Israel
Well, the shock of shooting at one of their own did not last very long at all...
On the last day of the year, Israeli troops shot at a group of some 500 protesters at the wall, putting 10 Palestinians and one Israeli woman in hospital.
It shocks me that the Israeli people have so lost touch with their moral compass.
When on earth did it become okay to shoot live rounds at protesters, at civilians???
The army feels no constraints in doing this, so they must feel justified and believe that their actions are approved by the majority of their countrymen.
Somehow, when you have an active, well trained, and well funded military, it always turns to this: using them against civilians.
No matter what nationality you are...
Wednesday, December 31, 2003
Israel
Well, the shock of shooting at one of their own did not last very long at all...
On the last day of the year, Israeli troops shot at a group of some 500 protesters at the wall, putting 10 Palestinians and one Israeli woman in hospital.
It shocks me that the Israeli people have so lost touch with their moral compass.
When on earth did it become okay to shoot live rounds at protesters, at civilians???
The army feels no constraints in doing this, so they must feel justified and believe that their actions are approved by the majority of their countrymen.
Somehow, when you have an active, well trained, and well funded military, it always turns to this: using them against civilians.
No matter what nationality you are...
Well, the shock of shooting at one of their own did not last very long at all...
On the last day of the year, Israeli troops shot at a group of some 500 protesters at the wall, putting 10 Palestinians and one Israeli woman in hospital.
It shocks me that the Israeli people have so lost touch with their moral compass.
When on earth did it become okay to shoot live rounds at protesters, at civilians???
The army feels no constraints in doing this, so they must feel justified and believe that their actions are approved by the majority of their countrymen.
Somehow, when you have an active, well trained, and well funded military, it always turns to this: using them against civilians.
No matter what nationality you are...
Tuesday, December 30, 2003
Iraq
And so the dance starts.
I am really curious if the Americans will pay the debt they owe the Kurds (under both Bushes).
Kurdish members of Iraq's governing council are insisting the country's transitional law include wide-ranging sovereignty rights for the northern Kurdish areas - including control of their natural resources and veto powers over Iraqi military movements in the region.
Lately, foreign soldiers assisting the "coalition of the just" are especially targeted, and I predict it is going to become much worse.
Another fairly safe prediction: right before the elections in the USA take place, I expect the prince of Baghdad Paul Bremer to bulldoze Iraq through a kind of election process before installing Chalabi as leader, leaving Bush to bring the American troops home in a triumphant and much televised return parade.
After that, even more evangelists can enter the country and convert those Ahrabs.
They are already making plans and sharpening their crosses...
And so the dance starts.
I am really curious if the Americans will pay the debt they owe the Kurds (under both Bushes).
Kurdish members of Iraq's governing council are insisting the country's transitional law include wide-ranging sovereignty rights for the northern Kurdish areas - including control of their natural resources and veto powers over Iraqi military movements in the region.
Lately, foreign soldiers assisting the "coalition of the just" are especially targeted, and I predict it is going to become much worse.
Another fairly safe prediction: right before the elections in the USA take place, I expect the prince of Baghdad Paul Bremer to bulldoze Iraq through a kind of election process before installing Chalabi as leader, leaving Bush to bring the American troops home in a triumphant and much televised return parade.
After that, even more evangelists can enter the country and convert those Ahrabs.
They are already making plans and sharpening their crosses...
Iraq
And so the dance starts.
I am really curious if the Americans will pay the debt they owe the Kurds (under both Bushes).
Kurdish members of Iraq's governing council are insisting the country's transitional law include wide-ranging sovereignty rights for the northern Kurdish areas - including control of their natural resources and veto powers over Iraqi military movements in the region.
Lately, foreign soldiers assisting the "coalition of the just" are especially targeted, and I predict it is going to become much worse.
Another fairly safe prediction: right before the elections in the USA take place, I expect the prince of Baghdad Paul Bremer to bulldoze Iraq through a kind of election process before installing Chalabi as leader, leaving Bush to bring the American troops home in a triumphant and much televised return parade.
After that, even more evangelists can enter the country and convert those Ahrabs.
They are already making plans and sharpening their crosses...
And so the dance starts.
I am really curious if the Americans will pay the debt they owe the Kurds (under both Bushes).
Kurdish members of Iraq's governing council are insisting the country's transitional law include wide-ranging sovereignty rights for the northern Kurdish areas - including control of their natural resources and veto powers over Iraqi military movements in the region.
Lately, foreign soldiers assisting the "coalition of the just" are especially targeted, and I predict it is going to become much worse.
Another fairly safe prediction: right before the elections in the USA take place, I expect the prince of Baghdad Paul Bremer to bulldoze Iraq through a kind of election process before installing Chalabi as leader, leaving Bush to bring the American troops home in a triumphant and much televised return parade.
After that, even more evangelists can enter the country and convert those Ahrabs.
They are already making plans and sharpening their crosses...
Sunday, December 28, 2003
Israel
An American and Jewish protester were both injured when they were shot by Israeli troops while protesting at the infamous separation fence.
Within one day of the incident, newspapers, TV and politicians are all abuzz about this.
While I am happy for the media attention at last, I am also horrified at the blatant racism which has been made so visible here: each day, Palestinians undergo similar or worse treatments and the press or politicians do not blink an eye. Even when American peace activist Rachel Corrie was flattened by a bulldozer when she was protesting the demolition of Palestinian homes, it created a mere blip on the media radar. In fact, shooting at (and killing) peace activists seems a national sport, whether they be American or British.
However, when an Israeli soldier takes aim and fires at another Israeli (even though it seems he did not know his victim was his countryman) all hell breaks loose.
I am pleased this security fence and associated land grab is finally receiving serious media attention but the way it does sort of leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
From the article:
Hours after the incident, the army set up an investigative committee. The army chief of staff, Lt. Gen. Moshe Yaalon, took the rare step of visiting the injured Israeli, Gil Naamati, in the hospital Saturday. Yaalon called the shooting serious and pledged to investigate thoroughly.
By Sunday, the airwaves were clogged with Cabinet ministers, army officials and peace activists fervently arguing over the incident.
"An order to fire on people that do not fire on you is a completely illegal order," said Ami Ayalon, a former head of Israel's Shin Bet security service.
I wish this reaction been seen even once where innocent Palestinians were made to suffer through the actions of Israeli troops, be it at targeted assassinations, roadblocks, protests or just everyday life: somebody simply being at the wrong place at the wrong time...
An American and Jewish protester were both injured when they were shot by Israeli troops while protesting at the infamous separation fence.
Within one day of the incident, newspapers, TV and politicians are all abuzz about this.
While I am happy for the media attention at last, I am also horrified at the blatant racism which has been made so visible here: each day, Palestinians undergo similar or worse treatments and the press or politicians do not blink an eye. Even when American peace activist Rachel Corrie was flattened by a bulldozer when she was protesting the demolition of Palestinian homes, it created a mere blip on the media radar. In fact, shooting at (and killing) peace activists seems a national sport, whether they be American or British.
However, when an Israeli soldier takes aim and fires at another Israeli (even though it seems he did not know his victim was his countryman) all hell breaks loose.
I am pleased this security fence and associated land grab is finally receiving serious media attention but the way it does sort of leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
From the article:
Hours after the incident, the army set up an investigative committee. The army chief of staff, Lt. Gen. Moshe Yaalon, took the rare step of visiting the injured Israeli, Gil Naamati, in the hospital Saturday. Yaalon called the shooting serious and pledged to investigate thoroughly.
By Sunday, the airwaves were clogged with Cabinet ministers, army officials and peace activists fervently arguing over the incident.
"An order to fire on people that do not fire on you is a completely illegal order," said Ami Ayalon, a former head of Israel's Shin Bet security service.
I wish this reaction been seen even once where innocent Palestinians were made to suffer through the actions of Israeli troops, be it at targeted assassinations, roadblocks, protests or just everyday life: somebody simply being at the wrong place at the wrong time...
Israel
An American and Jewish protester were both injured when they were shot by Israeli troops while protesting at the infamous separation fence.
Within one day of the incident, newspapers, TV and politicians are all abuzz about this.
While I am happy for the media attention at last, I am also horrified at the blatant racism which has been made so visible here: each day, Palestinians undergo similar or worse treatments and the press or politicians do not blink an eye. Even when American peace activist Rachel Corrie was flattened by a bulldozer when she was protesting the demolition of Palestinian homes, it created a mere blip on the media radar. In fact, shooting at (and killing) peace activists seems a national sport, whether they be American or British.
However, when an Israeli soldier takes aim and fires at another Israeli (even though it seems he did not know his victim was his countryman) all hell breaks loose.
I am pleased this security fence and associated land grab is finally receiving serious media attention but the way it does sort of leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
From the article:
Hours after the incident, the army set up an investigative committee. The army chief of staff, Lt. Gen. Moshe Yaalon, took the rare step of visiting the injured Israeli, Gil Naamati, in the hospital Saturday. Yaalon called the shooting serious and pledged to investigate thoroughly.
By Sunday, the airwaves were clogged with Cabinet ministers, army officials and peace activists fervently arguing over the incident.
"An order to fire on people that do not fire on you is a completely illegal order," said Ami Ayalon, a former head of Israel's Shin Bet security service.
I wish this reaction been seen even once where innocent Palestinians were made to suffer through the actions of Israeli troops, be it at targeted assassinations, roadblocks, protests or just everyday life: somebody simply being at the wrong place at the wrong time...
An American and Jewish protester were both injured when they were shot by Israeli troops while protesting at the infamous separation fence.
Within one day of the incident, newspapers, TV and politicians are all abuzz about this.
While I am happy for the media attention at last, I am also horrified at the blatant racism which has been made so visible here: each day, Palestinians undergo similar or worse treatments and the press or politicians do not blink an eye. Even when American peace activist Rachel Corrie was flattened by a bulldozer when she was protesting the demolition of Palestinian homes, it created a mere blip on the media radar. In fact, shooting at (and killing) peace activists seems a national sport, whether they be American or British.
However, when an Israeli soldier takes aim and fires at another Israeli (even though it seems he did not know his victim was his countryman) all hell breaks loose.
I am pleased this security fence and associated land grab is finally receiving serious media attention but the way it does sort of leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
From the article:
Hours after the incident, the army set up an investigative committee. The army chief of staff, Lt. Gen. Moshe Yaalon, took the rare step of visiting the injured Israeli, Gil Naamati, in the hospital Saturday. Yaalon called the shooting serious and pledged to investigate thoroughly.
By Sunday, the airwaves were clogged with Cabinet ministers, army officials and peace activists fervently arguing over the incident.
"An order to fire on people that do not fire on you is a completely illegal order," said Ami Ayalon, a former head of Israel's Shin Bet security service.
I wish this reaction been seen even once where innocent Palestinians were made to suffer through the actions of Israeli troops, be it at targeted assassinations, roadblocks, protests or just everyday life: somebody simply being at the wrong place at the wrong time...
Monday, December 22, 2003
USA
He is at it again. Can someone not muzzle the man???
Bush told an Israeli journalist of the mass-circulation Yediot Aharonot daily: "We must get rid of Arafat"
The man cannot be that naive, nobody in politics is!
The Israeli's need only a small positive signal from the US to lose all self control and blow up Arafat and his followers to kingdom come!
I'm starting to believe that Bush does not want peace in the Middle East at all, that it would suit his purposes to have the Israeli government go in full attack mode and cause all-out war with it's neighbours...
Is that it? Is he prodding Sharon to do something wildly impulsive?
Is he hoping that full-out war in the Middle East will lance the boil???
Oh lord, I hope not.
He is at it again. Can someone not muzzle the man???
Bush told an Israeli journalist of the mass-circulation Yediot Aharonot daily: "We must get rid of Arafat"
The man cannot be that naive, nobody in politics is!
The Israeli's need only a small positive signal from the US to lose all self control and blow up Arafat and his followers to kingdom come!
I'm starting to believe that Bush does not want peace in the Middle East at all, that it would suit his purposes to have the Israeli government go in full attack mode and cause all-out war with it's neighbours...
Is that it? Is he prodding Sharon to do something wildly impulsive?
Is he hoping that full-out war in the Middle East will lance the boil???
Oh lord, I hope not.
USA
He is at it again. Can someone not muzzle the man???
Bush told an Israeli journalist of the mass-circulation Yediot Aharonot daily: "We must get rid of Arafat"
The man cannot be that naive, nobody in politics is!
The Israeli's need only a small positive signal from the US to lose all self control and blow up Arafat and his followers to kingdom come!
I'm starting to believe that Bush does not want peace in the Middle East at all, that it would suit his purposes to have the Israeli government go in full attack mode and cause all-out war with it's neighbours...
Is that it? Is he prodding Sharon to do something wildly impulsive?
Is he hoping that full-out war in the Middle East will lance the boil???
Oh lord, I hope not.
He is at it again. Can someone not muzzle the man???
Bush told an Israeli journalist of the mass-circulation Yediot Aharonot daily: "We must get rid of Arafat"
The man cannot be that naive, nobody in politics is!
The Israeli's need only a small positive signal from the US to lose all self control and blow up Arafat and his followers to kingdom come!
I'm starting to believe that Bush does not want peace in the Middle East at all, that it would suit his purposes to have the Israeli government go in full attack mode and cause all-out war with it's neighbours...
Is that it? Is he prodding Sharon to do something wildly impulsive?
Is he hoping that full-out war in the Middle East will lance the boil???
Oh lord, I hope not.
Zimbabwe
The rule of law does not exist in Zimbabwe any more.
Robert Mugabe had banned the country's only independent newspaper the Daily News in mid-September for being too critical of the government. A judge has now ruled that the ban should be lifted and that the paper should be allowed to publish. The next morning armed riot police sealed off the entrances to the print works and ordered the staff back home.
The results of the farm annexation policy of Mugabe is now starting to be seen and felt:
About four years ago, the country's commercial beef cattle herd produced exports worth more than £1.3 billion annually. Now it is on the verge of extinction: in 2000 there were 1.4 million animals, today there are fewer than 125,000.
The annual inflation rate has reached surreal proportions: 620% in November of this year!!!
It is therefore no wonder that hunger is now spreading to the cities. This is heartbreaking, that a country formerly so rich that they fed their neighbours, are now so reliant on food aid that according to the United Nations, they will have to extend its famine relief plans in Zimbabwe for another six months due to increasing food shortages and the growing risk of cholera outbreaks in cities and towns.
And still, other southern African countries remain silent. Especially South Africa: Mbeki has taken silent diplomacy to a new level... The West remains silent too. Apart from Colin Powell, not a peep from the USA.
The hypocrisy of it all is quite stunning!
The rule of law does not exist in Zimbabwe any more.
Robert Mugabe had banned the country's only independent newspaper the Daily News in mid-September for being too critical of the government. A judge has now ruled that the ban should be lifted and that the paper should be allowed to publish. The next morning armed riot police sealed off the entrances to the print works and ordered the staff back home.
