to Jordan in case its economic and trade relations with Iraq fall into a crisis.


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

As-Safir, Beirut, Friday, 28 June 2002.

The Turkish paper Yeni Safak, reported on 27 June 2002, quoting sources in the Turkish Foreign Ministry, that the US has transported about 7,000 troops via heavy transport planes to the Incirlik airbase near Adana in the last two weeks. The paper added that Washington had begun to strengthen its forces in the area after its decision to begin military operations against Baghdad within the coming two months. The paper said that the number of US troops in Turkey would be increased from 7,000 to 25,000 troops during next month.

URL to the original Turkish story in Turkish:                                                                                  www.yenisafak.com.tr/arsiv/2002/haziran/27/g4.html



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

Copyright ©  As Safir 2002. For fair use only

However, despite the numerous protests sent to the United Nations and the UN Security Council, the organizations have already lost influence in the world. The USA is becoming more active in different spheres, including the information and propaganda front. Information agencies report that a new department has been created in the Pentagon for “public opinion forming," especially regarding the Mideast problem. The department has already developed several suggestions “for the popularization of the views of the US authorities of world’s events” by undermining the information sources of those governments that are opposed to the USA.

NATO Secretary General George Robertson may explain US’s position on Iraq as long as he wishes and say that Americans do not plan to start an "anti-terrorist" operation there, because there is no proof of any connection between Hussein’s regime and Al Qaeda militants. However, an operation has been already launched.


Sergey Yugov
PRAVDA.Ru

for the leader

Translated by Maria Gousseva

Read the original in Russian: pravda.ru/main/2002/02/20/37358.html  

images.pravda.ru/images/05.gif" style="max-width:560px" >
images.pravda.ru/images/07-.gif" style="max-width:560px" >
           images.pravda.ru/images/06.gif" style="max-width:560px" >

pics.rbc.ru/rbcmill/img/ddhisptdlm/efbdgrqfwmy/julesvern.gif" style="max-width:560px" >

Èòàëèÿ!!! Îíà çîâåò è ìàíèò! Ñòðàíà, êóäà õî÷åòñÿ ïîåõàòü âñåãäà, à îñîáåííî ëåòîì. Âîñïåòàÿ â ìóçûêå, ïîýçèè è ïðîçå, çíàêîìàÿ âñåì ïî õîëñòàì âåëè÷àéøèõ õóäîæíèêîâ, îíà ïðîäîëæàåò ïðèòÿãèâàòü ê ñåáå èíòåðåñ ìèëëèîíîâ òóðèñòîâ. Âû ìîæåòå îáúåçäèòü âñþ Èòàëèþ, ïîáûâàòü íà ýêñêóðñèè â Âåíåöèè, Ðèìå, Ôëîðåíöèè, Ãåíóå, Ìèëàíå, îòäîõíóòü íà çíàìåíèòûõ êóðîðòàõ Àäðèàòè÷åñêîãî è Ëèãóðèéñêîãî ïîáåðåæüÿ, à ìîæåòå è ñîâìåñòèòü ýêñêóðñèè è îòäûõ

Der Krieg gegen den Irak wird vorbereitet

In den USA gehen Aktienkurse und Dollar nach unten und Wirtschaftsjournalisten der USA wundern sich


Seit dem Golfkrieg 1990/91muten die USA dem Rest der Welt besonders viel zu. Sie überziehen arme und ärmste Länder mit Krieg, zerbomben die Infrastruktur von wehrlosen Ländern wie Somalia, Sudan, Jugoslawien und Afghanistan, nisten sich in Zentralasien unter der Schirmherrschaft willfähriger altstalinistischer Diktatoren ein und tragen ihren "Krieg gegen den Terrorismus" überall hin. Am 31. Januar 2002 titelt BBC-Online beispielsweise "US takes terror war to the Philippines". So platt wird das weltweit gesehen und beschrieben.

Die Versuche der rechtesten Kreise um den US-amerikanischen militärisch-industriellen Komplex (so hieß das einstens bei Linken), den Irak jetzt endgültig von Saddam Hussein zu befreien und sich die Schätze dort unter Verteilung einiger Brösel (Ölfelder in Kirkuk) an abhängige Satrapen wie die Türkei anzueignen, währen nun schon seit der Clinton-Ära, und die heiße Phase wird jetzt eingeläutet. Selbstverständlich sind die Briten mit von der Partie, ist ihr Kapital doch am intensivsten mit dem der USA verflochten.

