new
Posted Friday, January 25, 2007, 20:10 pm
The more
I looked at things, the more outraged I become.
For instance,
I picked up on one aspect of 9/11 that others didn't spot for years, and still
haven't understood fully. Most
spotted that the WTC's previous owners (after you penetrate the cut-outs,
effectively the Rockefellers) were not insured against acts of terrorism but
that the new owner, a so-called Silverstein, took out anti-terrorism
insurance.....
Most
spotted that Silverstein bought the buildings at the same time the US military
was planning to invade Afghanistan (a firm plan with a go-ahead date of October
2001, not a "what-if" contingency plan with no future date), and that
had 9/11 not happened and the US had invaded, it would have been a war crime
that would be universally condemned, so the US military was very lucky 9/11
happened..... To use my favourite phrase: it couldn't have worked out any
better for them had they planned it all themselves.....
As
I see it, we have five major crises facing us.
There
is some degree of interaction between them, compounding matters, but any one of
them alone could finish civilization, possibly the human race, possibly even
all life on the planet. If one of
them were magically taken out of the equation it would merely take a little
longer for one of the others to do the job.
(1) Two years ago we exceeded the global carry capacity of
the planet.
We've
done that locally many times.
Taking stuff out faster than it can be replaced. The Grand Banks fishery
is one example. Scientists think
it likely that cod will never recover. Cod feed on the young of starfish. Starfish feed on the young of cod. When Cod had the upper hand the
starfish were in the minority. Now
the starfish have the upper hand and the cod cannot recover. We've nearly done the same thing to the
North Sea. We're depleting
aquifers faster than they're being replenished (we have done so for many
hundreds of years: it's why Venice is sinking).
Two years
ago the Pentagon issued a report predicting that we'd be facing resource wars
for food and water soon (a matter of a decade or two). A year ago the MoD issued a similar
report. On a global scale we're
using bio-resoources faster than they're being replenished.
Malthus
was right.....
2) Global
warming may already have passed the tipping point.
Permafrost in Siberia, Alaska and Canada
has melted. Much of that
permafrost was locking up peat bogs.
Now the bogs are unfrozen for some of the year their decomposition is
releasing methane, which is a potent greenhouse gas. Arctic and antarctic ice is melting, lowering the planet's
albedo ratio (reflective capacity of the Earth surface of Sun rays) and
increasing warming. We have positive feedback effects that mean even if we
stopped all emissions of greenhouse gases
(impossible) global warming will probably continue in a runaway
cycle. Global warming will alter
the climate drastically all over the world. Even in areas that remain habitable traditional crops will
not grow because conditions will be too hot or too wet or too dry (and, possibly in the UK, too cold if
the thermo-haline conveyer called the Gulf Stream shuts down because the
Greenland ice-cap melts).
3) Global
oil production has passed Peak Oil (also known as the Hubbert Peak).
An
exponential rise in energy demand coupled with a linearly-increasing supply
would be bad enough. Coupled with
a constant supply it would be worse.
But global oil production has passed the peak of a gaussian production
curve.
US
oil production peaked in 1970 (4 or 5 years ahead of Hubbert's prediction) and
in a few years the US switched from being a net exporter to a net
importer. It was that change which
made the US dependent on Arab oil and which meant that a war in the region
could have such a devastating effect.
Peak Oil
is not going to gradually impact us, with the slowness of Canadian twilight,
it's going to be a sudden shock like the tropical sunset. One moment we have enough oil, a few
years later (probably no more than a decade) civilization falls apart.
The
70s crisis led to the "Carter Doctrine" which, although it
anticipated a different enemy, was not different in essential concept from what
Cheney is doing now. Clinton's
"humanitarian actions" had the "side-effect" of leaving US
troops scattered in strategic positions to protect oil pipelines in the Caspian
Sea region.....
Peak
Oil has some very serious consequences if it is not addressed properly (and it
is probably too late to do so).
Agriculture is heavily dependent upon cheap oil to drive machinery and
to manufacture fertilizer and pesticides (as well as for delivery to population
centres). I've seen estimates that
when the crunch comes, 95% of the world's population will die of starvation.
