Oil Storms

31.08.2005., srijeda

Nije nego....Bush gives 'new' reason

Bush gives new reason for Iraq war (AP-8/31/05)

President answered growing antiwar protests yesterday with a fresh reason for US troops to continue fighting in Iraq:
protection of the country's vast oil fields, which he said would otherwise fall under the control of terrorist extremists.

The president said terrorists would be denied their goal of making Iraq a base from which to recruit followers, train them, and finance attacks.
''We will defeat the terrorists," Bush said. ''We will build a free Iraq that will fight terrorists instead of giving them aid and sanctuary."
''We will not rest until victory is America's and our freedom is secure from Al Qaeda and its forces in Iraq led by Abu Musab alZarqawi."
''If Zarqawi and [Osama] bin Laden gain control of Iraq, they would create a new training ground for future terrorist attacks," Bush said.
''They'd seize oil fields to fund their ambitions. They could recruit more terrorists by claiming a historic victory over the United States and our coalition."

The speech was Bush's third in just over a week defending his Iraq policies, as the White House scrambles to counter growing public concern about the war. This week, the administration also had to defend the proposed constitution produced in Iraq at US urging.

'Well, mi smo se samo salili kad smo rekli da imaju WMD, mi smo u stvari zeljeli da...hm...Dick, sto sam ono trebao reci?...'

- 22:23 - Komentari (1) - Isprintaj - #

hehe, svida mi se ova zadnja recenica - to je to

Jaca • 01.09.2005. u 03:20

Khan-for-Iran

Da se malo vratimo u susjedstvo Irana u istom 'nukularnom' kontekstu.

Kad je lani otkriveno da je pakistanski 'top nuclear' znanstvenik (i otac pakistanskog nuklearnog programa) Abdul Qadeer Khan 15 godina tajno prodavao nacrte i opremu za izradu atomske bombe izmedju ostalih i Sj. Koreji i Iranu, bilo je logicno ocekivati nekakvu reakciju bushokracije prema pakistanskom predsjedniku Musharaffu. U krajnju ruku, proveli su cijeli prvi i drugi mandat do sad pricajuci o drzavama i diktatorima koji imaju WMD, a pogotovo o pojedincima koji podrzavaju teroriste i 'Axis of Evil' drzave u izgradnji WMD.

Pakistan i Musharaff su bili bas idealni za taj okvir. Ali....

It was sort of a surprise when Bush, upon finding out about Khan’s proliferation of nuclear technology, let Pakistan off with a slap on the wrist. But it was all an act. In fact, it was actually a cover-up designed to shield Cheney because he knew about the proliferation for more than a decade and did nothing to stop it.
Like the terrorist attacks on 9-11, the Bush administration had mountains of evidence on Pakistan’s sales of nuclear technology and equipment to nations vilified by the U.S. -nations that are considered much more of a threat than Iraq- but turned a blind eye to the threat and allowed it to happen.
In 1989, the year Khan first started selling nuclear secrets on the black-market; Richard Barlow, a young intelligence analyst working for the Pentagon prepared a shocking report for Cheney, who was then working as Secretary of Defense under the first President Bush administration: Pakistan built an atomic bomb and was selling its nuclear equipment to countries the U.S. said was sponsoring terrorism.
But Barlow’s findings were “politically inconvenient.” Why? A finding that Pakistan possessed a nuclear bomb would have triggered a congressionally mandated cutoff of aid to the country, a key ally in the CIA's efforts to support Afghan rebels fighting a pro-Soviet government.
It also would have killed a $1.4-billion sale of F-16 fighter jets to Islamabad.

Cheney dismissed Barlow’s report because he desperately wanted to sell Pakistan the F-16 fighter planes. Several months later, a Pentagon official was told by Cheney to downplay Pakistan ’s nuclear capabilities when he testified on the threat before Congress. Barlow complained to his bosses at the Pentagon and was fired.
“Three years later, in 1992, a high-ranking Pakistani official admitted that the country had developed the ability to assemble a nuclear weapon by 1987,” Mother Jones reported. “In 1998, Islamabad detonated its first bomb.”
Cheney went to great lengths to cover-up Pakistan ’s nuclear weaponry. In a New Yorker article published on March 29, 1993 investigative reporter Seymour Hersh quoted Barlow as saying that some high-ranking members inside the CIA and the Pentagon lied to Congress about Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal so as not to sacrifice the sale of the F-16 fighter planes to Islamabad, which was secretly equipped to deliver nuclear weapons.
Hersh explained that reasons behind the cover-up “revolves around the fact… that the Reagan Administration had dramatically aided Pakistan in its pursuit of the bomb.” “President Reagan and his national-security aides saw the generals who ran Pakistan as loyal allies in the American proxy war against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan : driving the Russians out of Afghanistan was considered far more important than nagging Pakistan about its building of bombs.
“The government’s ability to keep the Pakistani nuclear-arms purchases in America secret is the more remarkable because (since 1989) the State Department, the Central Intelligence Agency, and the Defense Department (under Cheney) have been struggling with an internal account of illegal Pakistani procurement activities, given by a former C.I.A. intelligence officer named Richard M. Barlow,” Hersh reported. “Barlow… was dismayed to learn, at first hand, that State Department and agency officials were engaged in what he concluded was a pattern of lying to and misleading Congress about Pakistan ’s nuclear-purchasing activities.”

The description by Hersh of what took place in mid-1990 is eerily reminiscent of what’s taking place today in terms of the current Bush administration’s foreign policy objectives.

In January 2005, Hersh revealed that the USA was conducting covert operations in Iran to identify targets for possible strikes. This was dismissed by both US government as well as the Government of Iran. However, US government has not categorically denied that US troops have been on the ground in Iran.

Hersh also claimed that Pakistan and USA have struck a "Khan-for-Iran" deal in which Washington will look the other way at Pakistan's nuclear transgressions and not demand handing over of its nuclear proliferator AQ Khan, in return for Islamabad's cooperation in neutralising Iran's nuclear plans. This was also denied by officials of the governments of the US and Pakistan.

Pakistan was let off the hook last month so the U.S. could use its borders to hunt for al-Qaeda leader and 9-11 mastermind Osama bin Laden...

- 02:26 - Komentari (1) - Isprintaj - #

I consider everyone ought to browse on it. http://edpillsuk.com

Adolf • 06.06.2012. u 20:49

26.08.2005., petak

Perzijski Macak Oko Vruce Ka$e

Da se mi nakon kraceg izleta u 'proslost' vratimo svakodnevnim i buducim dogadjanjima. Kako smo vec vidjeli da je trenutno Iran najveca knedla koju treba progutati evo da se opet malo podsjetimo zasto... (vrlo kratko jer se ponavljam!)
Slijedece godine Iran planira pokrenuti tzv. "oil bourse", ili stock exchange za energiju. 'Problem' koji imaju s tim je to sto je planiraju bazirati na Euru, ne na US dolaru, sto naravno dovodi u rizik americku Petrodollar politiku.

Petrodollar Hegemony
Today, most oil trading takes place on the New York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX) and the London-based International Petroleum Exchange (IPE).
Since the 1970s, the OPEC countries have all agreed to sell oil for US dollars only.
This means every country that wants to buy oil must first acquire enough US dollars to buy what it needs.
Year after year, America imports much more than it exports.
It must pay out that difference (its current accounts deficit) in dollars.
Last year, the US ran a current accounts deficit of over $600 billion USD; this year, it's expected to increase to $700 billion.

If there were no good reason for other countries to buy all those American dollars, then the dollar would decline in value until the US economy could no longer afford to import goods from abroad (that happens when other countries run large current accounts deficits over long periods). However, the deal with OPEC means other countries have no choice but to buy all those excess American dollars, which props up the value of the dollar and allows the American "import economy" to go on year after year.
Effectively, America's main export is US dollars, and it is absolutely imperative to preserve a captive market for those dollars among oil-consuming countries.
The continued viability of the US economy depends on it.
Americans can still afford to consume because their economy is suffused with cheap imports; a falling dollar will raise the prices of imported goods. At the same time, Americans enjoy some of the lowest oil prices in the world, largely due to the petrodollar arrangement. This has skewed the American vehicle market toward gas-guzzling but profitable SUVs and light trucks.

Selling Oil for Euros
One of the major unstated reasons the United States invaded Iraq was to stop Saddam Hussein from trading oil for euros, which he had begun in 2000. Hussein actually made more money selling oil for euros, as the euro appreciated 17 percent against the dollar between 2000 and 2003. Other countries in the region, particulary Iran and Syria, began public musing about switching from dollars to euros around the same time. All three countries were subject to a barrage of threats from the United States government, but only Iraq went through with the switch, and it was summarily invaded. One of the US government's first acts in Iraq was to switch oil sales back to dollars.

Now, Iran plans not just to sell oil for euros, but to create an exchange market for parties to trade oil for euros. The oil bourse will provide a euro-based price standard, the way West Texas Intermediate crude (WTI) and North Sea Brent crude do today. To the extent that the balance of reserve holdings starts to shift from dollars to euros, that's very bad news for America's system of dollar hegemony.

Iran is taking a calculated risk that enough countries have an interest in a petro-euro market to contain American aggression.
Many central banks are already quietly shedding their dollar reserves, nervous that America's economic fundamentals
=$500 billion federal deficit,
=$700 billion current accounts deficit,
=$4.5 billion federal debt,
=record business and personal debts,
=zero savings
cannot be sustained for long, and hoping to insulate themselves from what they see as an inevitable recession.
The US dollar has declined by a third against the euro since 2000, despite the petrodollar arrangement.