In der nächsten Woche heißen sie gemäß der heutigen Londoner Times zur Koordinierung der Beseitigung Saddam Husseins die abenteuerlichsten irakischen Oppositionellen bei sich willkommen:

Iraqi National Congress (INC), gegründet 1992, unter Führung von Ahmed Chalabi, den wir dank dem Aspen Institute im Frühjahr 2002 auch schon im Berliner Adlon bewundern durften - von der US-Regierung bezahlte Leute;

Iraqi National Accord, gegründet 1990, geleitet von Iyad Alawi, eine Gruppe von desertierten und emigrierten irakischen Armeeangehörigen und Sicherheitskräften, die, wenn gewünscht, auch schon mal aussagen, daß Saddam Hussein im Lande Terroristenausbildungslager betreibt - unterstützt von der CIA;

Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP), die von Massoud Barzani geleitete älteste der zwei kurdischen Gruppen, die dank der von den USA und Großbritannien selbstherrlich ernannten No-Fly-Zones und reichlicher finanzieller Unterstützung durch die USA gut lebt;

Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK), die andere, von Jalal Talabani geleitete und mit der KDP nur durch Zweckbündnis seit kurzem geeinte Kurdengruppe. Beide Kurdengruppen haben zusammen von den USA militärisch ausgestattete ca. 40 000 Mann unter Waffen;

Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution, eine vom im Exil in Teheran lebenden Ayatollah Mohammed Baqer al-Hakim geleitete und vom Iran unterstützte Schia-Vereinigung, die gemeinsam mit KDP und PUK die am glaubwürdigsten bewaffnete Gruppe darstellt.

Diese heterogene Fünfergruppe, um es milde auszudrücken, man könnte auch sagen, diese sich seit Jahren um einen ihrem Zugriff fernen Kuchen streitenden Gruppen und ihre Führer sollen so ungefähr ab nächstem Winter unter der Leitung des US-Militärs mit Saddam Hussein aufräumen. Dabei werden seitens der US-Regierung Annahmen verkündet, die sich schon seit Jahren als unrealistisch erwiesen haben.

Das bedeutet, daß das US- und das britische Militär selbst zu Tausenden in den Angriffskrieg eingreifen wird. Die USA selbst sprechen von ca. 200 000 Soldaten. Es wird ein Massenmorden auf allen Seiten geben, und die deutschen Panzer und ihre Besatzungen, bereits jetzt vor Ort in Stellung, werden sich auf deutschen Befehl hin beteiligen. Schließlich wollen wir auch etwas von dem Kuchen abhaben. Man könnte an die bei Lukoil unter Vertrag befindlichen Ölfelder denken, und Rußland könnte somit seine Schulden bei uns verrechnen.

Das Szenario ist im Grunde einfach, und es ist den westlichen Militärs, auch den deutschen, bekannt: die fünf Gruppen werden allein nicht in der Lage sein, die irakische Regierung zu beseitigen, denn die einander widerstrebenden Kräfte innerhalb dieser Gruppen werden eine gemeinsame Stoßrichtung nicht zulassen. Das bedeutet, daß die USA und Großbritannien sich bereits jetzt auf einen blutigen opferreichen Krieg festlegen, und auch die deutsche Regierung scheint bereit, ihre Soldaten zu Hunderten zu opfern.

Es wird nämlich keinen Krieg wie in Jugoslawien aus 15 km Höhe geben, sondern Feindberührung.

Sollte die irakische Regierung dann erfolgreich vertrieben sein, wird es ähnlich wie in Afghanistan keine arbeitsfähige Regierung geben können, sondern nur bezahlte Agenten à la Djindjic und Karzai, und ein Land mehr wird fertig gerührt sein.

Es gibt aber einen Unterschied. Am Irak werden sich die USA überheben. Auch sie werden sich sozial, wirtschaftlich und politisch vom Krieg gegen den Irak nicht erholen. Der Verlauf ist nämlich nicht so einfach wie in Jugoslawien oder gar in Afghanistan einzuschätzen. Die Auswirkungen auf die übrigen arabischen Staaten, auf Europa und auf Asien sind für die USA unüberschaubar.