The results of the farm annexation policy of Mugabe is now starting to be seen and felt:
About four years ago, the country's commercial beef cattle herd produced exports worth more than £1.3 billion annually. Now it is on the verge of extinction: in 2000 there were 1.4 million animals, today there are fewer than 125,000.
The annual inflation rate has reached surreal proportions: 620% in November of this year!!!
It is therefore no wonder that hunger is now spreading to the cities. This is heartbreaking, that a country formerly so rich that they fed their neighbours, are now so reliant on food aid that according to the United Nations, they will have to extend its famine relief plans in Zimbabwe for another six months due to increasing food shortages and the growing risk of cholera outbreaks in cities and towns.
And still, other southern African countries remain silent. Especially South Africa: Mbeki has taken silent diplomacy to a new level... The West remains silent too. Apart from Colin Powell, not a peep from the USA.
The hypocrisy of it all is quite stunning!
Zimbabwe
The rule of law does not exist in Zimbabwe any more.
Robert Mugabe had banned the country's only independent newspaper the Daily News in mid-September for being too critical of the government. A judge has now ruled that the ban should be lifted and that the paper should be allowed to publish. The next morning armed riot police sealed off the entrances to the print works and ordered the staff back home.
The results of the farm annexation policy of Mugabe is now starting to be seen and felt:
About four years ago, the country's commercial beef cattle herd produced exports worth more than £1.3 billion annually. Now it is on the verge of extinction: in 2000 there were 1.4 million animals, today there are fewer than 125,000.
The annual inflation rate has reached surreal proportions: 620% in November of this year!!!
It is therefore no wonder that hunger is now spreading to the cities. This is heartbreaking, that a country formerly so rich that they fed their neighbours, are now so reliant on food aid that according to the United Nations, they will have to extend its famine relief plans in Zimbabwe for another six months due to increasing food shortages and the growing risk of cholera outbreaks in cities and towns.
And still, other southern African countries remain silent. Especially South Africa: Mbeki has taken silent diplomacy to a new level... The West remains silent too. Apart from Colin Powell, not a peep from the USA.
The hypocrisy of it all is quite stunning!
The rule of law does not exist in Zimbabwe any more.
Robert Mugabe had banned the country's only independent newspaper the Daily News in mid-September for being too critical of the government. A judge has now ruled that the ban should be lifted and that the paper should be allowed to publish. The next morning armed riot police sealed off the entrances to the print works and ordered the staff back home.
The results of the farm annexation policy of Mugabe is now starting to be seen and felt:
About four years ago, the country's commercial beef cattle herd produced exports worth more than £1.3 billion annually. Now it is on the verge of extinction: in 2000 there were 1.4 million animals, today there are fewer than 125,000.
The annual inflation rate has reached surreal proportions: 620% in November of this year!!!
It is therefore no wonder that hunger is now spreading to the cities. This is heartbreaking, that a country formerly so rich that they fed their neighbours, are now so reliant on food aid that according to the United Nations, they will have to extend its famine relief plans in Zimbabwe for another six months due to increasing food shortages and the growing risk of cholera outbreaks in cities and towns.
And still, other southern African countries remain silent. Especially South Africa: Mbeki has taken silent diplomacy to a new level... The West remains silent too. Apart from Colin Powell, not a peep from the USA.
The hypocrisy of it all is quite stunning!
Israel
Bless those elite reservists who wrote that letter to Sharon, refusing to fight:
"We say to you today, we will no longer give our hands to the oppressive reign in the territories and the denial of human rights to millions of Palestinians," reads the letter to Sharon, "and we will no longer serve as a defensive shield for the settlement enterprise."
"We cannot continue to stand silent," charging that Israeli military activities in the territories are depriving "millions of Palestinians of human rights" and endangering "the fate of Israel as a democratic, Zionist and Jewish country"
Let us hope this helps the tide to turn and encourages more men and women of character to stand up and refuse their participation in this horrific suppression of the Palestinian people. I truly believe it will be possible to live side by side, at peace with each other. However, this will never happen as long as hawks like Sharon rule by fear.
Here's a fascinating article, true I believe: a decoded version of Sharon's speech.
Bless those elite reservists who wrote that letter to Sharon, refusing to fight:
"We say to you today, we will no longer give our hands to the oppressive reign in the territories and the denial of human rights to millions of Palestinians," reads the letter to Sharon, "and we will no longer serve as a defensive shield for the settlement enterprise."
"We cannot continue to stand silent," charging that Israeli military activities in the territories are depriving "millions of Palestinians of human rights" and endangering "the fate of Israel as a democratic, Zionist and Jewish country"
Let us hope this helps the tide to turn and encourages more men and women of character to stand up and refuse their participation in this horrific suppression of the Palestinian people. I truly believe it will be possible to live side by side, at peace with each other. However, this will never happen as long as hawks like Sharon rule by fear.
Here's a fascinating article, true I believe: a decoded version of Sharon's speech.
Israel
Bless those elite reservists who wrote that letter to Sharon, refusing to fight:
"We say to you today, we will no longer give our hands to the oppressive reign in the territories and the denial of human rights to millions of Palestinians," reads the letter to Sharon, "and we will no longer serve as a defensive shield for the settlement enterprise."
"We cannot continue to stand silent," charging that Israeli military activities in the territories are depriving "millions of Palestinians of human rights" and endangering "the fate of Israel as a democratic, Zionist and Jewish country"
Let us hope this helps the tide to turn and encourages more men and women of character to stand up and refuse their participation in this horrific suppression of the Palestinian people. I truly believe it will be possible to live side by side, at peace with each other. However, this will never happen as long as hawks like Sharon rule by fear.
Here's a fascinating article, true I believe: a decoded version of Sharon's speech.
Bless those elite reservists who wrote that letter to Sharon, refusing to fight:
"We say to you today, we will no longer give our hands to the oppressive reign in the territories and the denial of human rights to millions of Palestinians," reads the letter to Sharon, "and we will no longer serve as a defensive shield for the settlement enterprise."
"We cannot continue to stand silent," charging that Israeli military activities in the territories are depriving "millions of Palestinians of human rights" and endangering "the fate of Israel as a democratic, Zionist and Jewish country"
Let us hope this helps the tide to turn and encourages more men and women of character to stand up and refuse their participation in this horrific suppression of the Palestinian people. I truly believe it will be possible to live side by side, at peace with each other. However, this will never happen as long as hawks like Sharon rule by fear.
Here's a fascinating article, true I believe: a decoded version of Sharon's speech.
Sunday, December 21, 2003
Iraq
What with all the political and media spin being put on the capture of Saddam Hussein, I thought it was time to remember the following pronouncements, just to put matters into perspective:
Vice President Dick Cheney, August 2002
Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us."
Bush's Address to Nation, March 17, 2003
"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised. "
....
"The regime has a history of reckless aggression in the Middle East. It has a deep hatred of America and our friends and it has aided, trained and harbored terrorists, including operatives of al Qaeda.
The danger is clear: Using chemical, biological or, one day, nuclear weapons obtained with the help of Iraq, the terrorists could fulfill their stated ambitions and kill thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our country or any other. The United States and other nations did nothing to deserve or invite this threat, but we will do everything to defeat it. "
Secretary Rumsfeld interview, March 30, 2003
"...the area in the south and the west and the north that coalition forces control is substantial. It happens not to be the area where weapons of mass destruction were dispersed. We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat. "
Presidential Letter, March 21, 2003
I have also determined that the use of armed force against Iraq is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organiza-tions, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.
Ane many more like the above over here.
No matter what spin is put on it, this is what it is: a war started and fought under false pretenses. An occupation by a foreign force.
The US now controls (directly, or via propped up governments) the three countries with the largest oil reserves in the world: Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Kuwait. In the end - in my eyes - that was what this war was all about: a method of securing a steady and reliable source of oil when the oil production world-wide is peaking.
Period.
What with all the political and media spin being put on the capture of Saddam Hussein, I thought it was time to remember the following pronouncements, just to put matters into perspective:
Vice President Dick Cheney, August 2002
Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us."
Bush's Address to Nation, March 17, 2003
"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised. "
....
"The regime has a history of reckless aggression in the Middle East. It has a deep hatred of America and our friends and it has aided, trained and harbored terrorists, including operatives of al Qaeda.
The danger is clear: Using chemical, biological or, one day, nuclear weapons obtained with the help of Iraq, the terrorists could fulfill their stated ambitions and kill thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our country or any other. The United States and other nations did nothing to deserve or invite this threat, but we will do everything to defeat it. "
Secretary Rumsfeld interview, March 30, 2003
"...the area in the south and the west and the north that coalition forces control is substantial. It happens not to be the area where weapons of mass destruction were dispersed. We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat. "
Presidential Letter, March 21, 2003
I have also determined that the use of armed force against Iraq is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organiza-tions, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.
Ane many more like the above over here.
No matter what spin is put on it, this is what it is: a war started and fought under false pretenses. An occupation by a foreign force.
The US now controls (directly, or via propped up governments) the three countries with the largest oil reserves in the world: Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Kuwait. In the end - in my eyes - that was what this war was all about: a method of securing a steady and reliable source of oil when the oil production world-wide is peaking.
Period.
Iraq
What with all the political and media spin being put on the capture of Saddam Hussein, I thought it was time to remember the following pronouncements, just to put matters into perspective:
Vice President Dick Cheney, August 2002
Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us."
Bush's Address to Nation, March 17, 2003
"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised. "
....
"The regime has a history of reckless aggression in the Middle East. It has a deep hatred of America and our friends and it has aided, trained and harbored terrorists, including operatives of al Qaeda.
The danger is clear: Using chemical, biological or, one day, nuclear weapons obtained with the help of Iraq, the terrorists could fulfill their stated ambitions and kill thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our country or any other. The United States and other nations did nothing to deserve or invite this threat, but we will do everything to defeat it. "
Secretary Rumsfeld interview, March 30, 2003
"...the area in the south and the west and the north that coalition forces control is substantial. It happens not to be the area where weapons of mass destruction were dispersed. We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat. "
Presidential Letter, March 21, 2003
I have also determined that the use of armed force against Iraq is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organiza-tions, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.
Ane many more like the above over here.
No matter what spin is put on it, this is what it is: a war started and fought under false pretenses. An occupation by a foreign force.
The US now controls (directly, or via propped up governments) the three countries with the largest oil reserves in the world: Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Kuwait. In the end - in my eyes - that was what this war was all about: a method of securing a steady and reliable source of oil when the oil production world-wide is peaking.
Period.
What with all the political and media spin being put on the capture of Saddam Hussein, I thought it was time to remember the following pronouncements, just to put matters into perspective:
Vice President Dick Cheney, August 2002
Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us."
Bush's Address to Nation, March 17, 2003
"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised. "
....
"The regime has a history of reckless aggression in the Middle East. It has a deep hatred of America and our friends and it has aided, trained and harbored terrorists, including operatives of al Qaeda.
The danger is clear: Using chemical, biological or, one day, nuclear weapons obtained with the help of Iraq, the terrorists could fulfill their stated ambitions and kill thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our country or any other. The United States and other nations did nothing to deserve or invite this threat, but we will do everything to defeat it. "
Secretary Rumsfeld interview, March 30, 2003
"...the area in the south and the west and the north that coalition forces control is substantial. It happens not to be the area where weapons of mass destruction were dispersed. We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat. "
Presidential Letter, March 21, 2003
I have also determined that the use of armed force against Iraq is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organiza-tions, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.
Ane many more like the above over here.
No matter what spin is put on it, this is what it is: a war started and fought under false pretenses. An occupation by a foreign force.
The US now controls (directly, or via propped up governments) the three countries with the largest oil reserves in the world: Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Kuwait. In the end - in my eyes - that was what this war was all about: a method of securing a steady and reliable source of oil when the oil production world-wide is peaking.
Period.
Wednesday, December 17, 2003
SARS
SARS is back - in Taiwan. One case only.
What is very worrying is that the person who now has it, contracted the virus apparently while working on it in a military laboratory.
What is the military planning with this virus??
I dont like it when the military (of any country) does research on bugs like this one...
SARS is back - in Taiwan. One case only.
What is very worrying is that the person who now has it, contracted the virus apparently while working on it in a military laboratory.
What is the military planning with this virus??
I dont like it when the military (of any country) does research on bugs like this one...
SARS
SARS is back - in Taiwan. One case only.
What is very worrying is that the person who now has it, contracted the virus apparently while working on it in a military laboratory.
What is the military planning with this virus??
I dont like it when the military (of any country) does research on bugs like this one...
SARS is back - in Taiwan. One case only.
What is very worrying is that the person who now has it, contracted the virus apparently while working on it in a military laboratory.
What is the military planning with this virus??
I dont like it when the military (of any country) does research on bugs like this one...
Iraq / USA
When told that Mr. Schroeder believed Mr. Bush's contract decision might violate international law, president Bush responded with sarcasm: "International law? I better call my lawyer."
Yesterday, he was enthusiastically promoting the death penalty for Saddam to ABC News:
"I think he ought to receive the ultimate penalty ... for what he has done to his people."
"He is a torturer, a murderer, and they had rape rooms, and this is a disgusting tyrant who deserves justice, the ultimate justice."
Really, the man is the president of the United States, he should learn some self control!!!
I have an old Dale Carnegie tape "How to win friends and influence people" he could borrow if he wants...
On another note:
Military historian Sir John Keegan writes an interesting article Why the West once supported the tyrant and I agree with some of what he says (gasp!).
It's not possible to reduce history to "good or evil" for any party, showing a picture of Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam and saying "see, the Americans were complicit" is just a tad too simple for me.
I had mixed feelings about Saddam over the years: one the one hand a tyrant and horrific suppressor of his opponents, on the other hand women had so much freedom here compared to the other middle eastern countries, people were well educated and fed, standards of health were high. On some fronts, the society was thriving.
This does not mean I am an apologist for his crimes against humanity, I just realise that it's not all black and white. There are many shades of gray here.
Jumping up and down now and calling him the fount of all evil is a childish way of looking at things. Jumping up and down and calling the American government at the time of his worst atrocities evil and co-conspirators is just as childish.
Some balance is sorely needed here, on both sides of this issue...
When told that Mr. Schroeder believed Mr. Bush's contract decision might violate international law, president Bush responded with sarcasm: "International law? I better call my lawyer."
Yesterday, he was enthusiastically promoting the death penalty for Saddam to ABC News:
"I think he ought to receive the ultimate penalty ... for what he has done to his people."
"He is a torturer, a murderer, and they had rape rooms, and this is a disgusting tyrant who deserves justice, the ultimate justice."
Really, the man is the president of the United States, he should learn some self control!!!
I have an old Dale Carnegie tape "How to win friends and influence people" he could borrow if he wants...
On another note:
Military historian Sir John Keegan writes an interesting article Why the West once supported the tyrant and I agree with some of what he says (gasp!).
It's not possible to reduce history to "good or evil" for any party, showing a picture of Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam and saying "see, the Americans were complicit" is just a tad too simple for me.
