Irak 156

Iraqi police officers, assigned to protect oil production and distribution, watch from across the Tigris River as fire and smoke rise from a pipeline blaze after an explosion near Beiji, Iraq, in 2005. The Beiji refinery is the largest in Iraq.

In dit artikel wordt de context beschreven van de huidige ontwikkelingen. Zeer de moeite waard!

'Petraeus! Is Baghdad Burning?

Editor’s note: In this piece, a retired U.S. Special Forces soldier takes an oil-filtered look at Bush’s “surge” plan for Iraq.

“Jodl! Is Paris burning?”
—Adolf Hitler Aug. 25, 1944

Backstage
The United States makes up about 5 percent of the Earth’s population, but as an aggregate we burn more than 25 percent of its fossil energy. That’s roughly true of all three main forms of fossil energy—oil, natural gas and coal.
The coal we get mainly by having West Virginians surrender their mountains, where coal operators now lop the tops off those mountains to get at the seams of coal and dump the rubble into nearby watercourses. That’s what we do for most of our electricity. Canada sells us most of the natural gas we use ... nearly 90 percent in fact.
The problem we have is that our nation’s transportation fleet is almost completely dependent on that other store of ancient sunlight, petroleum. Neither natural gas nor coal can feasibly run fleets of tractor-trailer trucks, trains, airplanes and a quarter-billion passenger vehicles (around 98 million of which are SUVs and larger). Neither coal nor natural gas can run ships, tanks and attack helicopters either.
The other thing we need oil for is food ... more than people realize. In Michael Pollan’s “The Omnivore’s Dilemma,” he traces the U.S. food chain back to the oil fields through corn, which is now the basis of most of our other foods, then back to the oil field. It is widely known that each calorie of food consumed in the world today represents an expenditure of 10 calories of fossil energy, but Pollan’s remarks while observing a cattle feed lot, where the beef-on-the-hoof was being force-fed corn produced by Cargill and Archer Daniels Midland, are more to the point than any statistical review:
I don’t have a sufficiently vivid imagination to look at my steer and see a barrel of oil, but petroleum is one of the most important ingredients in the production of modern meat, and the Persian Gulf is surely a link in the food chain that passes through this (or any) feedlot. Steer 534 started his life part of a food chain that derived all of its energy from the sun, which nourished the grasses that nourished him and his mother. When 534 moved from ranch to feedlot, from grass to corn, he joined an industrial food chain powered by fossil fuel—and therefore defended by the U.S. military, another never counted cost of cheap food.
Empty gas tanks and empty bellies are not the basis of political stability, or profit, here in the United States of America, where the appropriation of immense amounts of time and space, using this store of ancient sunlight, is considered almost our birthright.
The Hydrocarbon Law
The reason I lead into a discussion of the Bush administration’s military “surge” plan for Iraq by talking about fossil fuels is that neither the government nor the media seem inclined to talk about the subject. The desperation of the coming escalation of criminal lunacy is based not on some fantasy but on a real and coming competition between the U.S. and basically everyone else for these energy stores, even as most honest experts agree that world production of oil has now peaked and will begin an inexorable and irreversible decline. The reason for attempting to implant permanent U.S. military bases in the Persian Gulf area and install compliant governments (the real reason for the war from the very beginning) has everything to do with securing control over the region.'

Lees verder: http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20070112_petraeus_is_baghdad_burning/

Kernwapens 2

De Independent bericht:

'The Doomsday Clock: Nuclear threat to world 'rising.'
For 60 years, it has depicted how close the world is to nuclear disaster. Today, scientists will move its hands forward to show we are facing the gravest threat in at least 20 years.
By Rupert Cornwell in Washington
Published: 17 January 2007

Five years of international headlines tell of growing turmoil in the Middle East, international terrorism in Western capitals and more countries seeking the ultimate national security insurance policy.
Now climate change and oil insecurity is driving countries to seek nuclear power, bringing with it new dangers of proliferation in volatile parts of the globe.
Today the Doomsday Clock, devised by the Chicago-based Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists in 1947 at the dawn of the nuclear age, will make official what most thinking citizens feel in their bones - that the world has edged closer to nuclear Armageddon than at any time since the most precarious moments of the Cold War in the early 1980s.
At 2.30pm, simultaneous events will take place in London and Washington at which the symbolic clock will be moved forward from its present seven minutes to midnight, where it has stood since 2002. The reasons for the time being advanced five years ago were crumbling arms control treaties and a terrorist threat brought into shattering relief by 9/11.
At the start of 2007, not only is the picture darker on both those scores. The nuclear threat has also acquired an added and unquantifiable dimension, thanks to global warming - prompting the Bulletin to warn of a "Second Nuclear Age". The existing dangers could not be more obvious: the problem is where to start. What about Iran's quest for nuclear weapons, and the thinly veiled warnings from the undeclared but assumed nuclear power Israel that it will strike first to remove what it sees as an existentialist threat comparable to the Holocaust?
Or the nuclear test last year by North Korea, a member of George Bush's "axis of evil", which could have neighbouring Japan and South Korea seeking protection with nuclear weapons of their own? Or the nuclear arsenal of unstable Pakistan, where Islamic extremists have staged several assassination attempts against President Pervez Musharraf?
Or - perhaps the greatest danger of all - that having visited conventional terror on an unprecedented scale upon New York City on 11 September 2001, al-Qa'ida or some similar organisation will either get hold of a ready-made nuclear device or build one of its own, and then use it?
And why not? Grave doubts surround Russia's ability to secure its nuclear materials, many of them dating from the Soviet era, and to prevent its nuclear scientists from selling their skills to the highest bidder. If a terrorist group did explode even a crude dirty bomb (and the US claims to have disrupted such plots) the taboo that has prevented states from using nuclear weapons in anger since 1945 might be broken.
And in this new nuclear age, the deterrence doctrine of "mutually assured destruction", or MAD, that kept the Cold War cold, would not apply. The US and Russia may have 2,000 launch-ready weapons between them - but these would be of no more use against an amorphous terrorist group than Israel's nuclear arsenal against the Palestinians. Even so, a threshold would have been crossed and a regional, even generalised nuclear war, would become conceivable.
In 1947, the Doomsday Clock was first set at seven minutes to midnight, exactly where it has stood since 2002. On the Bulletin's reckoning, the planet's closest brush thus far with Armageddon came in 1953, when the clock's hand moved to two minutes to midnight after the US and the Soviet Union tested hydrogen bombs within nine months of each other.'