Das merken die US-amerikanischen Aktienmärkte und reagieren entsprechend. Das kann nur jemanden verwundern, der die Marktbewegungen losgelöst von der jetzigen Militärpolitik der US-Regierung betrachtet. Die US-amerikanische Wirtschaft erholt sich angeblich, die Federal Reserve tut alles, um das zu stützen, aber die Aktienmärkte dümpeln vor sich hin. Es kommen kaum noch neue interessante Firmen an die Börse, und es stellt sich die Frage, wo die Unternehmer bleiben?

Ja, wo laufen sie denn, wo laufen sie denn???

Sie ziehen sich zurück, bei dieser Unsicherheit. Die zügellose Kriegspolitik der Bush-Regierung trägt nicht zur Gesundung der Wirtschaft bei, da mögen einige der großen Rüstungsfirmen profitieren und die Carlyle Group ihren Schnitt machen, das Handelsdefizit jedoch wächst. Bei fallendem Dollar werden die Importe teurer, und das Defizit wird größer.

Ausländische Investoren bleiben erst recht weg, und die schon dort sind, verkaufen, denn sie wollen nicht weiter Kapitalverluste durch die Dollarentwertung hinnehmen. Das immer größer werdende Handelsdefizit zu finanzieren (pro Tag vergrößert es sich um eine Milliarde Dollar), wären Dreiviertel aller weltweit getätigten Kapitalexporte nötig. Wenn aber ein Investor nicht absieht, daß er irgendwann sein Geld mit Gewinn zurückbekommt, schaut er sich woanders um und investiert in Euro- und in Yen-Werte. Schon jetzt haben nach Schätzungen von US-Finanzanalysten ausländische Investoren in den USA zwischen 400 und 600 Milliarden Dollar Verluste eingefahren. Firmen wie Enron und WorldCom trugen dazu mit zig Milliarden Dollar bei. Es ist fast sicher, daß es weitere derartige Spekulationskonzerne gibt. Europäische Banken sind die größten Gläubiger von WorldCom. Was sollte sie dazu bringen, weiterhin die Defizite der USA zu finanzieren?

So betrachtet, sind auch Reden über sinkende Chancen der deutschen Wirtschaft und Investoren in den USA bei fortwirkendem deutschen Antisemitismus nicht recht stichhaltig. Die Investoren bleiben freiwillig weg. Wohlverhalten den Juden und/oder Israel gegenüber ist nicht mehr nötig. So sieht's leider aus, und das weiß auch Jürgen Möllemann.

Die Aktienwerte der US-Firmen würden sich erholen, wenn die Investoren sicher sein könnten, daß die US-Regierung sich um ihre Wirtschaft kümmert. Hohes Wirtschaftswachstum und niedrige Inflation waren seit den 80er Jahren Garanten für ausländische Investitionen. Seit fast nur noch die Kriegsindustrie wächst, bleiben die Investoren fort.

Eine Spirale nach unten.

Da hilft nur noch die Spaßindustrie. Auf dem Foto, oben, sehen Sie ehemalige Enron-Angestellte, die sich dem Playboy zu einschlägigen Fotos verdingen. Irgendwie müssen die verlorenen Ersparnisse und die Rente ja wieder reingeholt werden.



Autorin: Dr. Gudrun Eussner, Paris, 04.07.2002
Foto: Reuters
Quelle: © Philosophischer Salon e.V, Berlin

zustande:
Der Mod weigerte sich sein Kinderzimmer aufzuräumen, daraufhin hat Mutti ihm den Nachttisch für eine Woche gesperrt. Total frustiert über diese schlechte Nachricht rief der Mod seine Freundin an & hat sie gebeten ihn doch zu Hause zu besuchen. Die Freundin vom Mod hatte sich aber inzwischen einen wahren Mann gesucht & einfach den Hörer eingehängt, -daraufhin wollte sich der Mod wenigstens einen runterholen, da er aber das Ding nicht zum stehen brachte, fiel ihm der Mod-Status bei Ariva ein.
Weil schnorrer auf den schwarzen Stern keine Reaktion zeigte , brach er in Tränen aus, versprach Mutti wieder ganz lieb sein & sein Zimmer regelmässig aufzuräumen, -worauf Mutti ihm seinem so heissgeliebten Schokoladenpudding brachte.