I had mixed feelings about Saddam over the years: one the one hand a tyrant and horrific suppressor of his opponents, on the other hand women had so much freedom here compared to the other middle eastern countries, people were well educated and fed, standards of health were high. On some fronts, the society was thriving.
This does not mean I am an apologist for his crimes against humanity, I just realise that it's not all black and white. There are many shades of gray here.
Jumping up and down now and calling him the fount of all evil is a childish way of looking at things. Jumping up and down and calling the American government at the time of his worst atrocities evil and co-conspirators is just as childish.
Some balance is sorely needed here, on both sides of this issue...
Iraq / USA
When told that Mr. Schroeder believed Mr. Bush's contract decision might violate international law, president Bush responded with sarcasm: "International law? I better call my lawyer."
Yesterday, he was enthusiastically promoting the death penalty for Saddam to ABC News:
"I think he ought to receive the ultimate penalty ... for what he has done to his people."
"He is a torturer, a murderer, and they had rape rooms, and this is a disgusting tyrant who deserves justice, the ultimate justice."
Really, the man is the president of the United States, he should learn some self control!!!
I have an old Dale Carnegie tape "How to win friends and influence people" he could borrow if he wants...
On another note:
Military historian Sir John Keegan writes an interesting article Why the West once supported the tyrant and I agree with some of what he says (gasp!).
It's not possible to reduce history to "good or evil" for any party, showing a picture of Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam and saying "see, the Americans were complicit" is just a tad too simple for me.
I had mixed feelings about Saddam over the years: one the one hand a tyrant and horrific suppressor of his opponents, on the other hand women had so much freedom here compared to the other middle eastern countries, people were well educated and fed, standards of health were high. On some fronts, the society was thriving.
This does not mean I am an apologist for his crimes against humanity, I just realise that it's not all black and white. There are many shades of gray here.
Jumping up and down now and calling him the fount of all evil is a childish way of looking at things. Jumping up and down and calling the American government at the time of his worst atrocities evil and co-conspirators is just as childish.
Some balance is sorely needed here, on both sides of this issue...
When told that Mr. Schroeder believed Mr. Bush's contract decision might violate international law, president Bush responded with sarcasm: "International law? I better call my lawyer."
Yesterday, he was enthusiastically promoting the death penalty for Saddam to ABC News:
"I think he ought to receive the ultimate penalty ... for what he has done to his people."
"He is a torturer, a murderer, and they had rape rooms, and this is a disgusting tyrant who deserves justice, the ultimate justice."
Really, the man is the president of the United States, he should learn some self control!!!
I have an old Dale Carnegie tape "How to win friends and influence people" he could borrow if he wants...
On another note:
Military historian Sir John Keegan writes an interesting article Why the West once supported the tyrant and I agree with some of what he says (gasp!).
It's not possible to reduce history to "good or evil" for any party, showing a picture of Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam and saying "see, the Americans were complicit" is just a tad too simple for me.
I had mixed feelings about Saddam over the years: one the one hand a tyrant and horrific suppressor of his opponents, on the other hand women had so much freedom here compared to the other middle eastern countries, people were well educated and fed, standards of health were high. On some fronts, the society was thriving.
This does not mean I am an apologist for his crimes against humanity, I just realise that it's not all black and white. There are many shades of gray here.
Jumping up and down now and calling him the fount of all evil is a childish way of looking at things. Jumping up and down and calling the American government at the time of his worst atrocities evil and co-conspirators is just as childish.
Some balance is sorely needed here, on both sides of this issue...
Sunday, December 14, 2003
Iraq
Busy week.
Seems the Butcher of Baghdad has been captured. From the news reports it seems they had him for a while now, they kept it silent so they could do DNA tests to confirm his identity.
I'm very curious to see how the Americans are planning to take it from here on: will he be processed, locked up and tried in Guantanamo or will they opt for the international court in The Hague. The latter would be the sensible route but I suspect they will keep to their current modus operandi by keeping total control over the entire process. I'm guessing the Iraqi's themselves wont have much say in this.
This news on the heels of the suicide bombing of yet another Iraqi police station.
I hope the Americans realise they wont be able to blame such attacks on Saddam any more. Not that it will matter any, the WMD argument also crumbled into dust without a whimper...
Syria
Bush, this past Friday:
“Today, I have signed into law HR 1828, the ‘Syria Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2003’”
It seems the US is painting a whopping big target on Damascus.
Silly move.
Afghanistan
With the Taleban beating at the door, Afghans are battling over the text of their constitution. I am keeping a cynical eye on this process. Whatever the outcome, I sincerely hope the Americans use a substantial part of their war budget to keep this assembly safe. They must form such an appealing target to Al Qaeda and the Taleban...
Busy week.
Seems the Butcher of Baghdad has been captured. From the news reports it seems they had him for a while now, they kept it silent so they could do DNA tests to confirm his identity.
I'm very curious to see how the Americans are planning to take it from here on: will he be processed, locked up and tried in Guantanamo or will they opt for the international court in The Hague. The latter would be the sensible route but I suspect they will keep to their current modus operandi by keeping total control over the entire process. I'm guessing the Iraqi's themselves wont have much say in this.
This news on the heels of the suicide bombing of yet another Iraqi police station.
I hope the Americans realise they wont be able to blame such attacks on Saddam any more. Not that it will matter any, the WMD argument also crumbled into dust without a whimper...
Syria
Bush, this past Friday:
“Today, I have signed into law HR 1828, the ‘Syria Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2003’”
It seems the US is painting a whopping big target on Damascus.
Silly move.
Afghanistan
With the Taleban beating at the door, Afghans are battling over the text of their constitution. I am keeping a cynical eye on this process. Whatever the outcome, I sincerely hope the Americans use a substantial part of their war budget to keep this assembly safe. They must form such an appealing target to Al Qaeda and the Taleban...
Iraq
Busy week.
Seems the Butcher of Baghdad has been captured. From the news reports it seems they had him for a while now, they kept it silent so they could do DNA tests to confirm his identity.
I'm very curious to see how the Americans are planning to take it from here on: will he be processed, locked up and tried in Guantanamo or will they opt for the international court in The Hague. The latter would be the sensible route but I suspect they will keep to their current modus operandi by keeping total control over the entire process. I'm guessing the Iraqi's themselves wont have much say in this.
This news on the heels of the suicide bombing of yet another Iraqi police station.
I hope the Americans realise they wont be able to blame such attacks on Saddam any more. Not that it will matter any, the WMD argument also crumbled into dust without a whimper...
Syria
Bush, this past Friday:
“Today, I have signed into law HR 1828, the ‘Syria Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2003’”
It seems the US is painting a whopping big target on Damascus.
Silly move.
Afghanistan
With the Taleban beating at the door, Afghans are battling over the text of their constitution. I am keeping a cynical eye on this process. Whatever the outcome, I sincerely hope the Americans use a substantial part of their war budget to keep this assembly safe. They must form such an appealing target to Al Qaeda and the Taleban...
Busy week.
Seems the Butcher of Baghdad has been captured. From the news reports it seems they had him for a while now, they kept it silent so they could do DNA tests to confirm his identity.
I'm very curious to see how the Americans are planning to take it from here on: will he be processed, locked up and tried in Guantanamo or will they opt for the international court in The Hague. The latter would be the sensible route but I suspect they will keep to their current modus operandi by keeping total control over the entire process. I'm guessing the Iraqi's themselves wont have much say in this.
This news on the heels of the suicide bombing of yet another Iraqi police station.
I hope the Americans realise they wont be able to blame such attacks on Saddam any more. Not that it will matter any, the WMD argument also crumbled into dust without a whimper...
Syria
Bush, this past Friday:
“Today, I have signed into law HR 1828, the ‘Syria Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2003’”
It seems the US is painting a whopping big target on Damascus.
Silly move.
Afghanistan
With the Taleban beating at the door, Afghans are battling over the text of their constitution. I am keeping a cynical eye on this process. Whatever the outcome, I sincerely hope the Americans use a substantial part of their war budget to keep this assembly safe. They must form such an appealing target to Al Qaeda and the Taleban...
Saturday, December 13, 2003
Iraq/USA
So, Bush says that any company that overcharged the US on those fat Iraq contracts (Haliburton being the main culprit) will have to pay back that money. That they will be punished...
Yah right!
Just like Ken Lay and the like were punished, they who looted companies and are still walking around free and rich (Ken Lay had an insurance policy for himself which could not be touched by the creditors... at a grand amount of $12,000,000 so he is still sitting pretty).
I am not expecting anyone to pay back anything here.
This is a school of sharks in a feeding frenzy and by the time the dust clears (phew, those metaphors!!!), nobody will be held accountable and - a few patsies aside - no heads will roll.
The rich and influential will have moved on to the next carcass.
Angry articles will be written, learned treatises will be published and at the end of the day, the modern pirates will still have done exactly what they wanted to with no serious consequences to themselves.
They strip-mine the world and people like me angrily blog about it.
It's probably the dismal autumn weather that makes my view so bleak today.
Tomorrow perhaps, I'll believe there's truly an equality before the law.
So, Bush says that any company that overcharged the US on those fat Iraq contracts (Haliburton being the main culprit) will have to pay back that money. That they will be punished...
Yah right!
Just like Ken Lay and the like were punished, they who looted companies and are still walking around free and rich (Ken Lay had an insurance policy for himself which could not be touched by the creditors... at a grand amount of $12,000,000 so he is still sitting pretty).
I am not expecting anyone to pay back anything here.
This is a school of sharks in a feeding frenzy and by the time the dust clears (phew, those metaphors!!!), nobody will be held accountable and - a few patsies aside - no heads will roll.
The rich and influential will have moved on to the next carcass.
Angry articles will be written, learned treatises will be published and at the end of the day, the modern pirates will still have done exactly what they wanted to with no serious consequences to themselves.
They strip-mine the world and people like me angrily blog about it.
It's probably the dismal autumn weather that makes my view so bleak today.
Tomorrow perhaps, I'll believe there's truly an equality before the law.
Iraq/USA
So, Bush says that any company that overcharged the US on those fat Iraq contracts (Haliburton being the main culprit) will have to pay back that money. That they will be punished...
Yah right!
Just like Ken Lay and the like were punished, they who looted companies and are still walking around free and rich (Ken Lay had an insurance policy for himself which could not be touched by the creditors... at a grand amount of $12,000,000 so he is still sitting pretty).
I am not expecting anyone to pay back anything here.
This is a school of sharks in a feeding frenzy and by the time the dust clears (phew, those metaphors!!!), nobody will be held accountable and - a few patsies aside - no heads will roll.
The rich and influential will have moved on to the next carcass.
Angry articles will be written, learned treatises will be published and at the end of the day, the modern pirates will still have done exactly what they wanted to with no serious consequences to themselves.
They strip-mine the world and people like me angrily blog about it.
It's probably the dismal autumn weather that makes my view so bleak today.
Tomorrow perhaps, I'll believe there's truly an equality before the law.
So, Bush says that any company that overcharged the US on those fat Iraq contracts (Haliburton being the main culprit) will have to pay back that money. That they will be punished...
Yah right!
Just like Ken Lay and the like were punished, they who looted companies and are still walking around free and rich (Ken Lay had an insurance policy for himself which could not be touched by the creditors... at a grand amount of $12,000,000 so he is still sitting pretty).
I am not expecting anyone to pay back anything here.
This is a school of sharks in a feeding frenzy and by the time the dust clears (phew, those metaphors!!!), nobody will be held accountable and - a few patsies aside - no heads will roll.
The rich and influential will have moved on to the next carcass.
Angry articles will be written, learned treatises will be published and at the end of the day, the modern pirates will still have done exactly what they wanted to with no serious consequences to themselves.
They strip-mine the world and people like me angrily blog about it.
It's probably the dismal autumn weather that makes my view so bleak today.
Tomorrow perhaps, I'll believe there's truly an equality before the law.
Monday, December 08, 2003
Iraq/Afghanistan
I was last asked why I am quiet here sometimes when there is so much happening on the Iraq/Afghanistan front.
Well, there are only so many times one can say " I told you so" without becoming tiresome.
So, Afghanistan is sinking back into tribalism and the Taleban is winning ground again. The general population, especially the women, hardly had their lives improved. In many cases the quality of life went down.
I told you so.
So, the Americans are increasingly being attacked in Iraq and any foreign employees of companies who joined the "bleed Iraq dry" bandwagon, are fair game too...
I told you so.
Will the country eventually split into three? Possibly.
Will the entire region be destabilised for many years to come? Probably.
Will Bush and his cronies make lots of money off this and gain even more political power at home? Definitely.
Is this the best solution for the region and the rest of the world?
Absolutely not.
Will they continue? You bet, as long as they can get away with it.
Will I be right in all I say?
My guess is, at least in more than 80%
I am lucky, I have the internet: I can read independent media, I can see what people like Robert Fisk have to say. People who really know the region.
Do I care? Absolutely.
Can I do anything about this? Not a thing until next elections. At least, nothing concrete. Not in the US, I am not a US citizen. Not in my country either. I can keep talking about it and keep people informed of what is happening and why. So that by the time the next elections come round, we can kick this compliant government out and get in some people who wont be the wagging tail of the American dog.
Until then, I observe, I comment and I talk. I talk and wait.
And I try not to say "I told you so" too many times.
I was last asked why I am quiet here sometimes when there is so much happening on the Iraq/Afghanistan front.
Well, there are only so many times one can say " I told you so" without becoming tiresome.
So, Afghanistan is sinking back into tribalism and the Taleban is winning ground again. The general population, especially the women, hardly had their lives improved. In many cases the quality of life went down.
I told you so.
So, the Americans are increasingly being attacked in Iraq and any foreign employees of companies who joined the "bleed Iraq dry" bandwagon, are fair game too...
I told you so.
Will the country eventually split into three? Possibly.
Will the entire region be destabilised for many years to come? Probably.
Will Bush and his cronies make lots of money off this and gain even more political power at home? Definitely.
Is this the best solution for the region and the rest of the world?
Absolutely not.
Will they continue? You bet, as long as they can get away with it.
Will I be right in all I say?
My guess is, at least in more than 80%
I am lucky, I have the internet: I can read independent media, I can see what people like Robert Fisk have to say. People who really know the region.
Do I care? Absolutely.
Can I do anything about this? Not a thing until next elections. At least, nothing concrete. Not in the US, I am not a US citizen. Not in my country either. I can keep talking about it and keep people informed of what is happening and why. So that by the time the next elections come round, we can kick this compliant government out and get in some people who wont be the wagging tail of the American dog.
Until then, I observe, I comment and I talk. I talk and wait.
And I try not to say "I told you so" too many times.
Iraq/Afghanistan
I was last asked why I am quiet here sometimes when there is so much happening on the Iraq/Afghanistan front.
Well, there are only so many times one can say " I told you so" without becoming tiresome.
So, Afghanistan is sinking back into tribalism and the Taleban is winning ground again. The general population, especially the women, hardly had their lives improved. In many cases the quality of life went down.
