Ever wonder what it is we are REALLY fighting for?
Generals gathered in their masses
Just like witches at black masses
Evil minds that plot destruction
Sorcerers of death’s construction
In the fields the bodies burning
As the war machine keeps turning
Death and hatred to mankind
Poisoning their brainwashed minds
Oh lord yeah…
I can’t vouch for the validity of everything in this video but it certainly has valid points to consider.
Wiki- The phrase petrodollar warfare refers to a hypothesis that one of the driving forces of United States foreign policy has been the status of the United States dollar as the world’s dominant reserve currency and as the currency in which oil is priced. The term was coined by William R. Clark, who has written a book with the same title. The phrase oil currency war is sometimes used with the same meaning.
Most oil sales throughout the world are denominated in United States dollars (USD). According to proponents of the petrodollar warfare hypothesis, because most countries rely on oil imports, they are forced to maintain large stockpiles of dollars in order to continue imports. This creates a consistent demand for USDs and puts upward pressure on the USD’s value, regardless of economic conditions in the United States. This in turn allegedly allows the US government to gain revenues through seignorage and by issuing bonds at lower interest rates than they otherwise would be able to. As a result the U.S. government can run higher budget deficits at a more sustainable level than can most other countries. A stronger USD also means that goods imported into the United States are relatively cheap, although any country benefiting from this position could also be seriously damaged if their currency were to appreciate significantly against other world currencies, particularly in exports which would become relatively more expensive for the rest of the world.
Another component of the hypothesis is that the price of oil is more stable in the U.S. than anywhere else since importers do not need to worry about exchange rate fluctuations. Since the U.S. imports a great deal of oil, its markets are heavily reliant on oil and its derivative products (jet fuel, diesel fuel, gasoline, etc.) for their energy needs. As the price of oil can be an important political factor, U.S. administrations are quite sensitive to the price of oil.
Political enemies of the United States therefore have some interest in seeing oil denominated in euros or other currencies. The EU could also theoretically accrue the same benefits if the euro replaced the dollar. – Read More
The Trans-Caspian Oil Transport System is a proposed project to transport oil through the Caspian Sea from Kazakhstani Caspian oilfields to Baku in Azerbaijan for the further transportation to the Mediterranean or Black Sea coast. The main options under consideration are an offshore oil pipeline from Kazakhstan to Azerbaijan, and construction of oil terminals and oil tankers fleet. A strong push for the project has been from the partners of the Kashagan oilfield project and in particular Total who has a share in both the field and the BTC pipeline. They have estimated that such a project would cost roughly US$4 billion. The project also faces opposition from Iran and Russia, both alternative avenues for Kazakhstan’s oil and gas who would likely object to competing pipelines being built.
In 2005, the Government of Kazakhstan adopted plans for creation of a trans-Caspian westbound route for oil export. On 19 June 2006, President of Kazakhstan Nursultan Nazarbayev and President of AzerbaijanIlham Aliyev signed a framework agreement on the trans-Caspian oil transport system. On 24 January 2007, partners in TengizChevroil (developer of Tengiz field) and KCO (Kashagan field developer)signed a memorandum of understanding to create a trans-Caspian oil transport system. On 2 October 2009, the national oil company of Kazakhstan Kazmunaygas and the State Oil Company of Azerbaijan Republicsigned a memorandum of understanding to expand the Caspian Oil Transport System to include Azeri infrastructure and onshore pipelines from Baku to Kulevi oil terminal in Georgia.
On 6 October 2009, an agreement on the oil pipeline from Kashagan to Baku was signed by consortium of French companies during the French President Nicolas Sarkozy’s visit to Kazakhstan.
Tengizchevroil is a joint venture between Chevron (50 % share in the consortium), ExxonMobil (25 % share), KazMunayGas (20 % share) and LukArco (5 % share). The joint venture was formed in April 1993, when the Kazakh government granted an exclusive 40-year right to Tengizchevroil (TCO) to develop the Tengiz and Korolevskoye oil fields located in the north-eastern reaches of the Caspian Sea in Kazakhstan.
From a two-company joint venture in 1993 (between Kazakh state oil company Kazakhoil, now KazMunayGas, and the US company Chevron) Tengizchevroil expanded in 1996-97 into a four company consortium: ExxonMobil Kazakhstan Ventures, an ExxonMobil subsidiary, and LukArco, a joint venture between Lukoil of Russia and Atlantic Richfield (Arco) of the USA, acquired 25 % and 5% respectively. Since 2000 has also the British BP a part in it, since BP merged with Arco and took its share in LukArco.
The Trans-Caspian Gas Pipeline is a proposed submarine pipeline between Türkmenbaşy in Turkmenistan, and Baku inAzerbaijan. According to some proposals it will also include a connection between the Tengiz Field in Kazakhstan, and Türkmenbaşy. The Trans-Caspian Gas Pipeline project if built would transport natural gas from Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan to central Europe, circumventing both Russia and Iran.
A project to import natural gas from Turkmenistan through a submarine pipeline was suggested in 1996 by the United States. In February 1999, the Turkmen government entered into an agreement with General Electric and Bechtel Group for a feasibility study on the proposed pipeline. In 1999, while attending the OSCE meeting in Istanbul, Turkey, Georgia, Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan signed a number of agreements concerned with construction of pipelines. However, because of Russian and Iranian opposition to the project, an unresolved legal dispute over Caspian Sea territorial boundaries and a gas discovery on Azerbaijan’s Shah Deniz field, the submarine pipeline project was shelved in the summer of 2000 and only the South Caucasus Pipeline project continued.
The project is heavily criticized by Russia and Iran, current transit countries for Turkmen gas. Alexander Golovin, special envoy on Caspian issues, has stated that a major gas pipeline would pose a serious, dangerous risk to the prosperity of the entire region. According to the Russian Natural Resources Ministry, any gas or oil pipelines across the floor of the Caspian Sea would be environmentally unacceptable. Russia has also taken the legal position that a potential pipeline project, regardless of the route it takes on the seabed, would require the consent of all five Caspian littoral states in order to proceed. Iran has pointed out that treaties signed by Iran and the Soviet Union in 1921 and 1940 are still in force and that any action taken without the consent of all the littoral states would be illegal.
In regard of the decision taken by the EU***(see reference below) on 12 September 2011, Russia expressed its “disappointment” as it “seems to have been adopted without taking into account the internationally accepted legal and geopolitical situation in the Caspian basin,” and as Caspian Sea littoral state, Russia could veto any international agreement allowing for the pipeline to be built.
In reaction to the 1999 plans for a Trans-Caspian gas pipeline Russia and Iran collaborated in calling for a Central Asian gas cartel in 2001 and 2002. There is also a concern in the West that closer collaboration between Georgia and Azerbaijan will isolate Armenia and tempt it to strengthen ties with Russia and Iran.
***Brussels, 12 September 2011 – Today the European Union has adopted a mandate to negotiate a legally binding treaty between the EU, Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan to build a Trans Caspian Pipeline System. This is the first time that the European Union has proposed a treaty in support of an infrastructure project. The treaty will be concluded by the EU after decision by all 27 Member States that the European Commission should lead the negotiations on behalf of them all.