diesem Schwarzen die Chance zu einem psychosozialen Experiment von nie dagewesenem Ausmaß habe: ich habe den härtesten, sachlich ununstößlichsten, emotional unangreifbarsten, religiös fundertesten und politisch korrektesten Widerspruch abgeschickt, den ich je gemacht habe. Hier der ganze Widerspruch, in Originalform, ohne Kürzung, exclusiv vorab, nur für Euch:


"Arschloch"


PS: mal kucken, wie die pm-Kasper-Truppe darauf reagiert ...

schon vor Tagen und es ist wirklich töricht von dir,lieber schnorrer,so einen Widerspruch abzuschicken,denn hättest du ihn einfach kurz begründet,dass er keinen beleidigt,wäre der Moderator erst mal  gesperrt worden .Solche moderatoren können wir nicht brauchen!

www.truthout.com/docs_02/07.06C.iraq.3.sides.htm

 
zu Papier bringst ist einfach genial....diese Moderatorenluschis sollte man an die Decke tackern

www.observer.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,750845,00.html

Elan bist du hier der NUKER ?

 
unter vorbehalt sag ich mal nein, aber nach deiner erklärung könnte ich auf ja antworten...je nach dem, aber derzeit ist mir der begriff nuker fremd.

Selbst der UNSCOM-Waffeninspektor Scott Ritter, einer der Hardliner in der Embargopolitik des Westens gegen den Irak, teilte öffentlich mit, daß die irakischen Waffensysteme auf biologischem, chemischem, ballistischem und nuklearem Gebiet zerstört sind. Um diese wiederaufzubauen benötige man viel Geld und Technologie – beides steht nicht zur Verfügung. Die Berichte der Vereinten Nationen über die Rüstungssituation liegen vor, die Berichte der Geheimdienste sind genau bekannt. Dennoch ignoriert die USA, die erst kürzlich die Bereitschaft zu "präventiven Erstschlägen" – also den Einsatz von Massenvernichtungswaffen bekanntgab, diese Berichte. Mehr noch, UN-Berichte, die nicht in das US-Bild von der "Achsenmacht des Bösen" Irak passen, veränderten auf ihrem bürokratischen Weg von Bagdad nach New York auf mysteriöse Weise ihren Inhalt. Wer im Auftrag der UNO dennoch Berichte abliefert, die dieses Bild stören, bekam von US-Außenamtsmitgliedern zu hören: "Wenn Sie nicht unserer Meinung sind, dann verstehen Sie die Problematik nicht".
Wenn selbst internationale Organisation wie das Rotes Kreuz, UNICEF und WHO von einer apokalyptischen humanitären Situation im Irak sprechen, wenn mehrfach selbst hochrangige UNO-Mitarbeiter ihr Amt aus Gewissensgründen zurücklegen, ihre Berichte verfälscht oder ignoriert werden, wenn selbst Waffeninspektoren zu der Ansicht gelangen, daß vom Irak keine Gefahr mehr ausgeht, wenn also die USA und Großbritannien entgegen allen Fakten, entgegen selbst allen minimalen humanitären Einwenden nach wie vor vehement für die Aufrechterhaltung des Embargos und für eine neuerliche militärische Intervention gegen den Irak eintreten, so drängt sich die Frage auf, worum es in ihrer gesamten Irakpolitik geht. Spätestens seit dem 11.September 2001 und trotz wenig erfolgreichen Anstrengung seitens der USA den Irak als Drahtzieher des Terrors darzustellen, scheint ein erneuter Krieg gegen den Irak früher oder später beschlossene Sache zu sein. Krieg gegen ein bitterarmes Land, dessen Bevölkerung seit 12 Jahren einem unmenschlichen, international sanktionierten Embargo ausgesetzt ist und von dem keinerlei militärische Gefahr ausgeht. Warum? Zu welchem Zweck? Mit welcher Perspektive? Noch zögern die USA offensichtlich die beschlossene Intervention durchzuführen, weshalb bleibt Spekulationen seitens politischer Kommentatoren überlassen, so wird vermutet, daß der Krieg in Palästina einen Militärschlag gegen den Irak derzeit unopportun, wenn nicht unmöglich macht. Andere Vermutungen gehen dahin, daß die militärischen Kapazitäten derzeit nicht ausreichend sind um gleichzeitig weiterhin den Krieg in Afghanistan zu führen und den Krieg gegen den Irak zu intensivieren. Dennoch scheint es nur eine Frage der Zeit zu sein, bis wieder US- und britische Bomben Zivilisten im Irak zerfetzen.