At the same time, Europe is eager to enjoy more of the "virtuous circle" that comes from supplying a major reserve currency: a ready market for its currency and guaranteed reinvestment as euro-holders plant their money in European markets.
Vladimir Putin, Russia's president, has also expressed interest in switching from dollars to euros. Russia would benefit from getting paid in a stronger currency, and it would represent a political victory over America after fifteen years of watching its clients and assets in the oil-rich Caspian region co-opted by American expansion.

Nuclear Politics
Iran may, indeed, be attempting to acquire nuclear weapons. However, Iran's presumed attempt to acquire nuclear weapons is only the politically acceptable excuse for America's threats. The real danger is that Iran will lay down the foundation for a post-hegemonic international energy industry in which America is merely one of many players.
If Iran is, in fact, developing nuclear weapons, it is doing so to acquire a deterrent against exactly this kind of American encroachment. Indeed, recent world events have only enforced the notion that a nation's successful efforts to acquire nuclear weapons confer respect and status, not the opprobrium it deserves. India, a growing economic power that possesses a nuclear arsenal and refuses to sign either the NPT or the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), has just been rewarded for its efforts by US President Bush, who has agreed to "work to achieve full civil nuclear energy cooperation with India." This is a straightforward violation of the NPT, which forbids signatories from exchanging nuclear materials or support with non-signatories.
If Iran really is trying to acquire nuclear weapons, is it any wonder why?
Look at the advantages that having nuclear arsenals have given to US allies India, Pakistan, and Israel, all of which have benefitted immensely from a playing field tilted in their favour by their ability to project devastating power. As official hysteria about Iran's intentions escalates in volume and intensity, remember the real force undermining the moral authority of the NPT: the big nuclear-'have' countries that still refuse either to apply the ban consistently or to take any meaningful steps of their own toward "general and complete disarmament" - ostensibly the NPT's ultimate goal.

Ironically, America originally invaded Iraq - a poor, defenseless country - partly to send a message to other oil producing countries not to rock the petrodollar system, but the real message for small countries is that they need to present a credible deterrent threat or risk being ignored and/or invaded.

- 23:09 - Komentari (13) - Isprintaj - #

Ispada da smo svi budale jer ne štancamo kune, eure ili već nešto... No zaboravljam da su oni spremni dolar braniti (i da ga brane!) svim sredstvima, a mi smo primorani uzeti aranžman od MMF-a i Svjetske banke (u dolarima naravno)... Spojeno je ugodno s korisnim. Ratuje se novcem poreznih obveznika za naftu i resurse na kojima će se obogatiti oni koji šalju trupe u rat. Nekima možda još uvijek nije jasno da su to isti ljudi koji su suvlasnici upravo tih kompanija ili investicijskih fondova koji su došli po resurse. Trebam li uopće govoriti da su suvlasnici tih istih kompanija i najveći teroristi koje lovi cijela Amerika! Sad bi trebali biti glupi i popušiti priču da uz svu špijunsku tehnologiju i vojnu opremu ne mogu uhvatiti jednog Osamu? Ja ne. To je sve stvar profita. Žalosno je što ljudi u siromašnim zemljama zbog toga gladuju i umiru. Uostalom i to je politika smanjenja broja ljudi tzv. depopulacijska politika. Moš ti to vjerovat? Neko se gadno igra Boga.

R.E. • 27.08.2005. u 12:14

Tocno, Boga ili Vraga, za nas svejedno....po maltuzijanskoj (ili neo-maltuzijanskoj u ovom slucaju) teoriji rasta stanovništva (stanovništvo se povećava geometrijskom progresijom, a hrana aritmetičkom progresijom) jednostavno je zakljuciti da ce u buducnosti biti manjak hrane svugdje ukoliko se ne poradi na smanjenju populacije na vrijeme...pa kako vidimo za sad im dobro to ide od ruke iz drugog plana, treba vidjet koje ce mjere poduzeti na slijedecem nivou kad preuzmu stvar direktno u svoje ruke

Monsoon • 27.08.2005. u 14:52

Bok Monsoon i Flop! Bash bi bilo zanimljivo doznati koliko je ljudi svjesno ove igre. U Americi sam 21 godinu i moj dojam je da su to ovdje ili tabu teme, ili da su ljudi ovdje toliko zaokupljeni svakodnevnim opstankom da nemaju vremena stati i vidjeti veliku sliku. Naravno, medija je dio iste igre, i chini divan posao od "classical conditioning-a" vlastitok puka.

- AMGAR - • 27.08.2005. u 19:52

Amgar, mislim da je i jedno i drugo odgovor, ali i trece jer ljudi jednostavno ne zele razmisljati na taj nacin i na zele znati da je ono sto se naziva 'sudbina' ipak 'malo' dirigirano izvana (i mozda je to i najbolja opcija jer je sudbina ili 'sudbina' vec odredjena i tesko da cemo nesto izmijeniti)...pozdrav SF-u!

Monsoon • 27.08.2005. u 20:43

S temom ovog posta sam vec dugo prakticki opsjednuta - procitala sam sve cega sam se mogla domoci. napravim oko 500 km tjedno autom razmisljajuci od benzinske do benzinske kako toceci benzin ((1litra nesto preko 1€) a to je samo jedan nacin, trenutacno najbolniji) moram prvo namiriti hrvatski budget (lopovske drzave koja se pravi da funkcionira), onda amgarovog alana g., odnosno US budget – (drzave koja dobro funkcionira , ali u konacnici na moj racun). ignoriranje cinjenica iz ovog posta i istovremeno savrseno normalna zelja da dobro odzivis svoj zivot u kojem te se ne ticu takve stvari pa ih aktivno ili pasivno porices me ponekad podsjeca na zivot zidova u varsavskom getu . s druge strane obicni ljudi zbog svega navedenog ni ne stignu razmisljati na taj nacin (+MSM i propaganda), a tzv. akademski krugovi su indoktrinirani (stupanj indoktrinacije je kriterij selekcije i uspjesnosti). to su samo neki od razloga zasto sve neminovno odlazi kvragu...da sad ne odlutam...:) da se vratim tvom postu: opisani mehanizam je trenutacno majka svih „zavjera“ , odnosno radi se o neoborivim, nimalo tajnim ni upitnim, iako dobro maskiranim cinjenicama iz kojih proizlaze sve teme o kojima tu raspravljamo, tj nema cijene koja se nece platiti da se mehanizam odrzi, svaka detaljnija rasprava o nacinu placanja te cijene danas se zove teorija zavjere...ha dobro....nek se zove kak god oni hoce.... o meni trenutacno vrlo simpaticnim irancima : ) jos cemo pricati, jer su na tragu metode koja bi teoretski mogla upaliti, ako se stvori kriticna masa – jos je nema, mozda je nece ni biti - ostatku svijeta fali malo njihove prgavosti

KeyDot • 27.08.2005. u 21:23

Bok KeyDot. Upotreba "fiat money" je prvi put bila zabljezena od nekog "dripca" sa jednog Jadranskog otoka, zvao se Marko Polo :-). Kroz svoja putovanja u Kinu u 13-tom stoljechu on je zabiljezio praksu upotrebe komadicha papira sa carskim shtambiljem raznih velichina u trgovini. Ne daj bog, da odbijesh primiti taj "novac", odmah gubish glavu. Slijedechi put se "fiat money" pojavio 1690-te u "Massachusetts Bay Colony" kad su se oni tukli protiv "French Colony in Quebeck". Ameri su bzo skuzili "dobru" ali i "loshu" stranu shtampanja takvog papira. I taj papir je gubio takmichenje u trgovini sa spanjolskim zlatnim dukatima. Do 1971-e dolar je bio "fractional money", i.e. neki postotak papirnog dolara je bio pokriven stvarnim zlatom. Taj postotak se godinama smanjivao, sve do 1971-e, kad je taj postotak spao na nulu. Eto pishem ovo samo da malo ozivim sliku o kojoj prichamo.

- AMGAR - • 28.08.2005. u 00:54

@amgar: a zasto te se ne smije ni pozdraviti na tvom blogu, ako nemam svoj :(

KeyDot • 28.08.2005. u 01:57

Bok KeyDot! Mene je u ovaj "blogging" dovela "LA Woman". Mi smo bili u dugoj i lijepoj romantichnoj vezi , prije njezinog braka :-). Danas smo jako dobri prijatelji. Njeno iskustovo ju je nauchilo da zabrani pristup "anonimcima"! Ima previshe ljudi koji koriste ovaj "medium" na "loshi" nachin. Nije problem otvoriti svoj blog, iako nemash namjeru stavljati "posts". Otvori svoj blog, i onda me mozesh psovati kolk'o god hochesh :-). Pozdrav.

- AMGAR - • 28.08.2005. u 02:20

@KeyDot - ajd' malo pojasni tu priču s Iranom i dišpetom... možeš i na mom blogichu, kako hoćeš... hvala!

R.E. • 29.08.2005. u 12:38

mislim da ce obzirom na 'nucular' (copyright by GWB)program, Iranu biti uvedene nakakve sankcije koje ce pokusat limitirat trgovinu s Iranom, a samim tim onemoguciti formiranje burze...nadam se da ratna opcija jos nije realna, ali me ne bi iznenadila 'kontrolirana' akcija (u starijim postovima opisana)...