I told you so.
So, the Americans are increasingly being attacked in Iraq and any foreign employees of companies who joined the "bleed Iraq dry" bandwagon, are fair game too...
I told you so.
Will the country eventually split into three? Possibly.
Will the entire region be destabilised for many years to come? Probably.
Will Bush and his cronies make lots of money off this and gain even more political power at home? Definitely.
Is this the best solution for the region and the rest of the world?
Absolutely not.
Will they continue? You bet, as long as they can get away with it.
Will I be right in all I say?
My guess is, at least in more than 80%
I am lucky, I have the internet: I can read independent media, I can see what people like Robert Fisk have to say. People who really know the region.
Do I care? Absolutely.
Can I do anything about this? Not a thing until next elections. At least, nothing concrete. Not in the US, I am not a US citizen. Not in my country either. I can keep talking about it and keep people informed of what is happening and why. So that by the time the next elections come round, we can kick this compliant government out and get in some people who wont be the wagging tail of the American dog.
Until then, I observe, I comment and I talk. I talk and wait.
And I try not to say "I told you so" too many times.
I was last asked why I am quiet here sometimes when there is so much happening on the Iraq/Afghanistan front.
Well, there are only so many times one can say " I told you so" without becoming tiresome.
So, Afghanistan is sinking back into tribalism and the Taleban is winning ground again. The general population, especially the women, hardly had their lives improved. In many cases the quality of life went down.
I told you so.
So, the Americans are increasingly being attacked in Iraq and any foreign employees of companies who joined the "bleed Iraq dry" bandwagon, are fair game too...
I told you so.
Will the country eventually split into three? Possibly.
Will the entire region be destabilised for many years to come? Probably.
Will Bush and his cronies make lots of money off this and gain even more political power at home? Definitely.
Is this the best solution for the region and the rest of the world?
Absolutely not.
Will they continue? You bet, as long as they can get away with it.
Will I be right in all I say?
My guess is, at least in more than 80%
I am lucky, I have the internet: I can read independent media, I can see what people like Robert Fisk have to say. People who really know the region.
Do I care? Absolutely.
Can I do anything about this? Not a thing until next elections. At least, nothing concrete. Not in the US, I am not a US citizen. Not in my country either. I can keep talking about it and keep people informed of what is happening and why. So that by the time the next elections come round, we can kick this compliant government out and get in some people who wont be the wagging tail of the American dog.
Until then, I observe, I comment and I talk. I talk and wait.
And I try not to say "I told you so" too many times.
Tuesday, December 02, 2003
Monbiot on oil depletion
He's so good at pointing out the elephant in the corner.
Not that it makes a damn bit of difference, but I do admire him very much for speaking out so eloquently.
I hope when people start listening, when he becomes mainstream, it won't be too late.
Bottom of the barrel
The world is running out of oil - so why do politicians refuse to talk about it?
George Monbiot
Tuesday December 2, 2003
The Guardian
The oil industry is buzzing. On Thursday, the government approved the development of the biggest deposit discovered in British territory for at least 10 years. Everywhere we are told that this is a "huge" find, which dispels the idea that North Sea oil is in terminal decline. You begin to recognise how serious the human predicament has become when you discover that this "huge" new field will supply the world with oil for five and a quarter days.
Every generation has its taboo, and ours is this: that the resource upon which our lives have been built is running out. We don't talk about it because we cannot imagine it. This is a civilisation in denial.
Oil itself won't disappear, but extracting what remains is becoming ever more difficult and expensive. The discovery of new reserves peaked in the 1960s. Every year we use four times as much oil as we find. All the big strikes appear to have been made long ago: the 400m barrels in the new North Sea field would have been considered piffling in the 1970s. Our future supplies depend on the discovery of small new deposits and the better exploitation of big old ones. No one with expertise in the field is in any doubt that the global production of oil will peak before long.
The only question is how long. The most optimistic projections are the ones produced by the US department of energy, which claims that this will not take place until 2037. But the US energy information agency has admitted that the government's figures have been fudged: it has based its projections for oil supply on the projections for oil demand, perhaps in order not to sow panic in the financial markets.
Other analysts are less sanguine. The petroleum geologist Colin Campbell calculates that global extraction will peak before 2010. In August, the geophysicist Kenneth Deffeyes told New Scientist that he was "99% confident" that the date of maximum global production will be 2004. Even if the optimists are correct, we will be scraping the oil barrel within the lifetimes of most of those who are middle-aged today.
The supply of oil will decline, but global demand will not. Today we will burn 76m barrels; by 2020 we will be using 112m barrels a day, after which projected demand accelerates. If supply declines and demand grows, we soon encounter something with which the people of the advanced industrial economies are unfamiliar: shortage. The price of oil will go through the roof.
As the price rises, the sectors which are now almost wholly dependent on crude oil - principally transport and farming - will be forced to contract. Given that climate change caused by burning oil is cooking the planet, this might appear to be a good thing. The problem is that our lives have become hard-wired to the oil economy. Our sprawling suburbs are impossible to service without cars. High oil prices mean high food prices: much of the world's growing population will go hungry. These problems will be exacerbated by the direct connection between the price of oil and the rate of unemployment. The last five recessions in the US were all preceded by a rise in the oil price.
Oil, of course, is not the only fuel on which vehicles can run. There are plenty of possible substitutes, but none of them is likely to be anywhere near as cheap as crude is today. Petroleum can be extracted from tar sands and oil shale, but in most cases the process uses almost as much energy as it liberates, while creating great mountains and lakes of toxic waste. Natural gas is a better option, but switching from oil to gas propulsion would require a vast and staggeringly expensive new fuel infrastructure. Gas, of course, is subject to the same constraints as oil: at current rates of use, the world has about 50 years' supply, but if gas were to take the place of oil its life would be much shorter.
Vehicles could be run from fuel cells powered by hydrogen, which is produced by the electrolysis of water. But the electricity which produces the hydrogen has to come from somewhere. To fill all the cars in the US would require four times the current capacity of the national grid. Coal burning is filthy, nuclear energy is expensive and lethal. Running the world's cars from wind or solar power would require a greater investment than any civilisation has ever made before. New studies suggest that leaking hydrogen could damage the ozone layer and exacerbate global warming.
Turning crops into diesel or methanol is just about viable in terms of recoverable energy, but it means using the land on which food is now grown for fuel. My rough calculations suggest that running the United Kingdom's cars on rapeseed oil would require an area of arable fields the size of England.
There is one possible solution which no one writing about the impending oil crisis seems to have noticed: a technique with which the British and Australian governments are currently experimenting, called underground coal gasification. This is a fancy term for setting light to coal seams which are too deep or too expensive to mine, and catching the gas which emerges. It's a hideous prospect, as it means that several trillion tonnes of carbon which was otherwise impossible to exploit becomes available, with the likely result that global warming will eliminate life on Earth.
We seem, in other words, to be in trouble. Either we lay hands on every available source of fossil fuel, in which case we fry the planet and civilisation collapses, or we run out, and civilisation collapses.
The only rational response to both the impending end of the oil age and the menace of global warming is to redesign our cities, our farming and our lives. But this cannot happen without massive political pressure, and our problem is that no one ever rioted for austerity. People tend to take to the streets because they want to consume more, not less. Given a choice between a new set of matching tableware and the survival of humanity, I suspect that most people would choose the tableware.
In view of all this, the notion that the war with Iraq had nothing to do with oil is simply preposterous. The US attacked Iraq (which appears to have had no weapons of mass destruction and was not threatening other nations), rather than North Korea (which is actively developing a nuclear weapons programme and boasting of its intentions to blow everyone else to kingdom come) because Iraq had something it wanted. In one respect alone, Bush and Blair have been making plans for the day when oil production peaks, by seeking to secure the reserves of other nations.
I refuse to believe that there is not a better means of averting disaster than this. I refuse to believe that human beings are collectively incapable of making rational decisions. But I am beginning to wonder what the basis of my belief might be.
· The sources for this and all George Monbiot's recent articles can be found at www.monbiot.com.
Not that it makes a damn bit of difference, but I do admire him very much for speaking out so eloquently.
I hope when people start listening, when he becomes mainstream, it won't be too late.
Bottom of the barrel
The world is running out of oil - so why do politicians refuse to talk about it?
George Monbiot
Tuesday December 2, 2003
The Guardian
The oil industry is buzzing. On Thursday, the government approved the development of the biggest deposit discovered in British territory for at least 10 years. Everywhere we are told that this is a "huge" find, which dispels the idea that North Sea oil is in terminal decline. You begin to recognise how serious the human predicament has become when you discover that this "huge" new field will supply the world with oil for five and a quarter days.
Every generation has its taboo, and ours is this: that the resource upon which our lives have been built is running out. We don't talk about it because we cannot imagine it. This is a civilisation in denial.
Oil itself won't disappear, but extracting what remains is becoming ever more difficult and expensive. The discovery of new reserves peaked in the 1960s. Every year we use four times as much oil as we find. All the big strikes appear to have been made long ago: the 400m barrels in the new North Sea field would have been considered piffling in the 1970s. Our future supplies depend on the discovery of small new deposits and the better exploitation of big old ones. No one with expertise in the field is in any doubt that the global production of oil will peak before long.
The only question is how long. The most optimistic projections are the ones produced by the US department of energy, which claims that this will not take place until 2037. But the US energy information agency has admitted that the government's figures have been fudged: it has based its projections for oil supply on the projections for oil demand, perhaps in order not to sow panic in the financial markets.
Other analysts are less sanguine. The petroleum geologist Colin Campbell calculates that global extraction will peak before 2010. In August, the geophysicist Kenneth Deffeyes told New Scientist that he was "99% confident" that the date of maximum global production will be 2004. Even if the optimists are correct, we will be scraping the oil barrel within the lifetimes of most of those who are middle-aged today.
The supply of oil will decline, but global demand will not. Today we will burn 76m barrels; by 2020 we will be using 112m barrels a day, after which projected demand accelerates. If supply declines and demand grows, we soon encounter something with which the people of the advanced industrial economies are unfamiliar: shortage. The price of oil will go through the roof.
As the price rises, the sectors which are now almost wholly dependent on crude oil - principally transport and farming - will be forced to contract. Given that climate change caused by burning oil is cooking the planet, this might appear to be a good thing. The problem is that our lives have become hard-wired to the oil economy. Our sprawling suburbs are impossible to service without cars. High oil prices mean high food prices: much of the world's growing population will go hungry. These problems will be exacerbated by the direct connection between the price of oil and the rate of unemployment. The last five recessions in the US were all preceded by a rise in the oil price.
Oil, of course, is not the only fuel on which vehicles can run. There are plenty of possible substitutes, but none of them is likely to be anywhere near as cheap as crude is today. Petroleum can be extracted from tar sands and oil shale, but in most cases the process uses almost as much energy as it liberates, while creating great mountains and lakes of toxic waste. Natural gas is a better option, but switching from oil to gas propulsion would require a vast and staggeringly expensive new fuel infrastructure. Gas, of course, is subject to the same constraints as oil: at current rates of use, the world has about 50 years' supply, but if gas were to take the place of oil its life would be much shorter.
Vehicles could be run from fuel cells powered by hydrogen, which is produced by the electrolysis of water. But the electricity which produces the hydrogen has to come from somewhere. To fill all the cars in the US would require four times the current capacity of the national grid. Coal burning is filthy, nuclear energy is expensive and lethal. Running the world's cars from wind or solar power would require a greater investment than any civilisation has ever made before. New studies suggest that leaking hydrogen could damage the ozone layer and exacerbate global warming.
Turning crops into diesel or methanol is just about viable in terms of recoverable energy, but it means using the land on which food is now grown for fuel. My rough calculations suggest that running the United Kingdom's cars on rapeseed oil would require an area of arable fields the size of England.
There is one possible solution which no one writing about the impending oil crisis seems to have noticed: a technique with which the British and Australian governments are currently experimenting, called underground coal gasification. This is a fancy term for setting light to coal seams which are too deep or too expensive to mine, and catching the gas which emerges. It's a hideous prospect, as it means that several trillion tonnes of carbon which was otherwise impossible to exploit becomes available, with the likely result that global warming will eliminate life on Earth.
We seem, in other words, to be in trouble. Either we lay hands on every available source of fossil fuel, in which case we fry the planet and civilisation collapses, or we run out, and civilisation collapses.
The only rational response to both the impending end of the oil age and the menace of global warming is to redesign our cities, our farming and our lives. But this cannot happen without massive political pressure, and our problem is that no one ever rioted for austerity. People tend to take to the streets because they want to consume more, not less. Given a choice between a new set of matching tableware and the survival of humanity, I suspect that most people would choose the tableware.
In view of all this, the notion that the war with Iraq had nothing to do with oil is simply preposterous. The US attacked Iraq (which appears to have had no weapons of mass destruction and was not threatening other nations), rather than North Korea (which is actively developing a nuclear weapons programme and boasting of its intentions to blow everyone else to kingdom come) because Iraq had something it wanted. In one respect alone, Bush and Blair have been making plans for the day when oil production peaks, by seeking to secure the reserves of other nations.
I refuse to believe that there is not a better means of averting disaster than this. I refuse to believe that human beings are collectively incapable of making rational decisions. But I am beginning to wonder what the basis of my belief might be.
· The sources for this and all George Monbiot's recent articles can be found at www.monbiot.com.
Friday, November 21, 2003
Iraq
Richard Perle, in London, admits in so many words that the invasion of Iraq was illegal: "I think in this case international law stood in the way of doing the right thing."
Well, DUH!!!!
I doubt this will make any difference or that anyone will be held accountable.
Hell, I believe the American spinmasters will spin it thusly: they had their backs against the wall and it was the fault of Old Europe, especially the French that they "had to" break international law... in order to save the poor Iraqi people from a horrible dictator.
According to Perle, international law ... would have required us to leave Saddam Hussein alone", and this would have been morally unacceptable.
I suppose since the Americans are now basing their foreign policy on the moral high ground, they should be in the last stages of planning the invasion to rescue the poor suffering people of Uzbekistan from an incredibly cruel and corrupt regime....
From George Monbiot's article: Tony Blair’s New Friend (footnote references removed by me)
There are over 6,000 political and religious prisoners in Uzbekistan. Every year, some of them are tortured to death. Sometimes the policemen or intelligence agents simply break their fingers, their ribs and then their skulls with hammers, or stab them with screwdrivers, or rip off bits of skin and flesh with pliers, or drive needles under their fingernails, or leave them standing for a fortnight, up to their knees in freezing water. Sometimes they are a little more inventive. The body of one prisoner was delivered to his relatives last year, with a curious red tidemark around the middle of his torso. He had been boiled to death.