Ob die Aktien steigen werden, ist nicht sicher. Der Dollar wird aber während eines Krieges steigen.

R.

"Gut anal-ysiert"

But talking is one thing; determining exactly how the ties to the oil industry affect domestic and foreign policy is another. How much influence does the oil industry have? Is the U.S. bombing Afghanistan in part because -- as antiwar critics have claimed -- the industry wants to clear a path for oil and gas pipelines? Will the Bush administration steadfastly avoid confrontation with Saudi Arabia -- home of 15 of the 19 suspected hijackers -- because it doesn't want to upset ExxonMobil and the other oil companies with a deep Saudi stake? Or, even more intriguingly, could the close ties between Bush and the Saudis lead to increased U.S. pressure on Israel to create a peace settlement?
Or is this too simplistic? Since at least World War II, the oil industry has often been forced by the U.S. government to serve foreign policy objectives, rather than the other way around. Presidents have generally accepted oil's economic significance, its role as the grease that makes capitalism go. But even the most conservative administrations have regularly emphasized geopolitical objectives -- Soviet containment, for example -- at the expense of oil industry interests. Aspects of Bush's energy plan suggest that even this administration will not break the give-and-take pattern.
The problem, however, is that this pattern, the so-called "cheap oil strategy" looks more and more like a failure. Foreign oil dependence has risen over the past decade while now -- with anti-American sentiment growing in the Arab world -- foreign oil supplies are looking increasingly insecure. More than ever, some kind of national policy pushing both conservation and the development of renewable energy resources seems eminently prudent, if not necessary.
And that's where the current makeup of the Bush administration becomes crucial -- not because Bush-Cheney and company plan to invade Iraq to make it safe for ExxonMobil, (although that's not totally beyond the bounds of possibility) but because these are the last men and women in the world to expect radical change from on questions related to energy. Their friends, finances, and worldviews are all oil-drenched.
George W.'s ties to oil don't prove that the industry decides our every foreign policy move. But they do just about guarantee, for all practical purposes, that nothing significant will change in American energy policy. With Bush-Cheney in power, oil addiction is here to stay.
It's a Bush family affair
The fusion of oil and politics is a Bush family tradition. For generations, the Bushes and their friends have been shuttling back and forth between energy industry boardrooms and Washington's hallowed halls.
Bush's grandfather, Prescott Bush, initiated the pattern. Shortly before winning a Connecticut Senate seat in 1952 he helped his son George raise $350,000 to start what would become Zapata Petroleum.
Sen. Bush also regularly looked out for the oil industry and his son's interests while in Washington. His biggest single favor, according to Herbert Parmet's book "George Bush: The Life of a Lone Star Yankee," came a year into his first Senate term, when he opposed legislation that would have federalized offshore resources -- including oil -- to raise money for education. In the name of states' rights and free enterprise, the bill's defeat helped both the oil companies and gave Zapata just what it needed to expand. In fact, soon after the legislation failed, Zapata moved into offshore drilling -- eventually one of Zapata's most lucrative ventures
George Bush made millions during the '50s and '60s Texas oil boom, and he also made many friends, most notably James Baker, who became Bush's company lawyer in 1963 after Zapata merged with Penn to become Pennzoil.