We've
used up all the easily-accessible fuel and mineral deposits essential to our
technical civilization and require cheap-oil to drive heavy machinery in deep
mines and to process low-grade ores.
I believe it is possible to use charcoal to make steel, and there is
plenty of rust in scrapyards, but making charcoal is a long process and wood is
likely to be needed more for heating and cooking. It is entirely possible that we'll end up in a new stone age
from which there is no recovery.
The
traditional words of economists that scarcity will drive up price and that will
force us to create alternative sources of energy don't work, because creating
those alternatives is only possible if we have cheap oil. By the time the crisis strikes, oil
will be too expensive for us to develop and deploy alternatives. Oil currently
has an energy return on investment of above 30, most alternatives being
developed have an EROI below unity (like "gasohol" they use more oil
and gas in their creation than they save), none have EROIs above two.
Alternatives could not be developed and
deployed in time because we'd need far more oil than would be available to replace the oil we won't have with
alternative energy sources.
4) Danger Coming from
Nuclear States.
The countries with
the greatest use of oil, or which are rapidly industrializing
and will greatly increase their demand for oil are the
US, Russia, China, India, and Pakistan.
All those countries have another thing in common: they all have nuclear
weapons. How long are they going
to sit back and let the US steal the world's oil? Will they all decide it's better that their own people die
so that the US can live (a few decades longer) or will they decide to gamble
the whole planet on the slender chance that they can take all the oil? A nuclear war on that scale is
unwinnable: the fallout will kill all life on the planet. But a pre-emptive
strike on the US that ensured no retaliation was possible might, just might, be
survivable (or at least be said to be so by insane advisers who, like
Kissinger, are tools of the Zionists).
5)
Depleted Uranium munitions.
The 350
tons used by Bush-the-slightly-
smarter
in his 1990-91 Gulf war upped the rate of cancers and severe birth defects in
Iraq by 7-12 times (exact figure depends on the type of cancer or birth
defect). The few months spent there
by US forces was enough to ensure that they suffered from cancers and their
children conceived subsequently suffered severe birth defects. The oxide formed when DU burns (it
burns intensely, incinerating occupants of tanks into what the military calls
"crispy critters") is in the form of very fine particles, much of it
is nanoparticles. The dust storms
in Iraq blow this stuff all over the world.
A year
ago detectors operated by the UK atomic weapons research establishment gave an
alarm. When somebody found out
about it because of a FOI request, the gov't said that one of the UK's atomic
power stations must have had an accident.
That is incredible: the UK gov't has a long history of covering up any
such accident, with the details coming to light only many decades
afterwards. Somebody pointed out
that the scale of such an accident required to give those readings would have
been very serious indeed, and the gov't said there hadn't been an accident
after all. Somebody else pointed
out that the alarms occurred at the time of an Iraqi dust storm and that the
uranium that had been collected in the sampling tubes was mixed in with the red
sand typical of Iraqi dust storms.
The gov't admitted the uranium had blown over from Iraq but claimed it
was natural uranium always present and not DU. The gov't never did explain why the natural uranium they
claimed was always present had never triggered the alarms before.
Bush-the-slightly-smarter
used 350 tons. Bush-the-retard
won't give figures on how much he has used in his 2003 Iraq war, although there
is one exception. The Pentagon
admitted that in March and April of 2003 it had used 2,200 tons. We can only guess how much has been
used since then, and how much will continue to be used.....
Brian
(UK)
__________________________________________________
Answer
from R.T.:
It is
good to be outraged because it opens the eyes about what's going on.
Regarding
9/11, indeed, the "cui bono" question could lead to interesting
answers.
Oil, of
course, with 2 oil-men in the White House is at the center of everything. In my
book 'The New American Empire', a long chapter (chap. 7) is devoted to the
question. The Afghan mission, the Iraq war and the coming Iran war have all a
lot to do with controlling oil production and oil pipelines in the region.
Thanks
for you exposé of the five major crises and how they could lead to a new
stone age.