His crime, like that of many of the country's prisoners, was practising his religion. Islam Karimov, the president of Uzbekistan, learnt his politics from the Soviet Union. He was appointed under the old system, and its collapse in 1991 did not interrupt his rule. An Islamic terrorist network has been operating there, but Karimov makes no distinction between peaceful Muslims and terrorists: anyone who worships privately, who does not praise the president during his prayers or who joins an organisation which has not been approved by the state can be imprisoned. Political dissidents, human rights activists and homosexuals receive the same treatment. Some of them, like dissidents in the old Soviet Union, are sent to psychiatric hospitals.
But Uzbekistan, as Saddam Hussein's Iraq once was, is seen by the US government as a key western asset. Since 1999, US special forces have been training Karimov's soldiers. In October 2001, he gave the United States permission to use Uzbekistan as an airbase for its war against the Taliban. The Taliban have now been overthrown, but the US has no intention of moving out. Uzbekistan is in the middle of central Asia's massive gas and oil fields. It is a nation for whose favours both Russia and China have been competing. Like Saddam Hussein's Iraq, it is a secular state fending off the forces of Islam.
More here.
Do you get a sort of deja vu feeling here?
I know I do...
Richard Perle, in London, admits in so many words that the invasion of Iraq was illegal: "I think in this case international law stood in the way of doing the right thing."
Well, DUH!!!!
I doubt this will make any difference or that anyone will be held accountable.
Hell, I believe the American spinmasters will spin it thusly: they had their backs against the wall and it was the fault of Old Europe, especially the French that they "had to" break international law... in order to save the poor Iraqi people from a horrible dictator.
According to Perle, international law ... would have required us to leave Saddam Hussein alone", and this would have been morally unacceptable.
I suppose since the Americans are now basing their foreign policy on the moral high ground, they should be in the last stages of planning the invasion to rescue the poor suffering people of Uzbekistan from an incredibly cruel and corrupt regime....
From George Monbiot's article: Tony Blair’s New Friend (footnote references removed by me)
There are over 6,000 political and religious prisoners in Uzbekistan. Every year, some of them are tortured to death. Sometimes the policemen or intelligence agents simply break their fingers, their ribs and then their skulls with hammers, or stab them with screwdrivers, or rip off bits of skin and flesh with pliers, or drive needles under their fingernails, or leave them standing for a fortnight, up to their knees in freezing water. Sometimes they are a little more inventive. The body of one prisoner was delivered to his relatives last year, with a curious red tidemark around the middle of his torso. He had been boiled to death.
His crime, like that of many of the country's prisoners, was practising his religion. Islam Karimov, the president of Uzbekistan, learnt his politics from the Soviet Union. He was appointed under the old system, and its collapse in 1991 did not interrupt his rule. An Islamic terrorist network has been operating there, but Karimov makes no distinction between peaceful Muslims and terrorists: anyone who worships privately, who does not praise the president during his prayers or who joins an organisation which has not been approved by the state can be imprisoned. Political dissidents, human rights activists and homosexuals receive the same treatment. Some of them, like dissidents in the old Soviet Union, are sent to psychiatric hospitals.
But Uzbekistan, as Saddam Hussein's Iraq once was, is seen by the US government as a key western asset. Since 1999, US special forces have been training Karimov's soldiers. In October 2001, he gave the United States permission to use Uzbekistan as an airbase for its war against the Taliban. The Taliban have now been overthrown, but the US has no intention of moving out. Uzbekistan is in the middle of central Asia's massive gas and oil fields. It is a nation for whose favours both Russia and China have been competing. Like Saddam Hussein's Iraq, it is a secular state fending off the forces of Islam.
More here.
Do you get a sort of deja vu feeling here?
I know I do...
Iraq
Richard Perle, in London, admits in so many words that the invasion of Iraq was illegal: "I think in this case international law stood in the way of doing the right thing."
Well, DUH!!!!
I doubt this will make any difference or that anyone will be held accountable.
Hell, I believe the American spinmasters will spin it thusly: they had their backs against the wall and it was the fault of Old Europe, especially the French that they "had to" break international law... in order to save the poor Iraqi people from a horrible dictator.
According to Perle, international law ... would have required us to leave Saddam Hussein alone", and this would have been morally unacceptable.
I suppose since the Americans are now basing their foreign policy on the moral high ground, they should be in the last stages of planning the invasion to rescue the poor suffering people of Uzbekistan from an incredibly cruel and corrupt regime....
From George Monbiot's article: Tony Blair’s New Friend (footnote references removed by me)
There are over 6,000 political and religious prisoners in Uzbekistan. Every year, some of them are tortured to death. Sometimes the policemen or intelligence agents simply break their fingers, their ribs and then their skulls with hammers, or stab them with screwdrivers, or rip off bits of skin and flesh with pliers, or drive needles under their fingernails, or leave them standing for a fortnight, up to their knees in freezing water. Sometimes they are a little more inventive. The body of one prisoner was delivered to his relatives last year, with a curious red tidemark around the middle of his torso. He had been boiled to death.
His crime, like that of many of the country's prisoners, was practising his religion. Islam Karimov, the president of Uzbekistan, learnt his politics from the Soviet Union. He was appointed under the old system, and its collapse in 1991 did not interrupt his rule. An Islamic terrorist network has been operating there, but Karimov makes no distinction between peaceful Muslims and terrorists: anyone who worships privately, who does not praise the president during his prayers or who joins an organisation which has not been approved by the state can be imprisoned. Political dissidents, human rights activists and homosexuals receive the same treatment. Some of them, like dissidents in the old Soviet Union, are sent to psychiatric hospitals.
But Uzbekistan, as Saddam Hussein's Iraq once was, is seen by the US government as a key western asset. Since 1999, US special forces have been training Karimov's soldiers. In October 2001, he gave the United States permission to use Uzbekistan as an airbase for its war against the Taliban. The Taliban have now been overthrown, but the US has no intention of moving out. Uzbekistan is in the middle of central Asia's massive gas and oil fields. It is a nation for whose favours both Russia and China have been competing. Like Saddam Hussein's Iraq, it is a secular state fending off the forces of Islam.
More here.
Do you get a sort of deja vu feeling here?
I know I do...
Richard Perle, in London, admits in so many words that the invasion of Iraq was illegal: "I think in this case international law stood in the way of doing the right thing."
Well, DUH!!!!
I doubt this will make any difference or that anyone will be held accountable.
Hell, I believe the American spinmasters will spin it thusly: they had their backs against the wall and it was the fault of Old Europe, especially the French that they "had to" break international law... in order to save the poor Iraqi people from a horrible dictator.
According to Perle, international law ... would have required us to leave Saddam Hussein alone", and this would have been morally unacceptable.
I suppose since the Americans are now basing their foreign policy on the moral high ground, they should be in the last stages of planning the invasion to rescue the poor suffering people of Uzbekistan from an incredibly cruel and corrupt regime....
From George Monbiot's article: Tony Blair’s New Friend (footnote references removed by me)
There are over 6,000 political and religious prisoners in Uzbekistan. Every year, some of them are tortured to death. Sometimes the policemen or intelligence agents simply break their fingers, their ribs and then their skulls with hammers, or stab them with screwdrivers, or rip off bits of skin and flesh with pliers, or drive needles under their fingernails, or leave them standing for a fortnight, up to their knees in freezing water. Sometimes they are a little more inventive. The body of one prisoner was delivered to his relatives last year, with a curious red tidemark around the middle of his torso. He had been boiled to death.
His crime, like that of many of the country's prisoners, was practising his religion. Islam Karimov, the president of Uzbekistan, learnt his politics from the Soviet Union. He was appointed under the old system, and its collapse in 1991 did not interrupt his rule. An Islamic terrorist network has been operating there, but Karimov makes no distinction between peaceful Muslims and terrorists: anyone who worships privately, who does not praise the president during his prayers or who joins an organisation which has not been approved by the state can be imprisoned. Political dissidents, human rights activists and homosexuals receive the same treatment. Some of them, like dissidents in the old Soviet Union, are sent to psychiatric hospitals.
But Uzbekistan, as Saddam Hussein's Iraq once was, is seen by the US government as a key western asset. Since 1999, US special forces have been training Karimov's soldiers. In October 2001, he gave the United States permission to use Uzbekistan as an airbase for its war against the Taliban. The Taliban have now been overthrown, but the US has no intention of moving out. Uzbekistan is in the middle of central Asia's massive gas and oil fields. It is a nation for whose favours both Russia and China have been competing. Like Saddam Hussein's Iraq, it is a secular state fending off the forces of Islam.
More here.
Do you get a sort of deja vu feeling here?
I know I do...
Tuesday, November 18, 2003
Afghanistan
We had this unbelievable opportunity, a once-in-a-lifetime chance to do serious good here: to help a free society evolve, to invest in the development of infrastructure, schools, a secure environment in which human rights could flourish... we could have helped the beleaguered Afghan people in the creation of a wonderful new world, a free world...
Instead we, the entire world, allowed our attention to be diverted from this important task by such an obviously transparent ploy that it would not have fooled a child, allowing the war in Iraq to happen by the very fact of giving the preceding US media campaign serious attention. Had we treated the hectoring with the contempt and hilarity it deserved, it would have died right then and there.
Once we accepted that war was inevitable, whatever the reasoning employed to get us to that point, Afghanistan became irrelevant. Although many aid organisations and the multilateral military force worked so hard to stem the tide, it was pretty obvious what was going to happen... a return to the old situation. This is happening now: the U.N. Refugee Agency is now withdrawing it's foreign staff from Southern and Eastern Afghanistan.
This is the beginning of the end, the rest is just window dressing. Perhaps there will be a bombing of caves at some point, some incursions to hunt down Taliban "terrorists" but truth be told, the battle is already over. It was already over the moment we started giving airtime to the drumbeat of war from America.
The world missed an awesome opportunity here to do good.
Instead, we have plunged this country into even deeper misery than it was in before.
In the end, the net gain was zero... or less, since Osama and his network still lives on and flourishes.
Shame on us all!
We had this unbelievable opportunity, a once-in-a-lifetime chance to do serious good here: to help a free society evolve, to invest in the development of infrastructure, schools, a secure environment in which human rights could flourish... we could have helped the beleaguered Afghan people in the creation of a wonderful new world, a free world...
Instead we, the entire world, allowed our attention to be diverted from this important task by such an obviously transparent ploy that it would not have fooled a child, allowing the war in Iraq to happen by the very fact of giving the preceding US media campaign serious attention. Had we treated the hectoring with the contempt and hilarity it deserved, it would have died right then and there.
Once we accepted that war was inevitable, whatever the reasoning employed to get us to that point, Afghanistan became irrelevant. Although many aid organisations and the multilateral military force worked so hard to stem the tide, it was pretty obvious what was going to happen... a return to the old situation. This is happening now: the U.N. Refugee Agency is now withdrawing it's foreign staff from Southern and Eastern Afghanistan.
This is the beginning of the end, the rest is just window dressing. Perhaps there will be a bombing of caves at some point, some incursions to hunt down Taliban "terrorists" but truth be told, the battle is already over. It was already over the moment we started giving airtime to the drumbeat of war from America.
The world missed an awesome opportunity here to do good.
Instead, we have plunged this country into even deeper misery than it was in before.
In the end, the net gain was zero... or less, since Osama and his network still lives on and flourishes.
Shame on us all!
Afghanistan
We had this unbelievable opportunity, a once-in-a-lifetime chance to do serious good here: to help a free society evolve, to invest in the development of infrastructure, schools, a secure environment in which human rights could flourish... we could have helped the beleaguered Afghan people in the creation of a wonderful new world, a free world...
Instead we, the entire world, allowed our attention to be diverted from this important task by such an obviously transparent ploy that it would not have fooled a child, allowing the war in Iraq to happen by the very fact of giving the preceding US media campaign serious attention. Had we treated the hectoring with the contempt and hilarity it deserved, it would have died right then and there.
Once we accepted that war was inevitable, whatever the reasoning employed to get us to that point, Afghanistan became irrelevant. Although many aid organisations and the multilateral military force worked so hard to stem the tide, it was pretty obvious what was going to happen... a return to the old situation. This is happening now: the U.N. Refugee Agency is now withdrawing it's foreign staff from Southern and Eastern Afghanistan.
This is the beginning of the end, the rest is just window dressing. Perhaps there will be a bombing of caves at some point, some incursions to hunt down Taliban "terrorists" but truth be told, the battle is already over. It was already over the moment we started giving airtime to the drumbeat of war from America.
The world missed an awesome opportunity here to do good.
Instead, we have plunged this country into even deeper misery than it was in before.
In the end, the net gain was zero... or less, since Osama and his network still lives on and flourishes.
Shame on us all!
We had this unbelievable opportunity, a once-in-a-lifetime chance to do serious good here: to help a free society evolve, to invest in the development of infrastructure, schools, a secure environment in which human rights could flourish... we could have helped the beleaguered Afghan people in the creation of a wonderful new world, a free world...
Instead we, the entire world, allowed our attention to be diverted from this important task by such an obviously transparent ploy that it would not have fooled a child, allowing the war in Iraq to happen by the very fact of giving the preceding US media campaign serious attention. Had we treated the hectoring with the contempt and hilarity it deserved, it would have died right then and there.
Once we accepted that war was inevitable, whatever the reasoning employed to get us to that point, Afghanistan became irrelevant. Although many aid organisations and the multilateral military force worked so hard to stem the tide, it was pretty obvious what was going to happen... a return to the old situation. This is happening now: the U.N. Refugee Agency is now withdrawing it's foreign staff from Southern and Eastern Afghanistan.
This is the beginning of the end, the rest is just window dressing. Perhaps there will be a bombing of caves at some point, some incursions to hunt down Taliban "terrorists" but truth be told, the battle is already over. It was already over the moment we started giving airtime to the drumbeat of war from America.
The world missed an awesome opportunity here to do good.
Instead, we have plunged this country into even deeper misery than it was in before.
In the end, the net gain was zero... or less, since Osama and his network still lives on and flourishes.
Shame on us all!
Wednesday, November 12, 2003
Iraq
The top US general in Iraq, Lieutenant-General Ricardo Sanchez: "The most important message is that we are all going to get pretty tough, and that's what is needed to defeat the enemy, and we are definitely not shy of doing that when it is required."
Things are about to become supremely bad in Iraq... I feel so sorry for the people living there, this is the beginning of a downhill slide that cannot be stopped any more.
Too late for the UN, too late for legalising the Governing Council or for holding elections.
Too late for the Americans to make a clean exit.
Too late.
The shit is about to hit the fan.
The top US general in Iraq, Lieutenant-General Ricardo Sanchez: "The most important message is that we are all going to get pretty tough, and that's what is needed to defeat the enemy, and we are definitely not shy of doing that when it is required."
Things are about to become supremely bad in Iraq... I feel so sorry for the people living there, this is the beginning of a downhill slide that cannot be stopped any more.
Too late for the UN, too late for legalising the Governing Council or for holding elections.
Too late for the Americans to make a clean exit.
Too late.
The shit is about to hit the fan.
Iraq
The top US general in Iraq, Lieutenant-General Ricardo Sanchez: "The most important message is that we are all going to get pretty tough, and that's what is needed to defeat the enemy, and we are definitely not shy of doing that when it is required."
