Skyrocketing prices of oil high on PetroCaribe agenda


Published on Thursday, July 10, 2008

HAVANA, Cuba (ACN): The need to stop the increasing price of oil in the world market will be high on the agenda of the 4th PetroCaribe Summit, to be held July 12 and 13 in Maracaibo, Venezuela.

Expert David Paravisini, told Radio Nacional de Venezuela (RNV) radio station that representatives from the member countries with the regional integration initiative will analyse the impact by high oil prices on Latin America and the Caribbean. They will also consider the consequences stemming from the current world food crisis.

The meeting will announce that Guatemala has joined the integration initiative. Guatemalan president Álvaro Colom suggested an analysis of international oil prices, Paravisini said.

“The incorporation of Guatemala to PetroCaribe will make it possible for the country to finance social programmes on the one hand, and to alleviate the pressure on oil prices on the other,” said the Guatemalan head of state.

Representatives of all 17 member nations will examine the development of this energy integration mechanism, explained Venezuelan Communications and Information Minister Andrés Izarra.

This initiative emerged in June 2005, as an alliance promoted by Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez in an effort to reduce differences in the region in terms of access to fuels.

PetroCaribe groups Antigua and Barbuda, The Bahamas, Belize, Cuba, Dominica, Grenada, Guyana, Jamaica, the Dominican Republic, St Kitts and Nevis, St Lucia, St Vincent and the Grenadines, Suriname, Venezuela, Haiti and Nicaragua.

One of the principles of the energy group is that of contributing to the economic and social development of its member states through the use of natural resources (hydrocarbons), which includes up to 50 percent investment from its turnover in social programmes and development.

It also makes it possible to develop infrastructure for the refining, storage and transportation of oil, the export and processing of natural gas and the implementation of training programmes.

http://www.caribbeannetnews.com/news-9057--12-12--.html

If venezuela is concerned about high oil prices it doesn't need a conference to discuss this; just sell oil below the market prices to Latin America and Caribbean countries.

No, what Chavez wants is a forum for political pomp and ceremony to exalt himself and advance his political agenda.

Guyana, meanwhile, is like a puppet on a string. We are making Chavez look good while we are sitting on untapped oil in our northwest region waiting for him to give us his approval to start drilling.

Under Burnham, it was Punishment Never Ceases.

Under Jagdeo, it is President Punishing People!

Under the AFC, it will be American Friends Cometh!

Any attack on Iran will send oil prices to unprecedented levels...OPEC meeting.
Israel wants to end the world.

quote:

Originally posted by Terry Ishmael:
Any attack on Iran will send oil prices to unprecedented levels...OPEC meeting.
Israel wants to end the world.

Terry,

In another thread, I directed certain posts to another forum member about the rising role of Iran as the sole power player in that region, but I had to decline perpetuating the dicsourse after I realize the depth of understanding the dynamics of geo-politics was visibly absent.

Look, what Iran is doing is no different from what North Korea has done with its war games aimed at South Korea, or what China has done with its war games aimed at Taiwan (and other Asian nations), or what any country would do that has political ambitions to become a play maker.

Israel did carry out some war games exercises last week, and so Iran reacted with its own missile tests. The question is: Which of the two has the balls to attack first? And I will have to say, based on history, Israel will attack Iran first.

Now, what will be the outcome? I have no idea, but I won't be surprised if Russia and or China steps in ON IRAN'S SIDE! America is now in a weakened position to respond to any military conflagration in the Middle East, so its best bet would be to rely on UN Security members, namely Russia and China, to help. By so doing, America is ceding power to those two.

Right now, America has ceded lots of power to China in the six nation talk on containing North Korea, so China is emerging as a major power player. Besides, China is blocking efforts to punish Sudan for the Darfur atrocities, and this is strengthening China's hand as a play maker who can stand up to pressure from world opinion.

On your last sentence above, I don't think Israel wants to end the world, but I do believe that in an effort to annhilate Israel, the world may come very close to ending or annhilating itself.

Israel is more about defending its right to a secure border where it now sits, whie Iran is more about esablishing istelf as regional strongman by going after Israel.

Truth be told, apart form whatever nukes Iran and Israel have, the world has more than enough nuclear weapons that, if accidentally ignited by an Iran-Israel war, can destroy the world times over.

Diplomacy remains key to world peace.

quote:

Israel is more about defending its right to a secure border where it now sits, whie Iran is more about esablishing istelf as regional strongman by going after Israel

That's western propanda.
Israel wants a prolonged conflict to keep the US on its side. If it had wanted peace, it would have traded land for peace to the Palestinians years ago and gotten them on its side.