Monsoon • 29.08.2005. u 17:11

...."On March 20th, 2006, Iran is planning to open an International Oil Bourse (market) ".....ajmo mi utvrditi datum do kog se primaju oklade, ja cu biti bookie ;))

KeyDot • 29.08.2005. u 17:38

moze, ali samo ako je kladionica u dolarima (za svaki slucaj!)...:))))

Monsoon • 29.08.2005. u 18:43

Flop! Ne mogu se logirati na svoj blog, pa ti dajem odgovor na tvoje pitanje o inflaciji ovdje kod monsoona. Monsoon je u pravu, ali postoji jako puno nachina, koje FED koristi, da bi privremeno "kontrolirali" inflaciju. To su US bonds, treasury bonds, retirenment funds. To su dolari koji ne cirkuliraju u ekonomiji, pa se i ne rachunaju kao dio ukupne kolichine dolara na trzishtu. Kad ti "bonds reach maturiti" onda dodju na trzishte i prave konstantnu inflaciju. Pisat chu o tome kasnije.

amgar • 29.08.2005. u 19:29

25.08.2005., četvrtak

Crossing the Rubicon (3) - Perfect Match

…nastavak

Nakon sto smo recimo ‘pronasli’ motiv za 9/11 conspiracy evo i kako je uopce omoguceno da dodje do takvog spleta koincidencija (nikad prije I nikad poslije vidjenog) tzv. ‘Perfect Match’.
Tocnije, moglo bi se reci da je u ovoj situaciji ‘conspiracy theory’ koja po defaultu zahtjeva proporcionalnu umijesanost broja ljudi I slozenosti operacije, uspjesno svedena na vrlo uski krug ljudi te je tako smanjena mogucnost curenja informacija. Opet napominjem da se radi o mind teaseru zasnovanom na prikupljenim cinjenicama, a na srecu svatko je vlasnik svog mozga I upotrebljava ga na nacin na koji mu odgovara - uglavnom tako da ga ne preopterecuje suvisnim teorijama konspiracije I slicnim 'pricama'…

• OPPORTUNITY: 9/11 War Games - a perfect "match"
On May 8, 2001 - four months prior to 9/11 - the president placed Dick Cheney in charge of "federal programs dealing with weapons of mass destruction consequence management within the Departments of Defense, Health and Human Services, Justice, and Energy, the Environmental Protection Agency, and other federal agencies…" This included all "training and planning" which needed to be "seamlessly integrated, harmonious and comprehensive" in order to "maximize effectiveness." This mandate created the Office of National Preparedness in FEMA, overseen by Dick Cheney. Dick Cheney was placed directly in charge of managing the seamless integration of all training exercises throughout the entire federal government and all military agencies. On 9/11 Cheney oversaw multiple war games and terror drills, including several exercises of NORAD, the Air Force agency whose mandate is to "watch the sky."

The evening before September 11th, 2001, the National Security Agency intercepted a communication between Khalid Shaikh Muhammad and the alleged ringleader of the 9/11 attacks, Mohammed Atta. The communication stated, "The match is about to begin." Were they "matching" their activities to the war games? Was the attack a rigged "match" between the defenders on one side, and the attackers with their accomplices on the other? The Whitehouse was so infuriated when this communication leaked from the Senate Intelligence Committee that they threatened Senators with polygraphs and office searches for disclosing classified information. This leak struck a nerve within the Whitehouse.
Multiple Air Force war games were running on the morning of 9/11, as documented extensively in the mainstream press. What Crossing the Rubicon has documented conclusively is that there was a live-fly drill taking place on 9/11 titled Vigilant Warrior. Richard Clarke disclosed the name of this drill but it was Major Don Arias of NORAD who confirmed the definition of the title "Warrior" to Mike Ruppert via email. (Warrior = JCS/HQ NORAD sponsored field training exercise or live-fly). That means that the Vigilant Warrior drill conducted by the Joint Chiefs of Staff involved at least one real commercial aircraft in the skies, intended to simulate exactly the kind of airliner hijack emergency presented on 9/11. Coincidence?

Additional war games on 9/11 included Northern Vigilance, an exercise that pulled Air Force fighters from the east coast of the United States up into Canada and Alaska simulating an attack out of Russia. All of those fighters were rendered useless as the 9/11 plot unfolded - too far away to respond.

One of the components of this drill included "false blips" (radar injects simulating aircraft in flight) placed on FAA radar screens. At one point FAA head Jane Garvey said they suspected up to 11 hijackings on 9/11. Was she saying they couldn't determine which were real, which were simulated, and which were live-fly military exercises?

In Air War Over America it is documented that General Arnold of NORAD didn't pull out of the war game titled Vigilant Guardian until reports of flight 93 being hijacked were coming in. That was at 9:16, a total of 54 minutes after it was known that flight 11 was a hijacking. What took so long? Were there still "false blips" on FAA radar screens at this time?
There were likely false blips on screen even after 9:16. The Kean Commission's report introduced "phantom flight-11" as being reported by the FAA at 9:25 on 9/11. The FAA reported flight 11 was heading to Washington D.C. at that time when in fact it had already struck the World Trade Center. The Kean Commission's report stated they were "unable to locate the source of the mistaken FAA information." "Phantom flight-11" was a false blip, but since the war games are classified, specific information on "false blips" and other details can't be reported.

Now imagine being an air traffic controller with both real planes and "false blips" simulating hijackings on your screens when suddenly there are real, multiple, hijackings. Where do you send the few Air Force fighters that you have? You can't guess wrong, you don't have enough assets for that. The FAA doesn't even make that decision, the military does. The Kean Commission managed to scapegoat the FAA in their report, but the Air Force itself confirmed the FAA did its job properly on 9/11 in Air War Over America.

There were more 9/11 war games including Northern Guardian, Northern Denial and an unnamed National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) drill for a plane crashing into NRO headquarters at precisely the time of an actual crash in New York.
Another coincidence?
War games, terror drills and exercises are run by the military quite frequently. In this case, they mirrored the real attacks of 9/11 with such shocking congruence as to be beyond the realm of coincidence. This is made clear when we consider the warnings that had flooded U.S. Intelligence prior to 9/11, indicating that terrorists were planning to hijack aircraft and crash them into American targets on the ground during the week of September 9th, 2001.
With that type of information, who in their right mind would then schedule war games that would leave New York and Washington D.C. completely undefended?
The man in charge of managing all such programs was Dick Cheney. Among the central decision-makers for the scheduling of so many simultaneous exercises would be Dick Cheney and Ralph Eberhart, head of NORAD. It certainly was a perfect "match."

The Maestro
The most important revelation made about the 9/11 war games comes again from Major Don Arias of NORAD. With multiple war games running, there had to be someone coordinating them.
"Yes, there is an exercise maestro," said Don Arias in a phone interview.
So who was the maestro?
Mike Ruppert called every relevant military and government office looking for an answer to this question and received no response. At the final 9/11 Commission hearing on June 17, 2004, I asked General Ralph Eberhart - the man in charge of NORAD on 9/11 - who was in charge of coordinating the war games that day. His only response was, "No comment." None of the commissioners, including Chairman Kean, could answer this question. FTW's research has concluded the maestro was either Dick Cheney, Ralph "Ed" Eberhart, or both. Whoever the maestro was, he was certainly under Cheney's management as per the May 2001 presidential mandate.

Additionally, Tripod II was a bio-terror exercise being set-up on the west side of lower Manhattan, reportedly scheduled to begin the next day. This exercise was being coordinated with FEMA and the Department of Justice - two of the agencies placed directly under Cheney's control in May of 2001 by presidential mandate.
Another coincidence?
There is no question that Cheney would be responsible for managing this exercise. The Tripod II drill became the command & control emergency response center on 9/11. The command center in WTC 7 was reportedly evacuated by 9:30 on 9/11, but Tripod II provided a new command center organized just as the original was.
Well, how convenient! The Air Force war games ensured the air attack would be successful and Tripod II assured Cheney would have control of the response to the crisis of his making.
Matching the war games with hijackings (or hijacking the war games) was the opportunity for Cheney to help ensure the 9/11 attacks would be successful, justifying what he calls, "The war that will not end in our lifetimes."

... to be continued

- 00:01 - Komentari (2) - Isprintaj - #

sad si me potaknuo da saznam vise :) o dragom Dicku i najsladje mi je ovo: "Cheney has said that he wishes to retire to private life after that his term as Vice President expires, when asked if he is interested in the Republican presidential nomination. In 2004, he reaffirmed this position strongly on Fox News Sunday, saying, "I will say just as hard as I possibly know how to say... 'If nominated, I will not run,' 'If elected, I will not serve,' or not only no, but 'Hell no,' I'VE GOT MY PLANS LAID OUT. I'm going to serve this president for the next four years, and then I'm out of here." ". meni je to dovoljan dokaz da je kriv :); covjek je rodjen 1941- nije bas za otpis, ima karijeru za smrznuti se, vrlo je inteligentan pa dakle zna da mu baš ne bi bilo pametno izlagati se javnosti u predsjednickoj kampanji, a i vise voli biti iza nekog,...osim ako se pojave neke nove okolnosti....vidjet cemo

KeyDot • 25.08.2005. u 15:14

Eh, Dicky! Uglavnom se Amerima izbor i svodi na 'Dick' ili 'Bush', haha... nemam volje 'postat' danas, detaljnije o Dicku u ovom kontekstu na adresi: http://www.peakoil.net//Publications/Cheney_PeakOil_FCD.pdf

Monsoon • 26.08.2005. u 03:07

24.08.2005., srijeda

Crossing the Rubicon (2)

...nastavak

Dakle, svaki zlocin treba i motiv, pa tako i ovaj. Motiv je naravno vec sire opisivan u ranijim postovima, a evo analize ex-LAPD detektiva...(ujedno je i skracena analiza Hubbert Peak-a)

• MOTIVE: Peak Oil
By definition, world hydrocarbon (oil and gas) production peaks when half the planet's reserves have been used up. After that point, every barrel of oil will be harder to find, more expensive to obtain, and more valuable to whoever controls it.
Many of the world's foremost experts place that peak between 2000 and 2007. We live in a global economic system based on endless growth, and that growth is only possible with endless hydrocarbons to burn.
Demand for oil and gas is increasing at staggering rates; after peak, there will be demand that simply cannot be met, and energy prices will rise inexorably. The resulting economic catastrophe may see oil hit $100 per barrel before the end of this decade.