Things are about to become supremely bad in Iraq... I feel so sorry for the people living there, this is the beginning of a downhill slide that cannot be stopped any more.
Too late for the UN, too late for legalising the Governing Council or for holding elections.
Too late for the Americans to make a clean exit.
Too late.
The shit is about to hit the fan.
The top US general in Iraq, Lieutenant-General Ricardo Sanchez: "The most important message is that we are all going to get pretty tough, and that's what is needed to defeat the enemy, and we are definitely not shy of doing that when it is required."
Things are about to become supremely bad in Iraq... I feel so sorry for the people living there, this is the beginning of a downhill slide that cannot be stopped any more.
Too late for the UN, too late for legalising the Governing Council or for holding elections.
Too late for the Americans to make a clean exit.
Too late.
The shit is about to hit the fan.
Monday, November 10, 2003
Iraq
After the third US chopper was downed by resistance forces / terrorists / Baath remnants (take your pick) the Americans are now bombing the area it happened in.
Now, that's logic... guerilla fighters are by their very nature mobile, they are long gone from there by now. What's left there are the locals... who are probably not growing any fonder of the Americans by being bombed. In fact, they are probably becoming more polarised with each American sortie. But hey, showing them you are tough is the American way... it's what got them in all this trouble in the first place.
Meanwhile, Turkey is testing the water:
"The US has promised to remove the terrorists," said the Turkish Foreign Minister, Abdullah Gul. "We are still waiting for America to fulfil its promise. We believe that it will.
"But Turkey has the right to take pre-emptive action to defend its own security interests, just as Israel and the US do. The US Government must take this issue seriously."
I suspect that oil-rich region is looking mighty attractive to Turkey right now, all they need is an "incident" that would allow them to move in there and annex the area, "pre-emptively" of course, all in the interest of their national security. The Turks are not slow learners...
My guess is they will wait until the US presidential race is so heated not one of the candidates will actually dare to act in fear of losing votes. It is simply too tempting, all that oil and the "Kurdish problem" solved for once and all...
After the third US chopper was downed by resistance forces / terrorists / Baath remnants (take your pick) the Americans are now bombing the area it happened in.
Now, that's logic... guerilla fighters are by their very nature mobile, they are long gone from there by now. What's left there are the locals... who are probably not growing any fonder of the Americans by being bombed. In fact, they are probably becoming more polarised with each American sortie. But hey, showing them you are tough is the American way... it's what got them in all this trouble in the first place.
Meanwhile, Turkey is testing the water:
"The US has promised to remove the terrorists," said the Turkish Foreign Minister, Abdullah Gul. "We are still waiting for America to fulfil its promise. We believe that it will.
"But Turkey has the right to take pre-emptive action to defend its own security interests, just as Israel and the US do. The US Government must take this issue seriously."
I suspect that oil-rich region is looking mighty attractive to Turkey right now, all they need is an "incident" that would allow them to move in there and annex the area, "pre-emptively" of course, all in the interest of their national security. The Turks are not slow learners...
My guess is they will wait until the US presidential race is so heated not one of the candidates will actually dare to act in fear of losing votes. It is simply too tempting, all that oil and the "Kurdish problem" solved for once and all...
Iraq
After the third US chopper was downed by resistance forces / terrorists / Baath remnants (take your pick) the Americans are now bombing the area it happened in.
Now, that's logic... guerilla fighters are by their very nature mobile, they are long gone from there by now. What's left there are the locals... who are probably not growing any fonder of the Americans by being bombed. In fact, they are probably becoming more polarised with each American sortie. But hey, showing them you are tough is the American way... it's what got them in all this trouble in the first place.
Meanwhile, Turkey is testing the water:
"The US has promised to remove the terrorists," said the Turkish Foreign Minister, Abdullah Gul. "We are still waiting for America to fulfil its promise. We believe that it will.
"But Turkey has the right to take pre-emptive action to defend its own security interests, just as Israel and the US do. The US Government must take this issue seriously."
I suspect that oil-rich region is looking mighty attractive to Turkey right now, all they need is an "incident" that would allow them to move in there and annex the area, "pre-emptively" of course, all in the interest of their national security. The Turks are not slow learners...
My guess is they will wait until the US presidential race is so heated not one of the candidates will actually dare to act in fear of losing votes. It is simply too tempting, all that oil and the "Kurdish problem" solved for once and all...
After the third US chopper was downed by resistance forces / terrorists / Baath remnants (take your pick) the Americans are now bombing the area it happened in.
Now, that's logic... guerilla fighters are by their very nature mobile, they are long gone from there by now. What's left there are the locals... who are probably not growing any fonder of the Americans by being bombed. In fact, they are probably becoming more polarised with each American sortie. But hey, showing them you are tough is the American way... it's what got them in all this trouble in the first place.
Meanwhile, Turkey is testing the water:
"The US has promised to remove the terrorists," said the Turkish Foreign Minister, Abdullah Gul. "We are still waiting for America to fulfil its promise. We believe that it will.
"But Turkey has the right to take pre-emptive action to defend its own security interests, just as Israel and the US do. The US Government must take this issue seriously."
I suspect that oil-rich region is looking mighty attractive to Turkey right now, all they need is an "incident" that would allow them to move in there and annex the area, "pre-emptively" of course, all in the interest of their national security. The Turks are not slow learners...
My guess is they will wait until the US presidential race is so heated not one of the candidates will actually dare to act in fear of losing votes. It is simply too tempting, all that oil and the "Kurdish problem" solved for once and all...
Thursday, November 06, 2003
The end of the world - the sun !
Meh. If it is the end of the world, not much we can do about it.
Interesting, though!
What is happening to the Sun?
By Dr David Whitehouse
BBC News Online science editor
The Sun's latest explosions
The Sun's intense activity in the past week will go into the record books.
Scientists say they have been amazed by the ferocity of the gigantic flares exploding on the solar surface.
The past 24 hours have seen three major events erupt over our star, hurling billions of tonnes of superhot gas into space - some of it directed at Earth.
Researchers are once more predicting colourful displays of aurorae - polar lights - when the charged particles from the Sun crash into our atmosphere.
The X files
Powerful solar flares are given an "X" designation. There was an X8 and an X3 event on Sunday.
Spectacular lights in the sky have been common
On Monday, there was an X3 flare followed by smaller ones.
Last week there were X7 and X10 events that took place back-to-back.
Flares with an X rating are unusual and, if the gas cloud from them reaches the Earth, are capable of causing a geomagnetic storm.
The Earth's changing magnetic field in such a storm can cause power grid and satellite problems. Japanese engineers believe that one of their satellites failed last week because of one such storm.
Huge energy
Last week's flares came from giant Sunspot 486, as did the first flare on Sunday.
Subsequent flares have emanated from Sunspot 488 which appears to be growing in activity.
Some experts are saying that the Sun is more active than it has been in living memory.
Dr Paal Brekke, deputy project scientist for the Solar Heliospheric Observatory (Soho) Sun-monitoring satellite, told BBC News Online: "It is quite amazing that the flaring regions continue releasing such strong flares.
"I think the last week will go into the history books as one of the most dramatic solar activity periods we have seen in modern times.
"As far as I know there has been nothing like this before."
Skywatchers will be looking out for spectacular lights in the night sky.
These Northern and Southern Lights are generated when fast-moving particles (electrons and protons) ejected from the Sun get trapped in the magnetic field around the Earth, and collide with the gases in the upper atmosphere.
Interesting, though!
What is happening to the Sun?
By Dr David Whitehouse
BBC News Online science editor
The Sun's latest explosions
The Sun's intense activity in the past week will go into the record books.
Scientists say they have been amazed by the ferocity of the gigantic flares exploding on the solar surface.
The past 24 hours have seen three major events erupt over our star, hurling billions of tonnes of superhot gas into space - some of it directed at Earth.
Researchers are once more predicting colourful displays of aurorae - polar lights - when the charged particles from the Sun crash into our atmosphere.
The X files
Powerful solar flares are given an "X" designation. There was an X8 and an X3 event on Sunday.
Spectacular lights in the sky have been common
On Monday, there was an X3 flare followed by smaller ones.
Last week there were X7 and X10 events that took place back-to-back.
Flares with an X rating are unusual and, if the gas cloud from them reaches the Earth, are capable of causing a geomagnetic storm.
The Earth's changing magnetic field in such a storm can cause power grid and satellite problems. Japanese engineers believe that one of their satellites failed last week because of one such storm.
Huge energy
Last week's flares came from giant Sunspot 486, as did the first flare on Sunday.
Subsequent flares have emanated from Sunspot 488 which appears to be growing in activity.
Some experts are saying that the Sun is more active than it has been in living memory.
Dr Paal Brekke, deputy project scientist for the Solar Heliospheric Observatory (Soho) Sun-monitoring satellite, told BBC News Online: "It is quite amazing that the flaring regions continue releasing such strong flares.
"I think the last week will go into the history books as one of the most dramatic solar activity periods we have seen in modern times.
"As far as I know there has been nothing like this before."
Skywatchers will be looking out for spectacular lights in the night sky.
These Northern and Southern Lights are generated when fast-moving particles (electrons and protons) ejected from the Sun get trapped in the magnetic field around the Earth, and collide with the gases in the upper atmosphere.
The new America
Perhaps they have been like this for a long time and it is only becoming noticeable to me now. This new America:
it is as if they are still in an arms race but have not noticed that there is no opposing party racing against them any more.
American Congress approved funding for research to develop mini nukes... to fight terrorism.
In my mind, they are developing the perfect terrorist weapon here.
A second recent example of the US developing the perfect terrorist weapon: those extremely lethal new viruses. They just developed a version of mousepox which does not respond to antiviral drugs or a vaccine. They did the same with the cowpox virus, which infects a range of animals - including humans!!
With everyone focusing on Iraq and the mess developing there (completely according to predictions pre-war, I might add) this is slipping by mainly unnoticed.
While these developments should terrify us more, especially the latter, which could endanger all life on the entire planet.
I for one am very worried. Who will stop this runaway train? The people of the USA are so ill-informed and complacent in their belief in their politicians, they will only speak out when it is too late.
The big boys are playing with really big toys and they could get us all killed.
I don't want to play any more...
Perhaps they have been like this for a long time and it is only becoming noticeable to me now. This new America:
it is as if they are still in an arms race but have not noticed that there is no opposing party racing against them any more.
American Congress approved funding for research to develop mini nukes... to fight terrorism.
In my mind, they are developing the perfect terrorist weapon here.
A second recent example of the US developing the perfect terrorist weapon: those extremely lethal new viruses. They just developed a version of mousepox which does not respond to antiviral drugs or a vaccine. They did the same with the cowpox virus, which infects a range of animals - including humans!!
With everyone focusing on Iraq and the mess developing there (completely according to predictions pre-war, I might add) this is slipping by mainly unnoticed.
While these developments should terrify us more, especially the latter, which could endanger all life on the entire planet.
I for one am very worried. Who will stop this runaway train? The people of the USA are so ill-informed and complacent in their belief in their politicians, they will only speak out when it is too late.
The big boys are playing with really big toys and they could get us all killed.
I don't want to play any more...
The new America
Perhaps they have been like this for a long time and it is only becoming noticeable to me now. This new America:
it is as if they are still in an arms race but have not noticed that there is no opposing party racing against them any more.
American Congress approved funding for research to develop mini nukes... to fight terrorism.
In my mind, they are developing the perfect terrorist weapon here.
A second recent example of the US developing the perfect terrorist weapon: those extremely lethal new viruses. They just developed a version of mousepox which does not respond to antiviral drugs or a vaccine. They did the same with the cowpox virus, which infects a range of animals - including humans!!
With everyone focusing on Iraq and the mess developing there (completely according to predictions pre-war, I might add) this is slipping by mainly unnoticed.
While these developments should terrify us more, especially the latter, which could endanger all life on the entire planet.
I for one am very worried. Who will stop this runaway train? The people of the USA are so ill-informed and complacent in their belief in their politicians, they will only speak out when it is too late.
The big boys are playing with really big toys and they could get us all killed.
I don't want to play any more...
Perhaps they have been like this for a long time and it is only becoming noticeable to me now. This new America:
it is as if they are still in an arms race but have not noticed that there is no opposing party racing against them any more.
American Congress approved funding for research to develop mini nukes... to fight terrorism.
In my mind, they are developing the perfect terrorist weapon here.
A second recent example of the US developing the perfect terrorist weapon: those extremely lethal new viruses. They just developed a version of mousepox which does not respond to antiviral drugs or a vaccine. They did the same with the cowpox virus, which infects a range of animals - including humans!!
With everyone focusing on Iraq and the mess developing there (completely according to predictions pre-war, I might add) this is slipping by mainly unnoticed.
While these developments should terrify us more, especially the latter, which could endanger all life on the entire planet.
I for one am very worried. Who will stop this runaway train? The people of the USA are so ill-informed and complacent in their belief in their politicians, they will only speak out when it is too late.
The big boys are playing with really big toys and they could get us all killed.
I don't want to play any more...
Wednesday, October 29, 2003
Iraq
As the opposition is becoming more organised and deadly, the people of Baghdad are becoming more afraid by the day. These days of Ramadan will be sad and hard for them. There is no security in Baghdad, if you read between the lines of most publications. This past Monday, 4 suicide attacks that left at least 35 people dead and more than 200 injured.
Bush is blaming this mess on foreign troops in Iraq.
He is right.
They dont belong there, they never should have invaded the country in the first place.
He also said the bombings was because of the progress of the occupation and the desperation of the insurgents.
I'm not quite sure what to make of this nugget...
ermmm... Is the man insane???
Well, at least he is not taunting them to "bring it on" again.
I will take Robert Fisk's word for it any day:
Some of America's enemies may come from other Arab countries, but most of the military opposition to America's presence comes from Iraqi Sunnis - not from Saddam "remnants", "diehards" or "deadenders" (the Paul Bremer cover-up titles for a real and growing Iraqi resistance), but from men who in many cases hated Saddam.
They don't work "for" al Qaeda. They don't work for Mullah Omar or Osama bin Laden.
But they have learned their own unique version of history. Attack your enemies in the holy month of Ramadan. Learn from the war in Algeria. And the war in Afghanistan.
Learn the lessons of America's "war on terror". Go for the jugular. "Bring'em on." Kill the leadership. You're with us or against us, collaborator or patriot. That was the message of yesterday's bloodbath in Baghdad.
As the opposition is becoming more organised and deadly, the people of Baghdad are becoming more afraid by the day. These days of Ramadan will be sad and hard for them. There is no security in Baghdad, if you read between the lines of most publications. This past Monday, 4 suicide attacks that left at least 35 people dead and more than 200 injured.
Bush is blaming this mess on foreign troops in Iraq.
He is right.
They dont belong there, they never should have invaded the country in the first place.
He also said the bombings was because of the progress of the occupation and the desperation of the insurgents.