I am
completing a book on global morality that I hope will be published in the US
this year, and in French and Spanish in Europe, next year. The book talks about
10 moral crises. If you know a publisher in the UK brave enough to publish it,
please let me know. —As a matter of fact, I extend this invitation to
anybody in the publishing business who is not afraid of controversy. I have
opened a new site for this coming book at:
http://www.MoralityWithoutReligion.com/
new
Posted Wednesday, January 24, 2007, 18:51pm
I think your article is better than many I
have seen at predicting what the Bush maladministration will do next and
ascribing motives but that it misses a few important points and therefore
severely underestimates just how big a disaster these evil people are preparing
to perpetrate against the people of the US for their own personal gain.
1) The Bush maladministration is NOT incompetent or stupid.
It certainly looks that way if you believe their stated objective of doing what
is right for the American people.
But if you understand their true motives then they are very competent
and getting everything they want in the way they want it (even the chaos in
Iran is part of the plan). They are most definitely insane, but like most
psychopaths, that insanity does not prevent rational thought and planning, it
only provides irrational objectives for the thought and planning.
2) Back
in 1992, then Secretary of Defense Cheney and then-Under Secretary of Defense
for policy Wolfowitz cooked up a strategy plan that boiled down to
"There's nobody who can stop us any more, so let's invade Iraq to steal
its oil. We'll build military bases there and use them to invade the surrounding
countries to steal their oil too." This is all happening. 14 permanent military bases under
construction in Iraq. The largest US embassy in the world being built in Iraq -
far larger than needed, so the extra space will come in handy if the US should
ever need a regional administrative HQ.
3) Cheney
is in control and Bush is a puppet. We're seeing Cheney's 1992 plans unfold.
Bush is fed reasons for implementing them that he then parrots because he
believes them. But some of the "leaks" from the Whitehouse about
Bush's stupidity, bizarre behaviour, and unwillingness to back down are
disinformation. As long as people believe that Bush is stupid and stubborn then
they will believe that he can be persuaded to adopt a more sensible policy if
only they explain things often enough and sloooowly enough. In fact Cheney's
plans are working out perfectly (for Cheney and his obscenely-rich cronies) and
it is not possible to convince Cheney Iraq is a disastrous mistake because it
is all going to plan (it's a disaster for the rest of us but it's great for
Cheney).
4) The
true Cheney objectives are as follows:
a) Steal
Iraq's oil.
b) Steal
the oil of the surrounding countries.
c) Have
his rich cronies in oil, defence and construction industries make gigantic
profits at the taxpayer's expense (note that the burden of taxation has been
shifted away from the obscenely rich and onto the heads of the poor).
d) Turn
the US into a fascist dictatorship.
5) The
chaos in Iraq is part of the plan.
Cheney insists on torture because it contributes to the chaos. As an
occupying power, international law states that the US cannot leave until there
is a stable government.
If the
government is unstable, the US has to stay. Cheney wants to stay to steal the oil. This is why Cheney
has defence in depth for his torture policies. Yoo and Gonzalez produced
bizarre legal constructions saying that torture isn't really torture and the
Geneva Conventions are "quaint." Prisoners of War are declared
"enemy combatants" which aren't mentioned in the Geneva Conventions.
The US bribed and/or blackmailed various countries not to bring war crimes
charges against the US over anything it does in the "war on terra."
Cheney tried to quash Leahy's bill (which merely repeated already-explicit existing
anti-torture legislation) and when that failed tried to get an exception for
the CIA.
Because
Leahy's bill referenced an Army manual, when Leahy's bill passed the manual was
updated with five new classified pages (you don't have to read them to know
what they were about). Bush issued a signing Statement on the Leahy bill saying
that he had his fingers crossed behind his back when he signed the bill, so it
doesn't count. Those defensive measures were taken because torture is VERY
important to Cheney's plans (see also next point).
6) The
torture is inflaming passions all over the Islamic world. Much of the Islamic
world just happens to sit on top of oil reserves that Cheney thinks are
rightfully his. Nobody would be too surprised if Iranian hotheads launched a
terrorist attack on the US, or if Cheney used that attack as an excuse to
invade Iran. And if the hotheads don't rise to the bait, a false-flag incident
will be manufactured, just as 9/11 was. One has only to read the PNAC policy
document of 2000 to know that 9/11, which gave PNAC founder Cheney an excuse to
make his wet dream of a decade come true, was an inside job. Of turning the US
military into a gang of pillaging marauders stealing the world's resources (primarily oil) that document said:
" the process of transformation,
even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some
catastrophic and catalyzing event -- like a new Pearl Harbor."