Oil not only keeps us warm and moves our cars, it is used to make all plastics and is, together with natural gas, the most important ingredient keeping modern agriculture afloat.
It is a little known fact that for every 1 calorie of food energy produced, 10 calories of hydrocarbons are consumed. We eat oil. Without cheap oil, billions of people will freeze or starve and unfortunately, there is no combination of renewable energy sources that can replace oil and gas consumption without massive conservation efforts that are nowhere in sight.
Cheney knew about this. There are no national plans for conservation in America. As Dick Cheney has stated, "The American way of life is not negotiable." Over-consumption is as American as apple pie.
Many industry experts have been speaking to the reality of Peak Oil for some time.
One of those experts - perhaps the most prominent in the world - was in Dick Cheney's National Energy Policy Development Group (NEPDG). Just four days after Dick Cheney became Vice President he convened the NEPDG. Among the experts whose opinion Cheney paid for (with taxpayer dollars) was Matthew Simmons, one of the most respected energy investment bankers in the world. Simmons has been speaking out about Peak Oil for years, and there is no question that the urgent story of Peak Oil is what he told Cheney's NEPDG.

The content of the NEPDG documentation has been illegally withheld from the American public with a rubber stamp of approval from the Supreme Court.
Cheney knew about Peak Oil in 1999 as CEO of Halliburton, long before was Vice President. A speech he gave at the London Institute of Petroleum demonstrates this clearly.
As stated in Crossing the Rubicon, "By way of confirmation, people in and close to the oil industry are reporting that increased drilling is not resulting as yet in significantly increased supply."
A crisis of this magnitude required a crisis plan, something the Neo-Liberals didn't have.
The Neo-Conservatives, including Dick Cheney, had such a plan: manufacture a crisis - one that had long been imagined as necessary by elite planners inside the national security state and use it to maintain permanent war to steal the world's last remaining hydrocarbons and temporarily stave off the Peak Oil crisis.

...to be continued

- 00:02 - Komentari (20) - Isprintaj - #

Je, prvo napravish krizu, onda je otkrijesh, onda posudjujesh i naplachueshj interes na bezvrijedini novac :-). Uh, u jednoj rechenici sam zbrojio sve shto se dogadjalo u zadnjih 100 godina :-). Prije kojih 10 godina gledao sam predavanje od jednog profesora sa faxsa u Colorad-u. Kak' se zvao grad? Hmmm...., da Boulder, CO. Da. On je govorio upravo o problemu smanjivanja dostupne nafte. Je, to che se prije ili kasnije dogoditi, i posljedice che bit jako teshke. To che biti kao kad narkomanu uzmesh drogu. Pozdrav.

- AMGAR - • 24.08.2005. u 01:37

Amgar, bas tako, samo su ovdje isprovocirali krizu kako bi dobili novi Pearl Harbor, tj. izgovor i razlog za osiguranje nastavka procesa 'kreditiranja' kroz kontrolu jedinog strateskog resursa koji je u ovom trenutku kritican (slijedeci ce vjerovatno biti voda). Kao sto smo vec zakljucili, US nije ni imala drugog izlaza nego da nastavi 'vrtiti pedale' na bicikli kako se ne bi srusili (deficit, zaduzenje, inflacija, etc.)...gotovo identicna situacija kao s Britanijom prije prvog svjetskog rata (posljedice tj. rezultati zaduzenja kod americkih banaka za vrijeme i nakon tog rata jos danas vidimo)... a nafte ima, i bit ce je, samo po kojoj cijeni i za koga, to se upravo 'dogovaraju'...pa ce nam javiti s burze uskoro...

Monsoon • 24.08.2005. u 01:51

"Crossing the Rubicon" je savrsen naslov, ciji je - da je (samo mi nemoj sad reci - cezarov :) ) ; M.Simmonsa sam sama samcata otkrila jos prije, sad kad ga ti spominjes, to mi dodje ko sluzbena potvrda :)). (jer nemam pojma o ekonomiji, a zanimljiva je kvragu, pa tu i tamo otkrijem toplu vodu i razveselim se, eto)

KeyDot • 24.08.2005. u 01:52

a propos bicikla: to je i ovdje m. kutle rekao (prije nego sto su ga uhapsili) - "to vam je kao voziti bicikl: kad idem - idem, kad stanem - padnem" - to sam se bas sjetila kad sam citala post i sad vidim da si to i napisao

KeyDot • 24.08.2005. u 01:59

Pohvale za Simmonsa, sjetio sam se tebe kad sam analizirao tekst! A za 'Rubicon' vidi u donjem postu, znam da je kasno i da je vrijeme za spavanje, ali stvarno pise cija je knjiga, haha! (cak ima i link sto i mene iznenadjuje!)...inace, nisam ni ja ekonomista, ako ti je lakse, hahaha...

Monsoon • 24.08.2005. u 02:09

ups!, sad vidim rubikon:), ali fakat je pola tri ujutro kod mene, a sad sam se još prestrasila i bijele boje (uopce se ne salim, skoro sam pala sa stolca:), molim razumijevanje (odlicna je boja, razbudila me :)

KeyDot • 24.08.2005. u 02:39

kak sad zelena!!!!! idem spavat dok se ti ne odlucis, cccc!

KeyDot • 24.08.2005. u 02:41

hehe, malo mijenjam da te razbudim...

Monsoon • 24.08.2005. u 02:42

i malo sortiram stare postove koje si ti vjerovatno jedina procitala (Engdahl, etc.) dakle, prvih nekoliko koji su predugi za citanje u realnom vremenu...;)))

Monsoon • 24.08.2005. u 02:45

svaki put kad dodem, ti si druge boje! ako hoces, u subotu se na kavi mozemo porazgovarati o dizajnu i ja ti poradim na html-u...

newyorčanka • 24.08.2005. u 03:33

Ufffffff, znam da se to mene ne tiche, SORRY!!! monsoon, ona te voli!. Pozdrav.

- AMGAR - • 24.08.2005. u 05:54

Ponukan ovime napisanim (pročitao i ostale postove, ali i još puno, puno više od Engdahla) odlučih i ja nešto iskomentirati. Vidim da se vi ovdje puno duže od mene bavite tematikom, pa pitam? Ako Bush ratuje da bi sačuvao dolar i osigurao Americi što više nafte i izmišljenih opravdanja za ratovanje... A to radi trošenjem naštancanih dolara koji nemaju pokriće, i kreditiranjem zemalja dolarima koji nemaju pokriće, kako će sve to završiti? Po meni to nema nikakva smisla jer što više uzmu to više moraju ratovati,a već su sad previše zaglibili... Zanima me i što vi mislite koji ste bliže o Alexu Jonesu? Vidio sam neke njegove uratke pa sam malo zbunjen interpretacijom, ali činjenice mu piju vodu! Ili ne? Čiji je on? Veliki pozdrav i drago mi je da sam došao na tvoj blog i svih onih koji postaju! Bilo je sasvim slučajno...

R.E. • 24.08.2005. u 09:33

Amgar, nisi pratio nastavu: ona voli KeyDot! :)))))

Monsoon • 24.08.2005. u 16:28

Flop, welcome, dobar blog! Pitas kako ce zavrsiti? Pitanje je KAD ce zavrsiti, a po principu 'bicikle' zavrsit ce kad prestane pedaliranje...problem je sto nitko ne zeli prestat pedalirat dok ima kamo vozit, kad dodje pred zid valjda ce skrenut ili zakocit...iskreno mislim (pod cijenu da ispadnem paranoik!) da nece prestat do slijedece velike svjetske kataklizme (stogod to bilo), dakle do trenutka kad se i najmocniji ne osjete nemocnima pred prirodnim zakonima...samo to je vec zid koji sam spominjao...

Monsoon • 24.08.2005. u 16:35

@monsoon - no, dobro, volim i tebe :-) @amgar - i tebe. ja zapravo volim sve i bilo bi mi puno draže da je više ljudi koji su pozitivni u gledanju na život. ja sam još uvijek mala naivka...

newyorčanka • 24.08.2005. u 16:54

monsoon - ti si više upućen, pa me zanima taj Alex Jones. Pogledaj www.infowars.com Zanima me kako njega percipira USA?

R.E. • 24.08.2005. u 17:31

monsoon, jel vidis kak si ipak na kraju profulao dizajn, tu je sve trebalo danas vrvjeti sa srcekima, kad se svi tak lijepo volimo :))), (poseban pozdrav NY i babyNY)

KeyDot • 24.08.2005. u 17:43

KeyDot, dizajn je na cekanju do subotnje kave, ali kao sto kazes pomalo pocinje licit na hipi komunu, morat cu i to uzet u obzir :)))

Monsoon • 24.08.2005. u 17:54

Flop, bio sam na Infowars, prema tvojoj preporuci, interesantan lik (i link), ali iskreno moram priznat da nisam Jonesa do sad 'slusao'. Ima takvih likova mnogo po netu, ne stigne se svih polovit (pogotovo kad si zaposlen 9 to 5, haha)...pratit cemo ga pa ti javimo CroUSA misljenje...mozda netko drugi zna detaljnije?