Israel launched unprovoked attacks on Syria, Iraq and Lebanon. Israel created Hezbollah and Hamas. They thrive on conflict because they will continue to get billions from the US.

Peace will stop the cash flow.

Neither Iraq nor Iran is a threat to Israel. Israelis have admitted openly that Iraq was never a threat to them. Israel has several nuclear bombs, even more powerful than the US. No one, not Iran, will ever attack them.

That's US propaganda to keep the axis of evil terrorist threat alive and well.

quote:

Originally posted by Terry Ishmael:

quote:

Israel is more about defending its right to a secure border where it now sits, whie Iran is more about esablishing istelf as regional strongman by going after Israel

That's western propanda.
Israel wants a prolonged conflict to keep the US on its side. If it had wanted peace, it would have traded land for peace to the Palestinians years ago and gotten them on its side.

Israel launched unprovoked attacks on Syria, Iraq and Lebanon. Israel created Hezbollah and Hamas. They thrive on conflict because they will continue to get billions from the US.

Peace will stop the cash flow.

Neither Iraq nor Iran is a threat to Israel. Israelis have admitted openly that Iraq was never a threat to them. Israel has several nuclear bombs, even more powerful than the US. No one, not Iran, will ever attack them.

That's US propaganda to keep the axis of evil terrorist threat alive and well.

Terry,

When is a view not western propaganda? When it comes from out of the 'left' field or when it comes from Arab/Muslim nations?

Israel has abused its position on several occasions, viz a viz the rights of the Palestinians to occupy certain portions of land inside Isarel, since becoming a nation again in 1948, but it is its claim to the land it occupies that is being used as fodder for ongoing anti-Israeli sentiments in the region.

Before Saddam Hussein was ousted, he repeatedly threatened to 'push Israel into the (Mediterranean) sea'. In the 1990 Gulf War that featured US allies expelling Iraq from Kuwait, Iraq lobbed scud missiles into Israe to provoke a retaliation in the hope of triggering a 'holy war' in the region.

Since Saddam died, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran has taken over the mantra of destroying Israel or wiping it off the map.

Except for an aerial attack that wiped out a potenital nuclear reactor in Iraq in 1980, name an instance when Israel launched UNPROVOKED ATTAKCS ON SYRIA AND LEBANON. If you are honest enough and won't repeat eastern propaganda, you will acknowledge that attacks on these two countries were triggered by rebels using the countries as laucnhing pads for rocket attacks into Israel.

And it is true that Israel has nuclear weapons, but Israel is not threatening anyone with these. If Israel seriously wanted to, it could have used nuclear weapons in past military attacks/battles. But unless you know something about nuclear weapons, I don't think you should worry about these. NO NATION, INCLUDING ISRAEL, WILL EVER USE NUCLEAR WEAPONS. NUCLEAR WEAPONS ARE BASICALLY DIPLOMATIC DETERRENTS! Who has them can make major power plays and get away with them (moves).

And since you are so firm in your belief that my views are premised on western propaganda, could you say on whose prpoaganda you premise your responses? I mean, we both have to rely on some sort of source for information in the news, so oblige me if you will.

quote:

When is a view not western propaganda? When it comes from out of the 'left' field or when it comes from Arab/Muslim nations?

You ever heard about the search for WMD?

quote:

NO NATION, INCLUDING ISRAEL, WILL EVER USE NUCLEAR WEAPONS.

Yu ever heard of Hiroshima?

quote:

Originally posted by Terry Ishmael:

quote:

NO NATION, INCLUDING ISRAEL, WILL EVER USE NUCLEAR WEAPONS.

Yu ever heard of Hiroshima?

The US was the first and only country to use nuclear weapons.

Can you communicate this to communicator?

quote:

Originally posted by Terry Ishmael:
Can you communicate this to communicator?

He has his mindlines crossed .

quote:

If you are honest enough and won't repeat eastern propaganda, you will acknowledge that attacks on these two countries were triggered by rebels using the countries as laucnhing pads for rocket attacks into Israel.

TI will never acknowledge, he and many other give that nut case Ahmadinejad high praise

quote:

Originally posted by Terry Ishmael:

quote:

When is a view not western propaganda? When it comes from out of the 'left' field or when it comes from Arab/Muslim nations?

You ever heard about the search for WMD?

Terry,

Yes. I heard of WMDs. So has the United Nations Security Council, which ordered Saddam Hussein to destroy all his WMDs it knew he had after the 1990 Gulf War. So it wasn't just western propaganda that fueled the belief that Saddam had WMDs; it was also the most prominent world body that held this view.

What Saddam did or didn't do with the WMDs was what the Bush Administration capitalized on, at the height of the 9-11 attacks, to make a case for going after Saddam Hussein. All intelligence agencies in developed countries also shared the common belief that he still had them.