7) The
overblown threat of terrorism has been, and continues to be, used to turn the
US into a fascist dictatorship.
There
seem to be problems on the horizon for Cheney. The Dems took Congress and are
tentatively applying pressure. Some in the GOP are rebelling. And the army is
broken. Too broken even for a surge of more than 21,500. Such a strange number.
One would normally go for round figures. 20,000. 30,000. Maybe 25,000. Even
21,000 or 22,000 makes one wonder why that figure. But 21,500 leaves no doubt. The number is 21,500 because
that is ALL they can scrape up. So how on earth are they going to take on the
much larger Iran at the same time? And with what excuse if Iran fails to
provide them with a Gulf of Tonkin incident? And what about all the criminal
charges for various Republicans in Congress and the maladministration on the
horizon? In any case, can you imagine Cheney (or even Bush) voluntarily giving
up power in 2 years?
Here's a
wild speculation for you. Very wild. So wild I hope I'm wrong, and it's only
their backup plan if they can't get what they want any other way. But they were
happy to sacrifice 3,000 lives on 9/11 to get their way. They're happy to have
lost 3,000 US lives in Iraq for oil. They're happy to have killed hundreds of
thousands of Iraqis for oil. And they're happy that the DU munitions used in
Iraq have doomed future life there until the Earth is no longer habitable. In
fact, if they continue to use DU in Iraq then life on the whole planet may be
extinguished. So contemplate these facts:
1) Fox's
fictional "24" has shown Islamic terrorists detonating an atomic
weapon inside the US.
2) The
maladministration's handling of North Korea virtually forced it into making
nuclear weapons and it is not totally implausible to think that North Korea
might supply such a weapon to the enemies of the US (such a scenario is
slightly more plausible than many of Cheney's previous lies).
3)
Several important federal agencies are being relocated from Washington to 30
miles outside of Washington, with the reason being given that they would be
able to survive a nuclear attack on Washington.
4) With
the Supreme Court and Congress nuked, Cheney would have nobody trying to
prevent him doing what he wants. Martial law would be declared, and Bush would
be the sock-puppet president-for-life (obviously, since the War on Terra can,
by definition, never possibly end, the threat of future nuclear attacks means
that martial law can never end).
5) A
nuclear weapon detonated by "Iranian terrorists" in Washington would
give Cheney the excuse to use nuclear weapons in retaliation.
The
initial excuse would be that perhaps the bomb was home-grown rather than coming
from Korea, so all of Iran's nuclear facilities have to be knocked and so do
any military facilities where they might have stored nukes (either home-made or
Korean). Since such weapons would obviously be stored in hardened bunkers,
nuke-tipped bunker busters have to be used. In the process, most of Iran's
military gets vapourized so the invasion of Iran to steal its oil takes far
fewer personnel.
Brian
______________________________________
Answer from R. T.
I have arrived at the
same conclusions that you outline, except maybe, regarding GWB. I think his 20
some years of drinking and drug use may have had a bigger impact on his brain
than what most people realize.
Many Americans and
most of members of Congress have come to realize that the real American
president is oilman Dick Cheney. —Even warmonger John McCain says it. Cheney
is the one calling the shots in the shadow. Bush II parrots what Cheney and
others tell him to say. Bush reacts with his guts, not his head. He said it
himself many times. Ron Suskind has written that inside the CIA, Cheney was
nicknamed "Edgar," after the ventriloquist Edgar Bergen, whose famous
dummy was Charlie McCarthy.
The neocon hierarchy
that surrounds Cheney is not stupid. They may be evil, but not stupid. As you
say, they have been working on a plan to take over the Middle East since 1992, ever
since Wolfowitz and Perle were running the Department of Defense. They are
connected to half a dozen think tanks which provide them with the rationale for
warmongering in the Middle East and elsewhere.