Monsoon • 24.08.2005. u 18:00

@flop - re: alex jones, koliko ja vidim u akademskim krugovima, nitko ga ne shvaca ozbiljno (kao ni moora). no, to zapravo nista ne znaci jer akademici nisu prakticni ljudi i nisu ni na koji nacin odraz "prosjecnog" misljenja. naravno da to stavljam pod navodnike jer takvo sto ne postoji nigdje u svijetu pa ni u americi. cim je u pitanju vise od jednog covjeka, bilo koja iluzija da postoji "prosjek" njihovog misljenja je pusta zelja.

newyorčanka • 24.08.2005. u 18:13

23.08.2005., utorak

Crossing the Rubicon (1)

Kako vidim da rasprava o 'teroristima' i 'kontrateroristima' (ili obrnuto kako se kome svidja) jos uvijek izaziva dosta komentara evo da i ja (u svojoj staroj dobroj copy-paste maniri) nabacim nekoliko vidjenja ljudi koji su se detaljnije bavili temom 9/11 napada (a samim tim i tko je tu terorista, a tko je kontraterorista). Jedan od njih je Michael Ruppert u knjizi istog naslova kao i ovaj post detaljno istrazio 'case' na nacin LAPD policajca (sto je i bio). Prigodno sam pastirao neke dijelove knjige pa mislim da nije lose za raspravu 'conspiracy theory vs. theory of conspiracies'. Unaprijed se ogradjujem od bilokakvih implikacija vezano na konspirativne teorije i slicno, ovo je samo mind teaser...

Simplifying the case against Dick Cheney ( by Michael Kane)
Crossing the Rubicon makes the case for official complicity within the U.S. government and names Dick Cheney as the prime suspect in the crimes of 9/11.
Since the publication of this book many people have asked to hear the case against Cheney argued "short & sweet."
I will make it as short as possible, but it can never be sweet.
There are 3 major points made within this book that are crucial to proving Cheney's guilt. I shall first list them and then go on to prove each point as laid out in Crossing the Rubicon.
1. Means - Dick Cheney and the Secret Service: Dick Cheney was running a completely separate chain of Command & Control via the Secret Service, assuring the paralysis of Air Force response on 9/11. The Secret Service has the technology to see the same radar screens the FAA sees in real time. They also have the legal authority and technological capability to take supreme command in cases of national emergency. Dick Cheney was the acting Commander in Chief on 9/11
2. Motive - Peak Oil: At some point between 2000 and 2007, world oil production reaches its peak; from that point on, every barrel of oil is going to be harder to find, more expensive to recover, and more valuable to those who recover and control it. Dick Cheney was well aware of the coming Peak Oil crisis at least as early as 1999, and 9/11 provided the pretext for the series of energy wars that Cheney stated, "will not end in our lifetime."
3. Opportunity - 9/11 War Games: The Air Force was running multiple war games on the morning of 9/11 simulating hijackings over the continental United States that included (at least) one "live-fly" exercise as well as simulations that placed "false blips" on FAA radar screens. These war games mirrored the real events of 9/11 to the point of the Air Force running drills involving hijacked aircraft as the 9/11 plot actually unfolded. The war games & terror drills played a critical role in ensuring no Air Force fighter jocks - who had trained their entire lives for this moment - would be able to prevent the attacks from succeeding. These exercises were under Dick Cheney's management.

• MEANS: Dick Cheney and the Secret Service
As the 9/11 plot unfolded, it has been reported that Secret Service whisked Dick Cheney into an underground presidential bunker at 9:03. This establishes that the Secret Service was in the loop giving orders by at least 9:03, and almost certainly much earlier. Former counter-terrorism advisor Richard Clarke writes in Against All Enemies: "Secret Service had a system that allowed them to see what FAA's radar was seeing." The Kean Commission (AKA the 9/11 Commission) would have us believe that the chain of command on 9/11 was a complex web, but in reality the Secret Service had the authority to communicate presidential and vice presidential orders directly to fighter pilots in the air. In Air War Over America, a book commissioned by the Air Force documenting the morning of 9/11, it is stated that the FAA contacted Otis Air Force base informing them Flight 11 was headed to Manhattan and had lost its identification signal by 8:30. This indicates Secret Service was in the loop by the same time, or shortly thereafter, since they are able to see FAA radar screens in real time and FAA is reaching out to the military. There is no question that by 8:45 at the absolute latest, likely much earlier, Secret Service is in the decision-making loop. They were most likely in the loop after 8:15 when flight 11 turned its transponder off.
National Special Security Event
It is the Secret Service who has the legal mandate to take supreme command in case of a scheduled major event - or an unplanned major emergency - on American soil; these are designated "National Special Security Events." The Atlanta Olympic Games and the Republican & Democratic National Conventions are notable examples of NSSE's. In preparation, the Secret Service runs training initiatives of simulated attacks and field exercises for such events. The Secret Service works with state and local authorities as well as the military to coordinate security efforts; it has the best communication system of any agency in the country; and its personnel are always present with both the President and Vice President - making it the perfect agency to take supreme command in case of a major emergency on American soil.
When 9/11 occurred, the legal framework was in place to allow the Secret Service to take supreme command over any and all American agencies, including the Air Force. Richard Clarke writes in Against All Enemies: "I was amazed at the speed of the decisions coming from Cheney and, through him, from Bush." This is to be expected. Everything was in place for the Commander in Chief to be calling all the shots as the 9/11 plot unfolded, but Bush was in an elementary school reading about goats with Secret Service agents right beside him.
Bush's Secret Service detail was in real-time communication not only with the FAA, but also the PEOC (Presidential Emergency Operations Center), into which Dick Cheney had reportedly been whisked by the Secret Service. While Bush continued his elementary school photo-op after being told, "America is under attack," Ari Fleischer - according to the Washington Times, 10/7/02 - caught the president's eye and held up a handwritten sign that said "DON'T SAY ANYTHING YET." Bush was intentionally being kept out of the decision-making loop during the critical moments of 9/11. The Vice President has no place in the official military chain of command.
Thus far we have established that:
1. Secret Service was the supreme command on 9/11.
2. Bush was not in the role of Commander in Chief at critical times on 9/11.
3. The acting Commander in Chief as the 9/11 plot unfolded was Dick Cheney.

....to be continued

- 18:00 - Komentari (19) - Isprintaj - #

Bok, ja gledam na cijelu povijest kao "collection of conspiracies". Nemrem se sjetiti niti jednog povijesnog dogadjaja koji je samo jedan covijek "skuhao" i bio "involved" :-). Sva ona "velika povijesna imena", bilo pozitivno ili negativno opisana, nisu sama mogla postichi ono shto su postigli. Post ti je zanimljiv. Pozdrav.

- AMGAR - • 23.08.2005. u 19:06

are you starting trouble???

newyorčanka • 23.08.2005. u 19:28

@ NY: hehehehe....sad cu ti poslat Zombixa

Monsoon • 23.08.2005. u 19:32

Naravno se da jedan covjek nije mogao i ne moze nista, zato valjda i postoje conspiracies...kod ovog slucaja jedna stvar je jako sumnjiva, a to je npr. da se uporno tvrdilo (i tvrdi) da je zakazao 'obrambeni sustav' (tada i samo tada), a da s druge strane nitko nije kriv za to (barem nije optuzen)...meni je interesantna 'vjezba' koja je bila planirana za 9/11 i odvijala se kao 'vjezba' dok nije doslo do stvarnih napada...analogija s Londonskim napadom kad je takodjer bila 'vjezba' u tijeku nije za ovu pricu vazna...da ne bi previse usli u sirinu (i dubinu)... :))

Monsoon • 23.08.2005. u 19:39

@monsoon - hey, watch it... i'll have to double my prescription! ja se vise uopce u nista pametnoga necu plesti. jer kak bi ja uopce bila sposobna nekaj pametnoga napisati. em sam zena, em sam u americi. lijepo mi je netko negdje napisao da si ne razbijam glavu s tim teskim temama, nego da fino odem u kino ili shopping. a, ja cu danas oboje!

newyorčanka • 23.08.2005. u 19:53

newyorchanka! Bilo bi fino kad bi mogla/ao izbijechi ove teme. Ali, to su stvari koje nas okruzuju i koje imaju VELIKI utjecaj na zivot svakog pojedinca. Drago mi je da "monsoon" govori o tim temama otvoreno. Pozdrav.

- AMGAR - • 23.08.2005. u 20:15

Amgar, zna ona to vrlo dobro, zato je i uzivam provocirat...a zna i da ne moze izbjeci ove teme, prije ili kasnije progovorit ce, pogotovo sad kad je izasla na naslovnici, haha

Monsoon • 23.08.2005. u 20:23

@monsoon - ma, necu i necu! od sad pisem samo o tome kak sam isla pedikeru i kakve sam si krpice kupila. ipak sam ja samo "glupa", "plava" (makar vise nisam), "blesava", pisem samo "sranja" i "solim ljudima pamet". pa vise necu. lijepo cu uzivati u svim svojim dolarima i trositi ih na bedastoce. zasto bih se uopce trudila kad je hrvatska puna najpametnjih ljudi na svijetu koji ce umjesto mene popraviti cijeli svijet. zasto da ja brinem?!

newyorčanka • 23.08.2005. u 20:31

uh, tko si ti i sto si ucinila "njujorcanki"? :))))

Monsoon • 23.08.2005. u 20:33

vidis, a vele da su plavuse glupe. ja sam posmedila i totalno proglupila...

newyorčanka • 23.08.2005. u 20:35

nego, komentirat mozes i anonimno, nece te nitko prepoznat (potpisi se npr kao "plavusa under cover" ionako imas novu boju kose)... ;))

Monsoon • 23.08.2005. u 20:35

Eh, nemoj tako newyorchanka! "Hrvatska puna najpametnijih ljudi na svijetu", i onda "koji che popraviti svijet"??? Meni nije ni na kraj pameti "popraviti" svijet; ja samo zelim zivjeti u njemu na dostojan nachin. Za mene je to "samo" borba za opstanak u ovoj djungli. Zamijeni nebodere s velikim drvechem, gustim grmljem, razno raznim zivinama, i dobish' istu sliku. Pozdrav.