I'm not quite sure what to make of this nugget...
ermmm... Is the man insane???
Well, at least he is not taunting them to "bring it on" again.
I will take Robert Fisk's word for it any day:
Some of America's enemies may come from other Arab countries, but most of the military opposition to America's presence comes from Iraqi Sunnis - not from Saddam "remnants", "diehards" or "deadenders" (the Paul Bremer cover-up titles for a real and growing Iraqi resistance), but from men who in many cases hated Saddam.
They don't work "for" al Qaeda. They don't work for Mullah Omar or Osama bin Laden.
But they have learned their own unique version of history. Attack your enemies in the holy month of Ramadan. Learn from the war in Algeria. And the war in Afghanistan.
Learn the lessons of America's "war on terror". Go for the jugular. "Bring'em on." Kill the leadership. You're with us or against us, collaborator or patriot. That was the message of yesterday's bloodbath in Baghdad.
Iraq
As the opposition is becoming more organised and deadly, the people of Baghdad are becoming more afraid by the day. These days of Ramadan will be sad and hard for them. There is no security in Baghdad, if you read between the lines of most publications. This past Monday, 4 suicide attacks that left at least 35 people dead and more than 200 injured.
Bush is blaming this mess on foreign troops in Iraq.
He is right.
They dont belong there, they never should have invaded the country in the first place.
He also said the bombings was because of the progress of the occupation and the desperation of the insurgents.
I'm not quite sure what to make of this nugget...
ermmm... Is the man insane???
Well, at least he is not taunting them to "bring it on" again.
I will take Robert Fisk's word for it any day:
Some of America's enemies may come from other Arab countries, but most of the military opposition to America's presence comes from Iraqi Sunnis - not from Saddam "remnants", "diehards" or "deadenders" (the Paul Bremer cover-up titles for a real and growing Iraqi resistance), but from men who in many cases hated Saddam.
They don't work "for" al Qaeda. They don't work for Mullah Omar or Osama bin Laden.
But they have learned their own unique version of history. Attack your enemies in the holy month of Ramadan. Learn from the war in Algeria. And the war in Afghanistan.
Learn the lessons of America's "war on terror". Go for the jugular. "Bring'em on." Kill the leadership. You're with us or against us, collaborator or patriot. That was the message of yesterday's bloodbath in Baghdad.
As the opposition is becoming more organised and deadly, the people of Baghdad are becoming more afraid by the day. These days of Ramadan will be sad and hard for them. There is no security in Baghdad, if you read between the lines of most publications. This past Monday, 4 suicide attacks that left at least 35 people dead and more than 200 injured.
Bush is blaming this mess on foreign troops in Iraq.
He is right.
They dont belong there, they never should have invaded the country in the first place.
He also said the bombings was because of the progress of the occupation and the desperation of the insurgents.
I'm not quite sure what to make of this nugget...
ermmm... Is the man insane???
Well, at least he is not taunting them to "bring it on" again.
I will take Robert Fisk's word for it any day:
Some of America's enemies may come from other Arab countries, but most of the military opposition to America's presence comes from Iraqi Sunnis - not from Saddam "remnants", "diehards" or "deadenders" (the Paul Bremer cover-up titles for a real and growing Iraqi resistance), but from men who in many cases hated Saddam.
They don't work "for" al Qaeda. They don't work for Mullah Omar or Osama bin Laden.
But they have learned their own unique version of history. Attack your enemies in the holy month of Ramadan. Learn from the war in Algeria. And the war in Afghanistan.
Learn the lessons of America's "war on terror". Go for the jugular. "Bring'em on." Kill the leadership. You're with us or against us, collaborator or patriot. That was the message of yesterday's bloodbath in Baghdad.
Tuesday, October 21, 2003
America and it's double standards
Bush sternly rebukes Malaysia's Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad for making anti-Semitic remarks but at the same time he is quite okay with his new deputy undersecretary of defense for intelligence, Lt. Gen. William G. "Jerry" Boykin, equating Islam with evil, the devil and portraying this religion (and the areas where it is practiced) as the great US enemy.
Talk about double standards...
America is a country of extremes: there are so many things good in the American culture but many bad things too... the American president should be above that though, when a country selects a leader who is so extreme as Bush is, it becomes frightening. When the leadership is being steered by right-wing groups who have a clear agenda of manipulating the world to further their own interests, an organisation that has no interest whatsoever in what the rest of the world thinks or does, it becomes a concern for the rest of the world.
The rest of the world, including the Arab countries, certainly notices the double standards. Nowhere else is it more clear than in the endless conflict between Israel and Palestine.
Yesterday again: 11 dead and countless people injured after Israeli gunships pounded civilian areas. Why am I more upset when the Israeli army behaves like this, against when a suicide bomber blows him(her)self up in a crowded place? Because they are the extention of a government of a country and should behave better. The human rights are being trampled on such a huge scale that almost all else pales beside it. The Palestinians are under occupation and are fighting this with the only tools they still have to their disposal. I believe they would immediately have instant world-wide support if they stopped targeting soft targets and went after soldiers (however almost impossible this is, this is a true David/Goliath situation).
Be that as it may, the US hypocrisy in this is almost tangible. The roadmap was buried under the violence coming from Sharon and he was clearly being egged on by the USA. The US vetoing behavior at the UN security council has remained unchanged.
The hypocrisy of it all is galling and is being noticed all over the world.
This is "why they hate the USA" - in a nutshell.
Meanwhile, in another country now emptied out of American troops, Osama bin Laden is still alive and well and very active thank you very much.
I am staying well away from tempting American targets.
Bush sternly rebukes Malaysia's Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad for making anti-Semitic remarks but at the same time he is quite okay with his new deputy undersecretary of defense for intelligence, Lt. Gen. William G. "Jerry" Boykin, equating Islam with evil, the devil and portraying this religion (and the areas where it is practiced) as the great US enemy.
Talk about double standards...
America is a country of extremes: there are so many things good in the American culture but many bad things too... the American president should be above that though, when a country selects a leader who is so extreme as Bush is, it becomes frightening. When the leadership is being steered by right-wing groups who have a clear agenda of manipulating the world to further their own interests, an organisation that has no interest whatsoever in what the rest of the world thinks or does, it becomes a concern for the rest of the world.
The rest of the world, including the Arab countries, certainly notices the double standards. Nowhere else is it more clear than in the endless conflict between Israel and Palestine.
Yesterday again: 11 dead and countless people injured after Israeli gunships pounded civilian areas. Why am I more upset when the Israeli army behaves like this, against when a suicide bomber blows him(her)self up in a crowded place? Because they are the extention of a government of a country and should behave better. The human rights are being trampled on such a huge scale that almost all else pales beside it. The Palestinians are under occupation and are fighting this with the only tools they still have to their disposal. I believe they would immediately have instant world-wide support if they stopped targeting soft targets and went after soldiers (however almost impossible this is, this is a true David/Goliath situation).
Be that as it may, the US hypocrisy in this is almost tangible. The roadmap was buried under the violence coming from Sharon and he was clearly being egged on by the USA. The US vetoing behavior at the UN security council has remained unchanged.
The hypocrisy of it all is galling and is being noticed all over the world.
This is "why they hate the USA" - in a nutshell.
Meanwhile, in another country now emptied out of American troops, Osama bin Laden is still alive and well and very active thank you very much.
I am staying well away from tempting American targets.
America and it's double standards
Bush sternly rebukes Malaysia's Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad for making anti-Semitic remarks but at the same time he is quite okay with his new deputy undersecretary of defense for intelligence, Lt. Gen. William G. "Jerry" Boykin, equating Islam with evil, the devil and portraying this religion (and the areas where it is practiced) as the great US enemy.
Talk about double standards...
America is a country of extremes: there are so many things good in the American culture but many bad things too... the American president should be above that though, when a country selects a leader who is so extreme as Bush is, it becomes frightening. When the leadership is being steered by right-wing groups who have a clear agenda of manipulating the world to further their own interests, an organisation that has no interest whatsoever in what the rest of the world thinks or does, it becomes a concern for the rest of the world.
The rest of the world, including the Arab countries, certainly notices the double standards. Nowhere else is it more clear than in the endless conflict between Israel and Palestine.
Yesterday again: 11 dead and countless people injured after Israeli gunships pounded civilian areas. Why am I more upset when the Israeli army behaves like this, against when a suicide bomber blows him(her)self up in a crowded place? Because they are the extention of a government of a country and should behave better. The human rights are being trampled on such a huge scale that almost all else pales beside it. The Palestinians are under occupation and are fighting this with the only tools they still have to their disposal. I believe they would immediately have instant world-wide support if they stopped targeting soft targets and went after soldiers (however almost impossible this is, this is a true David/Goliath situation).
Be that as it may, the US hypocrisy in this is almost tangible. The roadmap was buried under the violence coming from Sharon and he was clearly being egged on by the USA. The US vetoing behavior at the UN security council has remained unchanged.
The hypocrisy of it all is galling and is being noticed all over the world.
This is "why they hate the USA" - in a nutshell.
Meanwhile, in another country now emptied out of American troops, Osama bin Laden is still alive and well and very active thank you very much.
I am staying well away from tempting American targets.
Bush sternly rebukes Malaysia's Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad for making anti-Semitic remarks but at the same time he is quite okay with his new deputy undersecretary of defense for intelligence, Lt. Gen. William G. "Jerry" Boykin, equating Islam with evil, the devil and portraying this religion (and the areas where it is practiced) as the great US enemy.
Talk about double standards...
America is a country of extremes: there are so many things good in the American culture but many bad things too... the American president should be above that though, when a country selects a leader who is so extreme as Bush is, it becomes frightening. When the leadership is being steered by right-wing groups who have a clear agenda of manipulating the world to further their own interests, an organisation that has no interest whatsoever in what the rest of the world thinks or does, it becomes a concern for the rest of the world.
The rest of the world, including the Arab countries, certainly notices the double standards. Nowhere else is it more clear than in the endless conflict between Israel and Palestine.
Yesterday again: 11 dead and countless people injured after Israeli gunships pounded civilian areas. Why am I more upset when the Israeli army behaves like this, against when a suicide bomber blows him(her)self up in a crowded place? Because they are the extention of a government of a country and should behave better. The human rights are being trampled on such a huge scale that almost all else pales beside it. The Palestinians are under occupation and are fighting this with the only tools they still have to their disposal. I believe they would immediately have instant world-wide support if they stopped targeting soft targets and went after soldiers (however almost impossible this is, this is a true David/Goliath situation).
Be that as it may, the US hypocrisy in this is almost tangible. The roadmap was buried under the violence coming from Sharon and he was clearly being egged on by the USA. The US vetoing behavior at the UN security council has remained unchanged.
The hypocrisy of it all is galling and is being noticed all over the world.
This is "why they hate the USA" - in a nutshell.
Meanwhile, in another country now emptied out of American troops, Osama bin Laden is still alive and well and very active thank you very much.
I am staying well away from tempting American targets.
Friday, October 17, 2003
Iraq
The US resolution passed... but in fact does not change a thing.
I have been reading many articles such as this one, saying stuff like "They didn't want any part of the war. Fine. But they have little excuse now for taking no part in the peace. In fact, the U.N. resolution leaves little wiggle-room for ostensibly peace-loving, multinationalism-besotted nations (hello, Canada) to decline a burden-humping role in Iraq. "
Folks like this author dont get it.
Americans and the British invaded a country that was no threat to them, under false pretenses.
This was clearly illegal under Article 2, paragraph 4 of the UN Charter (which reads: All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state).
They now occupy this country.
This makes the burden theirs to shoulder, and theirs alone (which means, the US Congress should quit trying to pass off the costs for the occupation to the Iraqi people as a loan!). They should foot the bill and nobody else. Or else, when we start paying for their mess, what's to stop them from moving on to the next country (probably Syria) on the US agenda ?
The only time this should change is when they hand the (temporary) running of the country, and responsibility for forming a new Iraqi government, over to the UN. Until that happens they should quit whining and bullying other countries into sharing the price of their own arrogance.
Individually, I will support any Iraqi charity or organisation that tries to make life better over there and would welcome any information on such organisations. But I will fight like a lion to block a political or financial endorsement of the Americans in their right-wing agenda. It burns my gall enough that troops from my country are now in Iraq. Believe me, this will be remembered and brought forward come the next elections!
Meanwhile, the daily sabotage and deaths of soldiers and civilians dont make headlines any more. Still, they happen.
The US resolution passed... but in fact does not change a thing.
I have been reading many articles such as this one, saying stuff like "They didn't want any part of the war. Fine. But they have little excuse now for taking no part in the peace. In fact, the U.N. resolution leaves little wiggle-room for ostensibly peace-loving, multinationalism-besotted nations (hello, Canada) to decline a burden-humping role in Iraq. "
Folks like this author dont get it.
Americans and the British invaded a country that was no threat to them, under false pretenses.
This was clearly illegal under Article 2, paragraph 4 of the UN Charter (which reads: All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state).
They now occupy this country.
This makes the burden theirs to shoulder, and theirs alone (which means, the US Congress should quit trying to pass off the costs for the occupation to the Iraqi people as a loan!). They should foot the bill and nobody else. Or else, when we start paying for their mess, what's to stop them from moving on to the next country (probably Syria) on the US agenda ?
The only time this should change is when they hand the (temporary) running of the country, and responsibility for forming a new Iraqi government, over to the UN. Until that happens they should quit whining and bullying other countries into sharing the price of their own arrogance.
Individually, I will support any Iraqi charity or organisation that tries to make life better over there and would welcome any information on such organisations. But I will fight like a lion to block a political or financial endorsement of the Americans in their right-wing agenda. It burns my gall enough that troops from my country are now in Iraq. Believe me, this will be remembered and brought forward come the next elections!
Meanwhile, the daily sabotage and deaths of soldiers and civilians dont make headlines any more. Still, they happen.
Iraq
The US resolution passed... but in fact does not change a thing.
I have been reading many articles such as this one, saying stuff like "They didn't want any part of the war. Fine. But they have little excuse now for taking no part in the peace. In fact, the U.N. resolution leaves little wiggle-room for ostensibly peace-loving, multinationalism-besotted nations (hello, Canada) to decline a burden-humping role in Iraq. "
Folks like this author dont get it.
Americans and the British invaded a country that was no threat to them, under false pretenses.
This was clearly illegal under Article 2, paragraph 4 of the UN Charter (which reads: All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state).
They now occupy this country.
This makes the burden theirs to shoulder, and theirs alone (which means, the US Congress should quit trying to pass off the costs for the occupation to the Iraqi people as a loan!). They should foot the bill and nobody else. Or else, when we start paying for their mess, what's to stop them from moving on to the next country (probably Syria) on the US agenda ?
The only time this should change is when they hand the (temporary) running of the country, and responsibility for forming a new Iraqi government, over to the UN. Until that happens they should quit whining and bullying other countries into sharing the price of their own arrogance.
