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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