And Saddam, his ego bigger than his country, didn't help matters either, because every time UN inspectors went in search of his WMDs to verify he obeyed the UNSC, he kept pushing them around.

Now, even after Bush threatened war against Saddam if he didn't come clean onhis WMDs, the man still kept playing games with the UNSC which was still in charge of the search for WMDs. To me, Saddam played a very dangerous game to his own peril, even if you want to blame Bush for the war and its ongoing political fallout.

To Terry, Billy and Mr. T,

Nice try, but you guys did not read my post in the context of its delivery. I said "NO NATION, INCLUDING ISRAEL, WILL EVER USE NUCLEAR WEAPONS," and you guys jumped all over me by going back into history to try and contradict me.

I never said 'no nation ever used nuclear weapons'. I said 'no nation WILL ever (future tense) use nuclear weapons, and the reason being: there are too many freaking nuclear weapons out there compared with 1945 when the US dropped the so-called 'Little Boy' or nuclear atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan.


"Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

- The mushroom cloud over Hiroshima after the dropping of Little Boy
- The Fat Man mushroom cloud resulting from the nuclear explosion over Nagasaki rises 18 km (11 mi, 60,000 ft) into the air from the hypocenter.


The atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were nuclear attacks at the end of World War II against the Empire of Japan by the United States at the order of U.S. President Harry S. Truman on August 6 and 9, 1945. After six months of intense firebombing of 67 other Japanese cities, the nuclear weapon "Little Boy" was dropped on the city of Hiroshima on Monday[1], August 6, 1945, followed on August 9 by the detonation of the "Fat Man" nuclear bomb over Nagasaki. These are to date the only attacks with nuclear weapons in the history of warfare.[2]

The bombs killed as many as 140,000 people in Hiroshima and 80,000 in Nagasaki by the end of 1945,[3] roughly half on the days of the bombings. Since then, thousands more have died from injuries or illness attributed to exposure to radiation released by the bombs.[1] In both cities, the overwhelming majority of the dead were civilians.

Six days after the detonation over Nagasaki, on August 15, Japan announced its surrender to the Allied Powers, signing the Instrument of Surrender on September 2, officially ending the Pacific War and therefore World War II. (Germany had signed its Instrument of Surrender on May 7, ending the war in Europe.) The bombings led, in part, to post-war Japan adopting Three Non-Nuclear Principles, forbidding that nation from nuclear armament.

Look, everybody knew, you, me, the UN, Bush, that Iraq was in such a weakened state, that it couldn't even feed itself much have WMDs. Scott Ritter, UN inspector, made that very clear, but Bush simply wanted a war to get access to the oil.

This is old news. Bush should be impeached.

quote:

Originally posted by Terry Ishmael:
Look, everybody knew, you, me, the UN, Bush, that Iraq was in such a weakened state, that it couldn't even feed itself much have WMDs. Scott Ritter, UN inspector, made that very clear, but Bush simply wanted a war to get access to the oil.

This is old news. Bush should be impeached.

Terry,

Whether Bush should be impeached is up to the US Congress, but you're missing the point of our discussion: WHEN IS A VIEW NOT CONSIDERED WESTERN PROPAGANDA? You are the one who introduced the WMD issue as a point of reference and I obliged by clarifying.

Look, there are various media outlets out there that collect information and convert them into news, so anything I write about is based on available information. You may accuse me of relying on western propaganda, but then this makes me ask you, if not the western media, then what is your source of information that gives you the right to belief your opinion on issues is right and mine is wrong?

It is almost like what is playing out in Guyana with information. the government gives out only that which it wants the people to know. If independent media houses ask questions, the responses vary from 'Ihave no knowledge' to 'no comment'. yet when people are forced to speculate or someone'inside' leaks information, the government lackeys respond by accusing people of speculating and spreading propaganda.

All information has a source; whether reliable or unreliable; whether accurate or inaccurate. There must be a source. What's yours?

I look at BBC which I think is more impartial as well as French News.
I don't look at Fox News which is obviously biased.

quote:

Originally posted by Terry Ishmael:
I look at BBC which I think is more impartial as well as French News.
I don't look at Fox News which is obviously biased.

The BBC may be impartial, but it still operates out of Britain, a western nation. France, by the way, is also part of the western bloc.

I'm only pulling you out to show you that information can either be viewed in the context of relevant or the truth. Our views are shaped based on a combination of our past exposure to political and social developments and our cognitive skills in understanding what we are seeing, reading or hearing in the news.