- AMGAR - • 23.08.2005. u 21:48

amgar, nije to uopce na tebe ni najmanje islo. moj je cilj potpuno jednak tvojem: lijep i dostojan zivot sa sebe i moje dijete

newyorčanka • 23.08.2005. u 22:27

uh, nekak mi se cini da se ne bih trebala petljati u ovu frku jer mi je potpis bez linka pa nije u redu sad sa strane mudrovati, ali ovdje je omjer spolova zabrinjavajuci :))) (pri tom ne mislim da ny treba pomoc, naprotiv :). na stranu to kaj je zombix ili kak vec, samo nespretno rekao da razumije razloge terorista, (meni se ne cini da ih opravdava). no onda onako bijedno i histericno napadne zenu koja otvoreno (dakle hrabro) pise...zato je pustite da se dooobro istutnji . btw, bez obzira na nesporazume i cackanja :) amgar i ny su na kraju dosli do jedinog provedivog zakljucka/cilja (barem na prvoj razini, a tek onda mozemo spasavati svijet; @newyorcanka: kad rodimo jednostavno proradi taj chip, ne moze se tu nis, uz svu pustu emancipaciju, jel' tak, ny ? :)

KeyDot • 24.08.2005. u 01:25

Pozdrav KeyDot, samo ti komentiraj, kad bi zelio samo potpisane komentatore zabranio bih komentare takvima ko ti, ha-ha...a nasu NY nije nitko napao na ovom blogu, naprotiv, ja cak mislim da ona i Amgar vrlo slicno razmisljaju samo je danas nju malo Zombix raspalio (da ne upotrijebim francuski izraz), a i nije jedina. Tako da sad puse i na hladno...Eh, to je teret slave na naslovnici... ;)))

Monsoon • 24.08.2005. u 02:02

Bok KeyDot!. Kad ja lupam svoje teme, one su malo teshke, sorry, ali su stvarne :-). Neki ljudi to ne vide, ili to mozda to ne zele vidjeti?. Ak' zivish u Americi i gledash svoj "paycheck", u stvari gledash lice Alana, kad idesh kupit kuchu gledash Alana, kad idesh u trgovinu i kupish mlijeko i kruh gledash Alana, kad planirash buduchnost svoje djece gledash Alana, kad planirash mirovinu Alan je tu :-),kad planirash vjenchanje, sprovod, gledash Alana. Neki ljudi ne kuze da je Alan Greenspan "The sexiest man alive". Oh well, he's gonna be replaced soon :-(. Step #1: Look around you!. Pozdrav.

- AMGAR - • 24.08.2005. u 02:16

@amgar eh sad, ili ja nisam skuzila ili ti (bit ce da je ono prvo), ali ipak da podvucem: ja se slazem s tobom. nisam u americi nego u hr, ali duugi su prsti alanovi, tak da sto se njega tice dodje mi skoro na isto :))

KeyDot • 24.08.2005. u 02:33

@keydot - volim te :-)

newyorčanka • 24.08.2005. u 03:16

KeyDot, imam osmijeh na licu:-). Nema puno ljudi koji razumiju. Zagrljaj i pusa! Ero sa onog nevaznog svijeta.

- AMGAR - • 24.08.2005. u 05:21

08.08.2005., ponedjeljak

Iran Nuke Poker

Osnova zadnjih poteza USA/EU u iranskoj situaciji je (ipak) neocekivani izbor Ahmedinejada za predsjednika Irana te nelagodnost koju 'zapadnjaci' osjecaju tim povodom. Ukoliko se 'nuklearno pitanje' ne rijesi skoro, ta nelagoda ce samo rasti, a samim tim i ulozi u pokerskoj igri koju su US zaigrali, koristeci EU-3 (GB, FR, D) u pokusaju prebacivanja problema na UN Security Council (navodno ocekujuci sankcije protiv Irana zbog nuklearnog programa).

Tako su npr. EU-3 trazili produzetak roka suspenzije nuklearnog programa (Paris Agreement-dogovoren lani u studenom do kraja srpnja o.g.) za nekoliko dana (!?)...Rok od nekoliko dana je vjerovatno trazen kako bi se cekalo obracanje novog predsjednika (nastupio na duznost jucer!) i njegovo misljenje o nuklearnom programu. S druge strane, lako je moguce da su prijedlozi EU-3 bili bazirani na pretpostavci da ce Rafsanjani (kao umjereniji kandidat!?) dobiti izbore pa su sad bili u situaciji da mijenjaju vec slozene prijedloge (da ih ne bi Iran mozda i prihvatio)...

Iran has made a clean, physical separation between two components of its 18-year-old nuclear enrichment program, which it had kept secret. Its enrichment plant is located at Natanz. But the factory that is supposed to feed it is located in Isfahan and is designed to convert solid uranium oxides into hexafluoride gas. At the moment, Iran is only threatening to begin operating the Isfahan factory –one clean step away from enrichment itself. In any case, Iran says it wants to enrich uranium to a low level for use in nuclear power reactors. Normally, power reactors burn 2 to 4 percent enriched uranium, in which the proportion of its fissile isotope U-235 has been raised to that percentage up from the naturally occurring 0.7 percent. Iran has consistently affirmed that it has a right to acquire and develop nuclear technology for peaceful uses and that it will never pursue weapons of mass destruction.

However, the US suspects that Iran, with huge oil and petroleum reserves, wants to enrich uranium only to make nuclear weapons. It is another matter that the US is not a state with merely suspected nuclear activity and a weapons program, but a declared nuclear weapons state, and that it developed nuclear power despite its petroleum reserves. The EU-3 have been trying to mediate between the U.S. and Iran, but their efforts could fail if the US takes a tough, unhelpful stand to isolate Iran, driving it to harden its own posture. That could bring two years of difficult EU-Iran negotiations to a sorry end.

Iran's case has been further burdened by the agreement the US signed with India just two weeks ago. Under it, Washington has recognized India as a "responsible state with advance nuclear technology," agreed to resume civilian nuclear trade with it, and also to help "adjust" the international nuclear control regime to enable wide-ranging civilian transactions with India.
Iran responded to this deal by accusing the Bush administration of double standards and undermining the NPT (Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty ). Iran says "the U.S. signed this agreement despite the fact that India, unlike Iran, has not signed the NPT." Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) permits the pursuit of nuclear technology for peaceful purposes like generating power, under International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) supervision.

Kao i obicno, US se ponasa kao 'slon u staklarni' podrzavajuci EU-3 pregovore i inzistirajuci s druge strane na potpunom i kompletnom prestanku obogacivanja urana pa je tako prostor za kompromis prilicno skucen. Dodatno se s trece strane dogovara nuklearna kooperacija s Indijom.

Dakle, Indija (koja nije potpisnik NPT) ima pravo brinuti o svom nacionalnom interesu, i nitko ih ne osudjuje zbog toga (cak je i US podupire), ali Iran koji je potpisnik NPT nema pravo na tako nesto, prema tumacenju Bush administracije.

Tesko je vjerovati da ce ovakvi dvostruki standardi postici 'zeljeni' (proklamirani) ucinak tj. odvratiti Iran od procesa obogacivanja urana...
Naprotiv, tesko da ce US/EU-3 moci dobiti ovu partiju Nuke Pokera posebno kad se ukljuce i druga dva igraca u Vijecu Sigurnosti-Rusija i Kina...Naime, prema 'preporuci' US, EU-3 je ranije ove godine zaprijetio prijaviti Iran Vijecu Sigurnosti ako nastavi 'uranium enrichment activities'.
Hm, sto ne valja u toj slici?
Pa, jedini koji moze prijaviti Iran je IAEA, a bez definitivnog dokaza o WMD u Iranu tesko ce to biti progurati kroz IAEA (pogotovo nakon irackih "dokaza"). Tvrdnje Bush administracije da "enrichment activities are "forbidden" kao i tvrdnje Tony Blaira da ce Iran prekrsiti "obligations and undertakings" ako prekine voluntary suspension su naravno pravne besmislice.

Ali, puno bitnije od svega toga (jer sve je to ipak provedivo kroz sustav, kao sto smo vidjeli iz irackog slucaja), tesko ce biti nagovoriti Rusiju i Kinu na odluku o sankcijama iz jednostavnog razloga investicija koje su imale i imaju u Iranu. Npr. Rusija trenutno gradi Bushehr light-water nuclear power plant, a Kina je, uvijek gladna energije prosle godine sklopila $70 billion oil&gas deal s Teheranom.

Sad kljucno pitanje da li bas US gubi u tom pokeru? I kamo nas to vodi?
Vjerovatno u pat poziciju koja ce biti idealna za US da dobije background za hitni napad na nuklearna postrojenja u Iranu (zasto hitni?...nekidan procijenise da Iran ne moze napravit bombu u slijedecih 10 godina, sve i da hoce, gdje je zurba? PetroEuro od slijedece godine? Probably...)