Bush later brought his friends to Washington, first as a representative in the House, then as head of the Republican National Committee and finally as vice president and president. He didn't stock his administration as full of oilmen and women as his son has, but like Prescott Bush, he didn't mind doing the industry's bidding either. His most public act for oil came in 1981. While serving as Ronald Reagan's vice president, he departed from the White House's official stance and visited Saudi Arabia to plead for an end to sliding prices. Bush argued that he was simply trying to protect American security interests by protecting domestic producers, who have higher costs than their Persian Gulf counterparts. But higher prices had another benefit: by protecting domestic oil jobs, they helped shore up support in Texas for what would eventually become his successful 1988 presidential campaign.
Higher prices also directly helped Bush's son, George W. Bush. George W.'s oil career started in 1978 -- 12 years after his father first entered Congress -- when several of his father's friends invested in his firm, Arbusto ("Bush" in Spanish). Unlike his father, George W. spent much of his oil career in the red. As Joe Conason pointed out in Harper's last year before the election, the company's original investors and others bailed out his firm at least three times. But after a final act of corporate CPR -- a merger with Harken Energy in 1986 -- Bush's connections to power really paid off. Two years after the merger, Abdullah Taha Bakhsh, a former director of Saudi Arabia's income tax department, purchased an 11 percent stake in Harken through his company Traco International. That same year, Harken won a contract for oil-drilling in Bahrain.
"Harken had no international experience at the time," says Eisner at the Center for Public Integrity, which published a detailed account of Bush's rise to power titled "The Buying of the President: 2000." "It was their first out of country contract."
Press reports at the time questioned Bahrain's motivations. Even the normally reserved Wall Street Journal reported in 1991 that the contract "raises the question of ... an effort to cozy up to a presidential son."
The Bush family countered that the contract was well deserved. Regardless, the deal in the Persian Gulf gave Bush a direct tie to the Saudi elite and set Bush on a suddenly successful path.
"It's not just the matter of a single contract," Eisner says. "It also has to do with converting Harken into a player that was then converted into a stake in the Texas Rangers and a run for governor. It's not incidental. The Bahrain deal is central to Bush's life."
Some experts suggest that it's not necessarily a bad thing to have a presidential family so steeped in oil knowledge, given the importance of oil to both national security and the domestic economy. But Bush has shown a pervasive willingness to let oil interests define energy and environmental policy. After accepting millions from the industry during his run for governor, he signed into law tax breaks for state energy producers, and in 1997, he gave them a hand in writing their own rules. Upon hearing that Texas' state environmental agency planned to end an exemption that allowed power plants built before 1971 to avoid complying with state pollution laws, Bush tapped two people to come up with an alternative plan: Vic Beghini, an executive with Marathon Oil Inc. and Ansel Condray, an executive with Mobil.
The plan they came up with initiated a voluntary pollution reduction program that didn't punish companies for noncompliance and thus essentially failed. A study by the Environmental Defense Fund published six months after Bush announced the program revealed that only three of the 26 companies had actually cut their emissions. Two years later, under increasing public pressure, Bush signed a bill forcing power plants to cut their emissions in half by 2003 -- but the essential exemption, as the industry wanted, still stands.