They are part of a
political axis of evil that comprises Oil interests, pro-Israel Neocons +big
campaign contributors, and Christian fundamentalists.The latter meet frequently
in the White House to discuss foreign policy, and some are praying for a coming
Armageddon that they see happening soon.
You are also right
that the Tonkin-like Incident I referred to in my
article may not be occuring in the Persian Gulf, but could happen elsewhere. I
wouldn't be surprised if Mossad could play a role in that.
As to martial law, everything is possible with this group.
Here is what I wrote last December 11:
"For instance, George W. Bush has paved the way for exercising
martial law powers, first by de-facto repealing the 1878 Posse Comitatus Act
that forbids the deployment of soldiers on American soil for domestic law
enforcement, and, second, by signing last October the Military Commissions Act
of 2006 (MCA: HR 6166)."
If you browse through
the archives of my blog, you will see that many of the points you so aptly
raised have also been raised by myself during the past weeks.
new
Posted Tuesday, January 23, 2007, 9:44 am
I think
an informed discussion of the Middle East must take into account the role
Israel has played in that part of the world.
Gordon
new
Posted Monday, January 22, 2007, 22:03 pm
When it
occurs, the trap will be sprung and all our military forces will be anhialated with
the beginnings of WWIII.
Then the
invasion from within begins. United Nations troops, stationed on American bases
will be let loose on a country under Martial Law. We have no protection at
home. The Mexican invasion is secondary to what's coming. They planned way
ahead, sending our entire National Guard overseas and destroying their spirits
in Iraq.
The paid
for Generals will be rescued from that hell as the gates open and our sons and
daughters will be ingested by Satan who is on the phone to his son George
petting his deranged ego and promising great rewards in the New World Order
system. Telling him to thank all his supporters of his wars and that their
souls shall not go unnoticed by his lordship. Am I the only one who sees the
devil in all this?
Notice
that secret societies, religions, etc. have so many secrets. These secrets
never inspire good for the masses.
The proof
is, nothing good manifests, at least they are not taking credit for anything.
We must assume their secret meetings only inspire dread as this seems to be the
order of the day, every day. We must get rid of these things in order to
reestablish the rule of law in this country.
The light
always wins, we all know that, but what a mess we make along the way.
What a
waste.
new
Posted Monday, January 22, 2007, 14:00 pm
Another
excellent article.
The media
neocons have also started the brainwashing of the American public for a war on Iran.
Possibly the most nauseating of them, the newcomer Glen Beck, is openly asking
for it on CNN. ... He has declared that he is not a journalist, but an
"opinionated conservative". I guess he says that journalism standards
(like objectivity, accuracy, lack of bias) do not apply to him. However, he was
given an important program on CNN in prime time, so he is a de facto influential journalist (while
other hosts, like Phil Donohue and Bill Maher, who have opposed neocon wars,
have been fired).
It seems
that the Israeli neocon lobby has become so strong that now they can openly
declare that the American public is not entitled to a free, diverse news media.
Dorin G.
new
Posted Sunday, January 21, 2007, 17:55 pm
As a
Montrealer, I do hope that our government will keep us out of the anticipated
destruction of Iran.
Are you
aware that HMCS Ottawa is already part of the The Expeditionary Strike Group in
the Gulf?
A
second question is your claim that Bush doesn't care. Face saving at all costs.
What makes you think that all the "mistakes" are actually so and not
deliberate and quite skillfully executed component parts of a greater long-term
plan?
Carlos
new
Posted Sunday, January 21, 2007, 9:04 am
I
read your article on Global Research. Most of the analysis seems OK, except for
this emphasis on his starting war to "save face".
War =
Profit
Not only
for the oil industry, which you mention, but also for the rather extensive
defense industry. One purpose of the "long war" is to keep up the
profits of these key industries in the American economy, and, of course, to
further its militarization. Personally, I really do not think the
Busheviks care about saving face.
They care
about maintaining control, and war helps them maintain control. War with Iran,
if Iran can be made to appear the aggressor or a main threat, at least, will
give the Busheviks an increase in popularity, and their corporate backers an
increase in profits. A win, win situation from their point of view.
Blue
(Home: TheNewAmericanEmpire.com)