A 'motiv' ili 'konkretni razlog' cemo tek vidjeti gdje ce 'pronaci' i s kolikim brojem zrtava...ukoliko jos uvijek i to trebaju...Uh, zvucim zlokobno sam sebi...

p.s. namjerno u ovom kontekstu ne spominjem Izrael i njihovu A-production jer mislim da je rijec o sasvim razlicitoj ligi

- 00:02 - Komentari (13) - Isprintaj - #

oho, it speaks!? :)) moze li par pitanja? zar nije bilo za ocekivati, da ce pobijediti Ahmedinejad, nakon tolikog pritiska na iran, svaka drzava koja drzi do sebe bi tak reagirala, osim toga US treba novo strasilo? ne bi li iran, da ga puste na miru smo htio biti cvrsta i suverena drzava, (neovisna cak i o nafti, ocito znaju sto se dogadja s njom), koja bi predvodila arapski svijet, cuvala ga od zapadne asimilacije i trgovala s europom, zar je to nelegitimno samo zato sto su druga civilizacija, ili naivno? zasto je njemacka tako pokorna, kad bi frankfurt mogao preoteti londonu i newyorku burzu s azijom i petroeurom, graditi nuklearne elektrane, koje ce se itekako graditi ili je to preopasno za nju? zar je americki balon toliko napuhan da bi ga to unistilo, vise nego wwIII.

KeyDot • 08.08.2005. u 01:17

hehe, it speaks but only at vacation ;))) ... dakle, Ad1/rezultati izbora su u neku ruku bili i ocekivani (ili isprovocirani, kakogod), ali opet treba to i iskoristiti (sto bi se reklo materijalizirati!) tj. dati 'legitimni' oblik planiranom pritisku na Iran...Ad2/Njemacka nije u situaciji da vodi igru bas zbog ovisnosti o nafti (nije bas da kontroliraju neke naftne izvore, a prilicno su veliki potrosac), a i petrodolaru, naravno. mislim da im je jos uvijek preopasno se upustati u 'samostalnost', a nuklearke u Njemackoj su limitirane pritiscima 'zelenih'...sto naravno ameri vrlo dobro znaju i kontroliraju, njima EU odavno nije problem nego produzena ruka...

Monsoon • 08.08.2005. u 21:11

Monsoon, hvala ti sto svratis na moj blog, al' nemoj se ljutiti sto ja ne komentiram na tvom - kad se pocne o politici, za mene je bolje ne pocinjat. Reci cu ti samo da svoju dnevnu dozu vijesti dobijem od Jon Stewart-a i da jedva cekam zamjenu za Dzordza (po mogucnosti demokratu). Read you later :)

Jaca • 09.08.2005. u 00:19

hehe, nevermind, naci cemo nacina ;)), hvala na odgovorima (mozda je i pristojnost jedan od nacina, molim da se pribiljezi :). Ad "dakle.." -nisam mislila elektrane u njemackoj, to mi je jasno, nego elektrane kao simbol poslova koji ce se raditi na istoku (aziji), kajjaznam, tj. njem. je do sada uvijek znala sto treba napraviti, ali bi uvijek dobila od engleske opako po prstima, (mislim na situacije pred ww1 i ww2,) . sada, kao da ne postoji, valjda je predobro naucila lekciju. ma u biti, onak povrsno trazim nekog tko bi mogao nesto poduzeti (pa sam se sjetila njemacke), ali ne nalazim...imala sam genijalnog prof.povijesti u srednjoj skoli (prije skoro 20 god. brrrr!) koji je nas balavce ucio kak se zapravo citaju vijesti, bio je u klasi engdahla, sve nas je zarazio :)... eeh, al ja nemam vacation nego deadline :( -odoh raditi dok je mir u kuci.

KeyDot • 09.08.2005. u 00:24

Može jedan mali help? U Večernjaku je svojedobno pisalo o francuskom politologu (arapskog podrijetla) koji je u svojoj knjizi iznio teoriju napada na WTC (promaklo mi je ime). Znaš li slučajno nešto o tom liku? Unaprijed hvala na odgovoru. Pozdravček!

Dani • 16.08.2005. u 16:45

Bok monsoon, Chuj, po meni, USA se mora ponashati upravo na nachin na koji se ponasha. To ponashanje nije hir nekog politicahra, ili politichke partije, kao shto je Bush i Republikanci. USA nema drugog izbora, oni moraju osvajati svijet. That's always "expected" from an Empire! Ne kuzim ova pitanja o kojima svi debatiraju? Nafta, nuklearno oruzje! To je nevazno, to su samo sredstva koja vode cilju (gospon Makjaveli). Mozda sam u krivu? Shto ti mislish? Pozdrav.

- AMGAR - • 17.08.2005. u 05:23

@amgar - sorry, ali usa se ne MORA ponasati kak se ponasa, nego se HOCE tak ponasati. novo istrazivanje neprofitne organizacije Public Agenda pokazuje da jako malo amerikanaca podrzava sluzbenu foreign policy. znaci, radi se samo o ego trip-u busha i njegovih cronies.

newyorčanka • 18.08.2005. u 14:09

Bok newyorcanka. Slazem se da jako malo amerikanaca podrzava sluzbenu "foreign policy". Chak bi mogao dodati da jako malo amerikanaca podrzava sluzbenu "domestic policy" :-). Da zivimo u demokraciji onda bi taj argument imao tezinu, i vech bi se odavno ochistila Bijela Kucha od Bush-a i slichnih. Na zalost, mi zivimo u plutokraciji, a ne demokraciji. E, kad gledash politichku situaciju i "foreign policy" s tog polozaja, onda je lakshe skuzit zashto se USA tako ponasha, i zashto se tako MORA ponashati. Americhka politika je oduvijek bila konzistentna, imperijalistichka. Bila je ista nevazno od toga da li Demokrati ili Republikanci vode zemlju. Amerika mora shiriti utjecaj i rasti zato shto ima OGROMAN dug i zato shto se americhka ekonomija pretvara u "service economy" i gubi prema drugim zemljama "manufacturing economy". 1971-e dolar je postao "Fiat Money backed by nothing". Dollar was artifcially kept afloat since then. Today, dollar is backed only by USA military. Zato USA mora osvajati svijet. Pozdrav.

- AMGAR - • 19.08.2005. u 04:26

@Dani: Sorry, ne pratim Vecernjak (nista osobno, haha), da nije Thierry Meyssan? :)))

Monsoon • 22.08.2005. u 00:10

US se proteklih desetljeca (pa i cijelo stoljece) uglavnom pomocu petrodolara doveo u situaciju da se MORA, MOZE, a bogami i HOCE ponasat kao gazda u svijetu. Pogotovo nakon Nixonovog 'otkrica' FIAT money to je bilo jos i lakse. Drugo je pitanje koliko se u takvoj situaciji US ponasa poput slona u staklarni, ali mislim da bushokraciji i nije pretjereno stalo sto netko drugi misli o njima jer, kao sto rekoh, mogu se tako ponasat bez velikih posljedica i ponasat ce se tako dokle god ne nalete na zid. Samo ne zid kojeg su sami podigli da bi ga srusili nego neki zid kojeg ce podignut netko tko nije na platnim listama 'think-tankova' u DC-u...

Monsoon • 22.08.2005. u 00:23

Puno ti hvala na odgovoru. Mislim da bi to moglo biti "to"!

Dani • 22.08.2005. u 11:22

Mozes naci detalnije o Meyssanu (i cijeloj 9/11 prici) s njegovih stranica na (www.voltairenetwork.net), a preporucam i (www.copvcia.com) od M. Rupperta. Za detaljni timeline 9/11 imas link gore lijevo...

Monsoon • 22.08.2005. u 11:58

Hvala ti još jednom!Sutra idem po njegovu knjigu!

Dani • 23.08.2005. u 13:17

05.08.2005., petak

Dr.Strangelove@Meet the "Press"?

A recent poll shows six in ten Americans think a new world war is coming: the same poll says about 50 percent approve of the dropping of the atomic bomb on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki at the end of World War II. Somewhat inexplicably, about two-thirds say nuking those two cities was "unavoidable." One can only wonder, then, what their reaction will be to this ominous news, revealed in a recent issue of The American Conservative by intelligence analyst Philip Giraldi:

"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."