The Condoleezza Rice-Chevron-Central Asia connection

The politicos surrounding Bush also have enjoyed warm government/oil-industry connections. While Bush used his elected position to help friends in his former industry, Cheney employed past government connections to improve his own bottom line.
Iraq provides the most dramatic example. Cheney, intentionally or inadvertently, went against his own edicts in order to pad his company's profits. He told Sam Donaldson in August 2000 that, as the head of Halliburton, "I had a firm policy that I wouldn't do anything in Iraq, even arrangements that were supposedly legal." And yet, as the Financial Times eventually proved, Cheney oversaw $23.8 million in sales to Iraq in 1998 and 1999. Cheney, who collected a $36 million salary before becoming vice president, essentially profited from the destruction of Iraq that he oversaw as secretary of defense during the Gulf War. And while the oil-rig and equipment sales were legal -- a 1998 U.N. resolution gave Iraq the right to rebuild its oil industry -- Cheney's firm sold through European subsidiaries "to avoid straining relations with Washington and jeopardizing their ties with President Saddam Hussein's government," according to a November 2000 Financial Times report.
Cheney also helped Halliburton obtain a windfall of U.S. government loans. He secured $1.5 billion in taxpayer-backed financing for Halliburton -- a massive increase over the $100 million loan it received during the five-year period before Cheney took over. And while Cheney has claimed that Halliburton's rise to power had nothing to do with his political stature, State Department documents obtained by the Los Angeles Times suggest that U.S. officials assisted Halliburton both in Asia and Africa. Even the domestic defense-contracting arm of Halliburton -- Brown & Root -- saw its fortune change drastically once Cheney took over. The company booked $1.2 billion in contracts between 1990 and 1995; with Cheney at the helm, contract awards spiked to $2.3 billion between 1995 and 2000.
Other Bush administration officials have also profited from past government experience and influence. Bush's father and his then Secretary of State James Baker -- the lawyer who fought for Bush during the Florida election fiasco -- work for the Carlyle Group, an investment firm that until recently collected investments from the bin Laden family and other members of the Saudi elite. Reagan's Secretary of State George Schultz sat on the board of Chevron before the arrival of Condoleezza Rice.
Rice joined the Chevron board in 1991, after serving for a year on Bush Sr.'s National Security Council. There, she earned a $35,000 annual retainer, $1,500 for every meeting she attended and stock options worth hundreds of thousands of dollars, according to SEC documents. She was reportedly hired for expertise in the former Soviet states, and long before U.S. planes started dropping bombs in nearby Afghanistan, she spent much of her time at Chevron working on prospective deals in the Caspian region. Chevron (with Mobil) already produces 70 percent of the oil coming out of the Tengiz oil field in Kazakhstan, according to Ahmed Rashid's book, "Taliban," and the company has been working hard to secure a pipeline that would allow more oil to be produced. In 1993, with Rice on the board, the company pulled together a pipeline project to carry oil to a Russian port on the Black Sea. Russian opposition eventually postponed the plan indefinitely but Chevron still holds a 45 percent stake in the project -- and given the present state of improved Russian-American relations, many suspect that project will eventually get off the ground.
The slowly improving relations between the U.S. and Iran could also help Chevron. When negotiations over pipelines from Tengiz broke down a few years ago, Chevron turned its focus toward the Islamic theocracy, asking the Clinton State Department for a "swapping" license. Approval would have allowed oil from Tengiz to be shipped across the Caspian to Iran while, in exchange, Chevron would be able to sell an equal amount of Iranian oil that would be shipped from the Persian Gulf. The proposal was never approved, but given Rice's ties, many have suspected that Chevron will soon play a larger role in American foreign policy, whether in Iran or the Caspian.
Critics of the Bush administration point out that a stabilized Caspian region could benefit Rice's friends at Chevron, and if she returns to the board, Rice herself. They also argue that maintaining dependence on Saudi oil could benefit Cheney's old firm and Bush's father, and ultimately, the president himself when an inheritance comes his way.
But there is no clear evidence, right now, of oil company desires affecting current U.S. foreign policy. If anything, the terrorist attacks have reduced the energy industry's influence. Before Sept. 11 Saudi Arabia was reportedly pushing the U.S. to pressure Israel into Palestine peace concessions and, according to a Newsweek story, Bush was beginning to comply. But after Sept. 11, the chance that the U.S. would accede to Saudi requests evaporated, given the numerous Saudi connections to the attacks.
In that sense, the trajectory of oil influence over foreign policy has continued upon its historical path. A review of the evidence suggests that over time, the oil industry has progressively lost power. But that still doesn't mean that the current administration is likely to do anything radical to alter U.S. dependence on foreign oil -- barring the unlikely event of Bush pulling a Nixon-visit-to-China shock, and using his oil ties to force a real commitment to renewable energy and conservation.

The URL of this article is:
globalresearch.ca/articles/CAV111A.html

world.altavista.com/
(ist übrigens auch ein ganz guter proxy zur Tarnung,wenn man die Seite angibt und oben auf die Rückübersetzung geht)

verträge machen.Na hab ichs nicht gesagt, was dahinter steckt!
July 11 (Reuters) - A government that could replace Iraqi President Saddam Hussein if he were deposed would seek a new OPEC quota of over five million barrels a day to make up for output lost during sanctions, according to a leading Iraqi dissident.

Ahmad Chalabi, head of the Iraqi National Congress, which includes the main factions opposed to Saddam, also told Reuters in an interview that he would allow U.S. companies access to Iraq's huge upstream oil potential.
Unless world demand grows quickly in years to come, a big rise in Iraqi output would have to be countered by even tighter OPEC restrictions, or prices could fall heavily.
Iraq says that, with reserves second only to Saudi Arabia, it aims to raise production capacity once sanctions are lifted to six million bpd.
Chalabi said production-sharing deals lined up by Saddam with companies from France, Russia and China -- the friendliest nations to Iraq on the U.N. Security Council -- could be renegotiated.