You'd be surpised to know five people in five different rooms can look at the same half hour newscast and then enter one room to discuss the news only to wind up talking about different takes on the same newscast. Their past exposures that help make connections with current events and their cognitive skills come into play.

I believe when I get information, it is for me to check it against other news for confirmation or contradiction. If there is no contradiction, and there is unison, then that information is deemed reliable and usable in analyses.

In the 'western bloc', media competition forces media houses to get the facts straight or lose their audience for lack of credibility. In the 'eastern bloc', there is no media competition; the government controls the information flow and what you get is what you have to work with; whether truth or lie, you have no way of verifying it.

Now, thanks for indulging me.

quote:

You'd be surpised to know five people in five different rooms can look at the same half hour newscast and then enter one room to discuss the news only to wind up talking about different takes on the same newscast. Their past exposures that help make connections with current events and their cognitive skills come into play.

I'd be very surprised. When you see vivid images of A killing B, it's very to hard for me to imagine one of the 5 viewers saying that B killed A. Has nothing to do with cognitive skills.

What you are saying is true on certain issues, or type of newscasts, but news today is primarily glaring TV images. Hard to disagree with images.

The issue I am talking about is the spin on news. For example, for years, the media reported that in the 1967 war, Egypt launched an attack on Israel that started the war.

Many years after, the New York Times reported that it was actually Israel that launched the attack on Egypt. Today, the media has finally acknowledged that it was indeed Israel that launched the first attack.

This is what I am talking about. Deliberate spin of biased reporting.

quote:

Originally posted by Communicator:

quote:

Originally posted by Terry Ishmael:
I look at BBC which I think is more impartial as well as French News.
I don't look at Fox News which is obviously biased.

The BBC may be impartial, but it still operates out of Britain, a western nation.

Their head offices are in the UK, but these days they operate from various continents, and with local staff.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Communicator:
To Terry, Billy and Mr. T,

Nice try, but you guys did not read my post in the context of its delivery. I said "NO NATION, INCLUDING ISRAEL, WILL EVER USE NUCLEAR WEAPONS,"


I believe one day in the not too distant future the mad men in Pakistan or India will prove you wrong both "states" will justify it with religious reasons.

Terry does look at Iranian news.


http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/07/10/in-an-irani...o-many/index.html?hp

July 10, 2008, 9:16 am
In an Iranian Image, a Missile Too Many
By Mike Nizza and Patrick Witty



In the four-missile version of the image released Wednesday by Sepah News, the media arm of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard, two major sections (encircled in red) appear to closely replicate other sections (encircled in orange). (Illustration by The New York Times; photo via Agence France-Presse)


Latest update at 3 p.m. Eastern Agence France-Presse has retracted the image as “apparently digitally altered.” More developments at the bottom of the post.
As news spread across the world of Iran’s provocative missile tests, so did an image of four missiles heading skyward in unison. Unfortunately, it appeared to contain one too many missiles, a point that had not emerged before the photo was used on the front pages of The Los Angeles Times, The Financial Times, The Chicago Tribune and several other newspapers as well as on BBC News, MSNBC, Yahoo! News, NYTimes.com and many other major news Web sites.


Agence France-Presse said that it obtained the image from the Web site of Sepah News, the media arm of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards, on Wednesday. But there was no sign of it there later in the day. Today, The Associated Press distributed what appeared to be a nearly identical photo from the same source, but without the fourth missile.
As the above illustration shows, the second missile from the right appears to be the sum of two other missiles in the image. The contours of the billowing smoke match perfectly near the ground, as well in the immediate wake of the missile. Only a small black dot in the reddish area of exhaust seems to differ from the missile to its left, though there are also some slight variations in the color of the smoke and the sky.
Does Iran’s state media use Photoshop? The charge has been leveled before. So far, though, it can’t be said with any certainty whether there is any official Iranian involvement in this instance. Sepah apparently published the three-missile version of the image today without further explanation.
For its part, Agence France-Presse retracted its four-missile version this morning, saying that the image was “apparently digitally altered” by Iranian state media. The fourth missile “has apparently been added in digital retouch to cover a grounded missile that may have failed during the test,” the agency said. Later, it published an article quoting several experts backing that argument.
Along with major doubts about the image, American intelligence officials had larger questions on exactly how many missiles were fired. One defense official said that “at least 7, and possibly up to 10″ had taken flight in all, though the intelligence data was still being sorted out. Only one of them was said to be a Shahab 3.
Throughout the day, several news sites have taken steps to disown the photograph that they ran on Wednesday, including LATimes.com and MSNBC.com.
In a sentiment no doubt echoed by news organizations everywhere, an MSNBC editor acknowledged that the four-missile picture was initially welcomed with open arms. “