Individually, I will support any Iraqi charity or organisation that tries to make life better over there and would welcome any information on such organisations. But I will fight like a lion to block a political or financial endorsement of the Americans in their right-wing agenda. It burns my gall enough that troops from my country are now in Iraq. Believe me, this will be remembered and brought forward come the next elections!
Meanwhile, the daily sabotage and deaths of soldiers and civilians dont make headlines any more. Still, they happen.
The US resolution passed... but in fact does not change a thing.
I have been reading many articles such as this one, saying stuff like "They didn't want any part of the war. Fine. But they have little excuse now for taking no part in the peace. In fact, the U.N. resolution leaves little wiggle-room for ostensibly peace-loving, multinationalism-besotted nations (hello, Canada) to decline a burden-humping role in Iraq. "
Folks like this author dont get it.
Americans and the British invaded a country that was no threat to them, under false pretenses.
This was clearly illegal under Article 2, paragraph 4 of the UN Charter (which reads: All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state).
They now occupy this country.
This makes the burden theirs to shoulder, and theirs alone (which means, the US Congress should quit trying to pass off the costs for the occupation to the Iraqi people as a loan!). They should foot the bill and nobody else. Or else, when we start paying for their mess, what's to stop them from moving on to the next country (probably Syria) on the US agenda ?
The only time this should change is when they hand the (temporary) running of the country, and responsibility for forming a new Iraqi government, over to the UN. Until that happens they should quit whining and bullying other countries into sharing the price of their own arrogance.
Individually, I will support any Iraqi charity or organisation that tries to make life better over there and would welcome any information on such organisations. But I will fight like a lion to block a political or financial endorsement of the Americans in their right-wing agenda. It burns my gall enough that troops from my country are now in Iraq. Believe me, this will be remembered and brought forward come the next elections!
Meanwhile, the daily sabotage and deaths of soldiers and civilians dont make headlines any more. Still, they happen.
Monday, October 13, 2003
Iraq
How to convert people to suicide bombing 101:
Find a group of impoverished farmers.
Tell them they have to give you information on saboteurs, even if they don't know anything or if it would endanger not only themselves but their entire family or clan.
As punishment for not receiving the intel you want, you raze their crops and trees and leave them utterly destitute.
To rub salt in the wounds, play jazz loudly while you bulldoze their precious crops.
Collective punishment, Israeli style...
Whoo boy, the Americans sure know how to reinforce every ugly stereotype of them!!
This is much like Saddam's draining of the swamps to flush out his opposition... give it a little longer and there wont be any difference between the occupier and the former tyrant.
In the mean time, the puppet government is trying to convince their neighbors to accept that the American presence will be there for an indefinite time.
They should wake up and smell the coffee, and focus their energies closer to home.
This is about to become a bloodbath of biblical proportions...
How to convert people to suicide bombing 101:
Find a group of impoverished farmers.
Tell them they have to give you information on saboteurs, even if they don't know anything or if it would endanger not only themselves but their entire family or clan.
As punishment for not receiving the intel you want, you raze their crops and trees and leave them utterly destitute.
To rub salt in the wounds, play jazz loudly while you bulldoze their precious crops.
Collective punishment, Israeli style...
Whoo boy, the Americans sure know how to reinforce every ugly stereotype of them!!
This is much like Saddam's draining of the swamps to flush out his opposition... give it a little longer and there wont be any difference between the occupier and the former tyrant.
In the mean time, the puppet government is trying to convince their neighbors to accept that the American presence will be there for an indefinite time.
They should wake up and smell the coffee, and focus their energies closer to home.
This is about to become a bloodbath of biblical proportions...
Iraq
How to convert people to suicide bombing 101:
Find a group of impoverished farmers.
Tell them they have to give you information on saboteurs, even if they don't know anything or if it would endanger not only themselves but their entire family or clan.
As punishment for not receiving the intel you want, you raze their crops and trees and leave them utterly destitute.
To rub salt in the wounds, play jazz loudly while you bulldoze their precious crops.
Collective punishment, Israeli style...
Whoo boy, the Americans sure know how to reinforce every ugly stereotype of them!!
This is much like Saddam's draining of the swamps to flush out his opposition... give it a little longer and there wont be any difference between the occupier and the former tyrant.
In the mean time, the puppet government is trying to convince their neighbors to accept that the American presence will be there for an indefinite time.
They should wake up and smell the coffee, and focus their energies closer to home.
This is about to become a bloodbath of biblical proportions...
How to convert people to suicide bombing 101:
Find a group of impoverished farmers.
Tell them they have to give you information on saboteurs, even if they don't know anything or if it would endanger not only themselves but their entire family or clan.
As punishment for not receiving the intel you want, you raze their crops and trees and leave them utterly destitute.
To rub salt in the wounds, play jazz loudly while you bulldoze their precious crops.
Collective punishment, Israeli style...
Whoo boy, the Americans sure know how to reinforce every ugly stereotype of them!!
This is much like Saddam's draining of the swamps to flush out his opposition... give it a little longer and there wont be any difference between the occupier and the former tyrant.
In the mean time, the puppet government is trying to convince their neighbors to accept that the American presence will be there for an indefinite time.
They should wake up and smell the coffee, and focus their energies closer to home.
This is about to become a bloodbath of biblical proportions...
Friday, October 10, 2003
Iraq
A really interesting article in the UK Independent today on the situation in Iraq 6 months after the invasion.
I question the results of the survey in the last paragraph though, and wonder if they included women in their questioning... I doubt it, I doubt they could even find women on the street to interview, since women now hardly dare to leave home without some male protection. I suspect this was a mainly male opinion. Women in the new Iraq increasingly have no voice and no presence in the public arena.
A really interesting article in the UK Independent today on the situation in Iraq 6 months after the invasion.
I question the results of the survey in the last paragraph though, and wonder if they included women in their questioning... I doubt it, I doubt they could even find women on the street to interview, since women now hardly dare to leave home without some male protection. I suspect this was a mainly male opinion. Women in the new Iraq increasingly have no voice and no presence in the public arena.
Iraq
A really interesting article in the UK Independent today on the situation in Iraq 6 months after the invasion.
I question the results of the survey in the last paragraph though, and wonder if they included women in their questioning... I doubt it, I doubt they could even find women on the street to interview, since women now hardly dare to leave home without some male protection. I suspect this was a mainly male opinion. Women in the new Iraq increasingly have no voice and no presence in the public arena.
A really interesting article in the UK Independent today on the situation in Iraq 6 months after the invasion.
I question the results of the survey in the last paragraph though, and wonder if they included women in their questioning... I doubt it, I doubt they could even find women on the street to interview, since women now hardly dare to leave home without some male protection. I suspect this was a mainly male opinion. Women in the new Iraq increasingly have no voice and no presence in the public arena.
Wednesday, October 08, 2003
Iraq
It may be pretty under-reported lately but there are still American soldiers dying every day, many instances of attempted sabotage every day, riots, regular violent demonstrations and utter lawless mayhem in places.
Into all that, and against the wishes of many Iraqi's, the Americans are bringing in Turkish troops.
I wonder, have ANY of those Americans in charge ever read a history book??
This is like putting the fox in charge of the henhouse!!
I guess people should not complain though, since the electricity is now finally back to pre-war levels...
It may be pretty under-reported lately but there are still American soldiers dying every day, many instances of attempted sabotage every day, riots, regular violent demonstrations and utter lawless mayhem in places.
Into all that, and against the wishes of many Iraqi's, the Americans are bringing in Turkish troops.
I wonder, have ANY of those Americans in charge ever read a history book??
This is like putting the fox in charge of the henhouse!!
I guess people should not complain though, since the electricity is now finally back to pre-war levels...
Iraq
It may be pretty under-reported lately but there are still American soldiers dying every day, many instances of attempted sabotage every day, riots, regular violent demonstrations and utter lawless mayhem in places.
Into all that, and against the wishes of many Iraqi's, the Americans are bringing in Turkish troops.
I wonder, have ANY of those Americans in charge ever read a history book??
This is like putting the fox in charge of the henhouse!!
I guess people should not complain though, since the electricity is now finally back to pre-war levels...
It may be pretty under-reported lately but there are still American soldiers dying every day, many instances of attempted sabotage every day, riots, regular violent demonstrations and utter lawless mayhem in places.
Into all that, and against the wishes of many Iraqi's, the Americans are bringing in Turkish troops.
I wonder, have ANY of those Americans in charge ever read a history book??
This is like putting the fox in charge of the henhouse!!
I guess people should not complain though, since the electricity is now finally back to pre-war levels...
Syria
It seems it's Syria's turn in the hotseat: the Israeli bombing turned them into the flavour of the month.
Of course, the Israeli's already believed they had a clear invitation to bomb Syria because of the American House International Relations Committee bill that will be passed in the next week or two by a huge majority, which will result in sanctions being put into place against them for as long as they "support terrorist groups and develop chemical and biological weapons". HAH!
If the Israeli's had any doubts of Bush's enthusiastic support, his statement on Monday was pretty clear: he said that he had told Sharon "Israel must not feel constrained defending the homeland".
No matter how much Syria has been co-operating with the US re Al Quaeda over the past two years, as long as they are not completely compliant with the wishes of the Americans and Israeli's, they are fair game.
This puts me in such a moral dilemma: I would really like to see the Middle East democratised and especially see women's rights take hold. However, this would achieve the opposite: more war and oppression. The blatant unfairness in this upsets me - it fixes nothing and polarises people even more. If I were an Arab living in that part of the world I would be foaming at the mouth by now and looking up the Osama Bin Laden volunteer group cellphone number... I really believe actions such as these make the world less safe and only promotes terrorism and violence...
All tyrants are now paying heed and quietly stocking up on those WMD's and nuclear weapons... after all, you never know when the US spotlight may shine on you and when you may need a strong deterrent!
Talk about winning hearts and minds!!!
It seems it's Syria's turn in the hotseat: the Israeli bombing turned them into the flavour of the month.
Of course, the Israeli's already believed they had a clear invitation to bomb Syria because of the American House International Relations Committee bill that will be passed in the next week or two by a huge majority, which will result in sanctions being put into place against them for as long as they "support terrorist groups and develop chemical and biological weapons". HAH!
If the Israeli's had any doubts of Bush's enthusiastic support, his statement on Monday was pretty clear: he said that he had told Sharon "Israel must not feel constrained defending the homeland".
No matter how much Syria has been co-operating with the US re Al Quaeda over the past two years, as long as they are not completely compliant with the wishes of the Americans and Israeli's, they are fair game.
This puts me in such a moral dilemma: I would really like to see the Middle East democratised and especially see women's rights take hold. However, this would achieve the opposite: more war and oppression. The blatant unfairness in this upsets me - it fixes nothing and polarises people even more. If I were an Arab living in that part of the world I would be foaming at the mouth by now and looking up the Osama Bin Laden volunteer group cellphone number... I really believe actions such as these make the world less safe and only promotes terrorism and violence...
All tyrants are now paying heed and quietly stocking up on those WMD's and nuclear weapons... after all, you never know when the US spotlight may shine on you and when you may need a strong deterrent!
Talk about winning hearts and minds!!!
Syria
It seems it's Syria's turn in the hotseat: the Israeli bombing turned them into the flavour of the month.
Of course, the Israeli's already believed they had a clear invitation to bomb Syria because of the American House International Relations Committee bill that will be passed in the next week or two by a huge majority, which will result in sanctions being put into place against them for as long as they "support terrorist groups and develop chemical and biological weapons". HAH!
If the Israeli's had any doubts of Bush's enthusiastic support, his statement on Monday was pretty clear: he said that he had told Sharon "Israel must not feel constrained defending the homeland".
No matter how much Syria has been co-operating with the US re Al Quaeda over the past two years, as long as they are not completely compliant with the wishes of the Americans and Israeli's, they are fair game.
This puts me in such a moral dilemma: I would really like to see the Middle East democratised and especially see women's rights take hold. However, this would achieve the opposite: more war and oppression. The blatant unfairness in this upsets me - it fixes nothing and polarises people even more. If I were an Arab living in that part of the world I would be foaming at the mouth by now and looking up the Osama Bin Laden volunteer group cellphone number... I really believe actions such as these make the world less safe and only promotes terrorism and violence...
All tyrants are now paying heed and quietly stocking up on those WMD's and nuclear weapons... after all, you never know when the US spotlight may shine on you and when you may need a strong deterrent!
Talk about winning hearts and minds!!!
It seems it's Syria's turn in the hotseat: the Israeli bombing turned them into the flavour of the month.
Of course, the Israeli's already believed they had a clear invitation to bomb Syria because of the American House International Relations Committee bill that will be passed in the next week or two by a huge majority, which will result in sanctions being put into place against them for as long as they "support terrorist groups and develop chemical and biological weapons". HAH!
If the Israeli's had any doubts of Bush's enthusiastic support, his statement on Monday was pretty clear: he said that he had told Sharon "Israel must not feel constrained defending the homeland".
No matter how much Syria has been co-operating with the US re Al Quaeda over the past two years, as long as they are not completely compliant with the wishes of the Americans and Israeli's, they are fair game.
This puts me in such a moral dilemma: I would really like to see the Middle East democratised and especially see women's rights take hold. However, this would achieve the opposite: more war and oppression. The blatant unfairness in this upsets me - it fixes nothing and polarises people even more. If I were an Arab living in that part of the world I would be foaming at the mouth by now and looking up the Osama Bin Laden volunteer group cellphone number... I really believe actions such as these make the world less safe and only promotes terrorism and violence...
All tyrants are now paying heed and quietly stocking up on those WMD's and nuclear weapons... after all, you never know when the US spotlight may shine on you and when you may need a strong deterrent!
Talk about winning hearts and minds!!!
Monday, October 06, 2003
Israel
So, a grief-stricken young Palestinian woman called Hanadi Jaradat decides the best way of avenging her brother and cousin who were both killed by the Israeli army in Jenin, is to strap explosives on her body and detonate them in a busy family restaurant in Haifa.
This is a tragedy, no other way of looking at it.
Israel's response to this was completely off kilter: it went and bombed Syria.
Now, that made a lot of sense...!!
As America blocks resolution after resolution in the Security Council, the Middle East is spiralling towards a destabilising war with a crazy kind of inevitability. We are all watching on the sidelines, seemingly paralysed.
There are too many black-and-white people in positions of power right now, in this colourful world we live in.
So, a grief-stricken young Palestinian woman called Hanadi Jaradat decides the best way of avenging her brother and cousin who were both killed by the Israeli army in Jenin, is to strap explosives on her body and detonate them in a busy family restaurant in Haifa.
This is a tragedy, no other way of looking at it.
Israel's response to this was completely off kilter: it went and bombed Syria.
Now, that made a lot of sense...!!
As America blocks resolution after resolution in the Security Council, the Middle East is spiralling towards a destabilising war with a crazy kind of inevitability. We are all watching on the sidelines, seemingly paralysed.
There are too many black-and-white people in positions of power right now, in this colourful world we live in.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