Other international companies, including those from the United States, could be invited to replace them, he said.

So könnt Ihr doch nicht argumentieren!
Es geht doch hier um die heldenhafte Verteidigung der Freien Welt und keineswegs um schnöde wirtschaftliche Interessen wie etwa Ölvorkommen.

ps. Der put-Anteil in meinem Depot wird steigen, heute vielleicht noch einen auf PRG

Basis 10 000, fällig Dezember.

Um es mit Wilhelm Busch zu sagen:

Gibts hier einen Reibach,
kauf' ich einen Maybach.

Mal kucken, bisher 50% im Plus.

Cya

George Bush has given Iraq six months' notice that he plans to invade, despite a lack of support from his allies. With a new doctrine that stretches the definition of self-defence, the United States may be sowing the seeds of worldwide anarchy, writes Rupert Cornwell
21 July 2002
news.independent.co.uk/world/politics/story.jsp?story=316883
The worries of others seem scarcely to impinge. Britain, which together with the US has been conducting a quiet bombing war against Iraq for the past four years, is probably the sole major ally America can count on – although Tony Blair will face far more vocal opposition at home than anything President Bush encounters.
From the tone of its pronouncements you would think Washington was patting anxious allies on the head like parents taking a little child to the dentist for the first time: "Don't worry, we know what's good for you; it won't really hurt and when it's over you'll feel much better."
Any opposition voiced by governments in the Middle East is discounted, although the private message is different, assure those now familiar, ever anonymous "senior officials". Dick Cheney toured the region in March, and Paul Wolfowitz, the Deputy Secretary of Defense, was in Turkey last week trying to secure backing from a country whose air bases may be crucial for an invasion.
Back home, the polls say, most Americans buy the President's line: that unless this founder member of the "axis of evil" is halted in its tracks, Iraq will continue to develop nuclear, biological and chemical weapons, and either use them against the US or give them to terrorists who will do so.
There is no real public discussion – though finally the influential Senate foreign relations committee has announced it will hold hearings before the summer Congressional recess. Instead there are leaks. Almost every week brings more of them. Some suggest a massive air and land assault involving 250,000 or more troops; others point to an "Afghan" campaign, relying on aerial bombardment, special forces infiltration and help from Iraq's internal opposition (for Northern Alliance read the Kurds and the southern Shi-ites), or a combination of all the above.
last week it was revealed that the Pentagon was perfecting a new type of bomb for use on suspected weapons plants, that would detonate not explosives but a thick coagulant or foam to prevent deadly chemical and biological agents being released into the atmosphere.
The overall message, though, is unmistakable: that planning for Gulf War II, of which the administration was talking even before 11 September, is now at an advanced stage. Mr Bush insists no final decision has been taken, but he has been briefed extensively by Tommy Franks, head of Central Command, who would be in charge of a new Iraq war.
America is now claiming the right to attack before it is attacked – a concept extending far beyond the right of self-defence enshrined in Article 51 of the United Nations charter, and amounting to carte blanche for Washington to intervene as and when it chooses.
"Smart" weapons are far smarter now. A couple of US carrier groups carry more firepower than any country in the region. Allies in Europe and elsewhere may complain, but ultimately they are as mesmerised by US power as PGA golfers are by Tiger Woods.

Exiles gather in London to plot Iraq revolution
news.independent.co.uk/world/politics/story.jsp?story=314519
Whitehall sources confirmed that Tony Blair had decided Britain must back any US assault and had ordered defence planners to begin the preparations for a new war in the Gulf. Although Britain has not decided on its level of commitment, defence sources say planners have been told to expect to send 20,000-30,000 British troops.
The sources added that British Challenger II main battle tanks and other key armoured fighting vehicles were being pushed through a crash servicing and refit programme. The Ministry of Defence has explained the crash repairs programme by saying it is for a military exercise planned for Scotland.
However, expectation of a large British involvement in a US-led war to topple Saddam Hussein has been raised by reports that Britain will issue an emergency call-up of reservists in September and by reports of other preparations, including a big increase in RAF training flights.


 news.independent.co.uk/world/politics/story.jsp?story=316883
und hier der bewährte,wenn auch etwas komische Übersetzer:
world.altavista.com/