Two points leap out quite apart from the moral implications of dropping nukes on Iran.
The first is the completely skewed logic: if Iran has nothing to do with 9/11-II, then why target Tehran? As in Iraq, it's all a pretext: only this time, the plan is to use nuclear weapons. We'll wipe out the entire population of Iran's capital city because, as Paul Wolfowitz said in another context, "it's doable."
The other weird aspect of this "nuke Iran" story is the triggering mechanism: a terrorist attack in the U.S. on the scale of 9/11. While it is certain that our government has developed a number of scenarios for post-attack action, one has to wonder: why develop this plan at this particular moment?
What aren't they telling us? And where is the "mainstream" media on this?
Surely the New York Times and the Washington Post can find a lede here: 'US has plan to nuke Tehran if another 9/11.' "Can we get at least a bloody story out of this?"
They are nowhere to be found, and for a very good reason.
The MSM has been a weapon in the hands of the War Party at every step on the road to World War IV. After all, it's an American tradition. As William Randolph Hearst famously put it to an employee in the run-up to the Spanish-American conflict of 1898: "You furnish the pictures, I'll furnish the war."
Any objective examination of the Anglo-American media's role as a megaphone for this administration's "talking points" would have to conclude that the Hearst school of journalism has been dominant since well before the invasion of Iraq.
Aside from the post-9/11 hysteria that effectively swept away all pretenses of a critical stance, the MSM was well acclimated to simply reiterating the U.S. government line on matters of war and peace all through the Clinton era, when friendly media coverage of the Balkans and numerous other Clintonian interventions habituated the press corps to a certain mindset. By the time the Bush administration set out on a campaign of deception designed to lie us into invading and occupying Iraq, the MSM was largely reconciled to playing the role of the government's amen corner.
With the U.S. and British media in the pocket of the Powers That Be, what hope is there that the American people who don't believe anything if they don't see it on television will awaken to the danger in time?
But there is hope: Internet is a mighty weapon that might defeat them in the end. A recent Pew study shows that this is not just a technophilic fantasy:

"The Internet continues to grow as a source of news for Americans. One-in-four (24%) list the internet as a main source of news. Roughly the same number (23%) say they go online for news every day, up from 15% in 2000; the percentage checking the Web for news at least once a week has grown from 33% to 44% over the same time period.
"While online news consumption is highest among young people (those under age 30), it is not an activity that is limited to the very young. Three-in-ten Americans ages 30-49 cite the Internet as a main source of news.
"The importance of the Web for people in their working years is even more apparent when the frequency of use is taken into account. One-third of people in their 30s say they get news online every day, as do 27% of people in their 40s. Nearly a quarter of people in their 50s get news online daily, about the same rate as among people ages 18-29."

...just stay connected as far as we are allowed to stay connected...

- 14:14 - Komentari (5) - Isprintaj - #

Nazalost, "Internet" ne znaci nuzno non-mainstream media, jer glede ovog online informiranja, da bi brojke stvarno nesto govorile, trebalo bi znati koliko tih online-newsa otpada na CNN.com i sajtove ostalih dinosaura, i onda oduzeti tu brojku od ostatka. Bojim se da bi malo ostalo. Ali svejedno, bolje nego nista, jer na TV je ipak _iskljucivo_ MSM. (btw, ne znam da li ce svakom citaocu ovoga biti jasno da MSM znaci MainStream Media... ja licno nisam dosad cuo za tu kraticu). I da, welcome back :) Sta je vec gotov odmor? Ili se zabavljas uz pivicu u nekom e-cafeu? :)

ovajonaj • 05.08.2005. u 16:52

Hehe, kakav e-cafe, BlackBerry rules!!! Samo da je pobjeci I od posla barem...no, bar je vrijeme podnosljivo, hehe

Monsoon • 05.08.2005. u 20:43

Mislim da je najveći problem u svemu činjenica da informacije koje se mogu pronaći na internetu mogu, ali najčešće nisu baš bazirane na realnosti. Iako mainstream media nije idealno rješenje, mislim da je opasno dati masi koja ne zna analizirati činjenice alat kao što je internet, pa ko voli nek izvoli. Ipak bi to moglo biti daleko opasnije rješenje od općeg neznanja.

newyorčanka • 07.08.2005. u 01:48

Da, najveci problem je opet kako kanalizirati te informacije na Internetu, tj. kako odvojiti informaciju od dezinformacije. MSM je tu da plasira iskljucivo dezinformaciju tako da je jedini put pronalazenja informacije preko Interneta. Naravno da MSM to shvaca i da se sve vise okrece i Internetu tako da kao sto kaze OVAJONAJ opet imamo istu situaciju na 'Internetu'. Mislim da ce bit jako tesko prosjecnog Amerikanca 'skinut' s navike TV informacija, za tako nesto ce trebat nova tehnoloska revolucija (direct TV-Internet jos nije uzeo maha) i nazalost slijedeca generacija. Samo, obzirom da je 'Internet' pod kontrolom, pitanje hoce li to Big Brother dopustiti? Ili da preformuliram pitanje: u kolikoj ce mjeri to dopustiti buduci mu je preko Interneta idealna mogucnost kontrole i nadzora nad informacijama i pristupu informacijama? p.s. ovo nije s BlackBerrya, pada kisa...;))))

Monsoon • 07.08.2005. u 12:19

I fully agree with anything you've printed here. here

Blaze • 08.06.2012. u 05:41

03.08.2005., srijeda

How could they learn from this?

CNOOC Withdraws $18.5B Bid for Unocal
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - China's government-controlled CNOOC withdrew its $18.4 billion bid for Unocal on Tuesday, ending a politically charged takeover battle that highlighted the United States' growing apprehension about the economic rise of the world's largest country. CNOOC's retreat clears the way for Chevron to complete its acquisition of Unocal next week, even though its cash-and-stock offer is currently worth nearly $1 billion less. But Chevron had several factors working in its favor - regulatory clearance, the support of Unocal's board and the backing of U.S. lawmakers, who questioned whether economic and national security interests would be threatened if a company backed by China's Communist government were to buy a major U.S. oil company.
Those misgivings virtually ensured CNOOC's bid would have to undergo a rigorous - and possibly tempestuous - review that would have prevented Unocal from being sold for at least another six to nine months, with no guarantee that the deal would ever be completed. In a strongly worded statement, Hong Kong-based CNOOC said it might have raised its bid even higher, if not for the political backlash. Chevron spokesman Don Campbell declined to comment on CNOOC's remarks, saying the company is focused on assuring a smooth transition after its Unocal acquisition is complete. The marriage is expected to be consummated Aug. 10 when Unocal shareholders are scheduled to formally vote on the offer. CNOOC's withdrawal from the bidding is expected to turn the vote into a mere formality.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Washington Politics Shock Chinese
Forbes
Chengyu Fu, chief executive of the China National Offshore Oil Corp. is shocked-shocked to find there is politics going on in Washington, and that it can derail takeover bids. The oil company, which is 70% owned by the Chinese government, has said it is dropping its $18.5 billion bid for California-based Unocal because of "the political environment in the U.S." Critics of the bid contend the acquisition might imperil U.S. energy security, and a raft of legislation intended to derail it has been batted around both houses of the U.S. Congress.
CNOOC's withdrawal clears the way for Chevron to buy Unocal with a bid it raised last week to $17.4 billion from its original $16.7 billion. Free of a potentially six-to-nine month long and bruising regulatory review, that bid has been backed by the Unocal board ahead of a shareholder vote due Aug. 10. But if to the winners go the spoils, then to the losers come a lot of questions. And China's attempts to expand its global corporate footprint through a series of high-profile, cross-border mergers and acquisitions has seen more losers in recent months than Beijing will have liked.
The big question they raise goes way beyond politics, even though there is no doubt that China is a sensitive nerve among the American public and politicians alike these days.
That question is this: Just how good are Chinese companies at the global M&A game and especially when they run up, as they invariably must, against competing foreign bidders for whom this isn't the first time in the rodeo?

Consider the recent record:
- Last month, Haier Group, China's leading white-goods manufacturer, dropped out of the bidding for Maytag the U.S. appliance maker, in the face of stronger offers from Whirlpool and Ripplewood Holdings, an investor-led group.
- The same month, Beijing-based CITIC Resources dropped a bid for a controlling interest in Thai Petrochemical Industry, the country's largest corporate defaulter.
- In June, a consortium including state-owned China National Petroleum Corp. lost out to Japan's Mitsui in the bidding for the Thai oil and gas assets of Pogo Producing, a U.S. energy firm, that sold for $820 million.
- In March, state-owned China National Metals and Minerals Corp. (China Minmetals) dropped a multibillion-dollar plan to take over leading Canadian copper and zinc miner Noranda, which outmaneuvered it with a proposed shuffling of corporate assets with Falconbridge.
- In January, China's state-owned Sinochem failed in its $669 million bid to buy South Korea's oil refiner Inchon.
- Last year, PetroChina was among losing bidders for a stake in Medco, Indonesia's largest listed oil and gas producer.
On the success side, there is computer maker Lenovo's $1.75 billion purchase of IBM's personal computer business last December and Nanjing Automobile's successful, if much smaller, bid last month for the rump of bankrupt U.K. carmaker MG Rover Group.

What were the key differences between success and failure?

Most of the losses came in knock-down takeover battles that attracted bigger and more experienced foreign rivals to make counterbids. Chevron, for example, is not just the world's second-largest oil company after Exxon Mobil, it is also about 20 times larger than CNOOC, which is only the third-largest oil company in China.
While Nanjing Automobile did beat out a rival, that was Shanghai Automotive Industries Corp. The biggest successful deal, Lenovo's, was not a takeover battle at all, but a private negotiation.
China's companies will learn the rules of the game they are now staring to play-and Western investment banks are lining up to relieve them of hefty fees in return for teaching them. The companies' government-often their their senior shareholder as well-wants them to acquire foreign assets, notably the natural resources and consumer brands and expertise that they cannot grow rapidly at home.
China's national interest is its imperative, and cross-border M&A is the way to fulfill it. China's largest companies-the ones most likely to be doing the big deals-may be mostly state-funded and have managers largely hand-picked in Beijing. But they will have to learn how to win at this most capitalist of games, M&A. The way to do that is not, as CNOOC did, by launching big, high-profile bids in politically sensitive industries, but to do a bunch of smaller deals that can actually get done. Small wins lead to larger victories.

mozda, ali "...dug je put do vjecnosti, i mi ga prelazimo sutke i u miru,...." (B. Stulic)

- 22:10 - Komentari (0) - Isprintaj - #

<< Prethodni mjesec | Sljedeći mjesec >>

<	kolovoz, 2005					>
P	U	S	Č	P	S	N
1	2	3	4	5	6	7
8	9	10	11	12	13	14
15	16	17	18	19	20	21
22	23	24	25	26	27	28
29	30	31