Lees verder: http://news.independent.co.uk/world/science_technology/article2160081.ece

The Empire 143

'Bush on Iraq Surge: A Kissinger Ploy?

Washington Dispatch: Let's assume for a moment the president does have a plan: It might not be what you think.

Everyone knew what Bush was going to say before he made his address last night. And the "surge" that Democrats hoped to block had already begun, with advance elements of the 82nd Airborne in Baghdad to arrange for arrivals of 17,500 more troops. "If we increase our support at this crucial moment, and help the Iraqis break the current cycle of violence, we can hasten the day our troops begin coming home," Bush said.
What Bush proposed was a straightforward pacification program in Baghdad, made possible by an intensified American occupation -- a facade of Iraqis, to be sure, but with Americans running the show, just as GIs ended up running the show in a massive gun battle on Baghdad's Haifa Street Tuesday.
As Bush has said in the past, Americans know what the word victory means, So, whatever happens, and no matter what anyone says, America must win: "Failure in Iraq would be a disaster for the United States."
As usual, observers are grasping wildly for an explanations as to why Bush is doing what he's doing. No matter what one thinks of the President, when push comes to shove, it's hard to believe he really wants to drag out the war so it can be handed over to a successor in 2008; or that he is such a psycho he can't stop referring to defeat as victory. That's not the kind of stuff the Bush family legacy is made of.
There may well be a much more sinister game plan here, one that centers around the emergence of Henry Kissinger over the last year as an adviser to Bush and other top officials in Washington. Gareth Porter, the historian who ran the Indochina Resource Center in the early 70s, points out in a January 11 article in Asia Online that "although he knows very little about how to deal with Sunnis and Shi'ites, Kissinger does know how to convey to the public the illusion of victory, even though the U.S. position in the war is actually weak and unstable."
Porter continues, "One of Kissinger's accomplishments was to sell the news media on the Nixon administration's propaganda line that the Christmas 1972 bombing of Hanoi had so unnerved the North Vietnamese that it had allowed president Richard Nixon and Kissinger to achieve a diplomatic victory over the communists in the Paris Agreement. That line was a gross distortion of what actually happened before and after the bombing." Moreover, it was Kissinger who figured out how Ford could claim a Vietnam victory and blame the whole mess on the Democrats.
So, it's quite possible that Bush will plunge into a counterinsurgency operation in Baghdad and elsewhere in Iraq, and then amidst mass civilian carnage, declare victory and announce negotiations -- which sooner or later will have to happen. But things may not work out that way, as the Haifa Street firefight Tuesday -- in which American troops found themselves in the middle of an ongoing ethnic cleansing operation by Shia militias -- made clear.
GIs call Haifa Street "grenade alley." As Juan Cole points out, Haifa Street has become a fixture of the civil war, twisting and turning in one pacification effort after another. In July 2004, U.S. commanders deployed 3,000 troops in a mini-surge called Operation Haifa Street. A police station got blown up in a major bombing there. In March 2005, reports had things calming down a bit, and some said the tide had turned. Today Haifa Street is once again considered a terrorist stronghold -- thus the U.S. operation -- but things are getting ever more complicated, with at least one report in Arabic claiming Shia invaded the area Sunday, killed residents, and threw their bodies into the street. "In this context, some Sunni Arabs see the U.S. as having been duped by the Shiites to join in the ethnic cleansing of the Karkh district," says Cole. And now there are reports that Shia militias are worming their way into the Green Zone, a feat long attempted unsuccessfully by Sunni insurgents. So is the Bush administration simply throwing in its lot with one set of death squads over another? It wouldn't be the first time.
James Ridgeway is the Washington Correspondent for Mother Jones.'

Zie: http://www.motherjones.com/washington_dispatch/2007/01/kissinger_ploy.html

Arundhati Roy

'STATEMENT OF CONSCIENCE AT THE WORLD TRIBUNAL ON IRAQ:

"The Most Cowardly War in History."
by Arundhati Roy.

EDITOR'S NOTE: The following is the text of a speech by acclaimed author and peace and social justice advocate Arundhati Roy on behalf of the "jury of conscience" at the World Tribunal on Iraq, held in Istanbul June 24-26, 2005. For full proceedings of this event, visit this website.
This is the culminating session of the World Tribunal on Iraq. It is of particular significance that it is being held here in Turkey where the United States used Turkish air bases to launch numerous bombing missions to degrade Iraq's defenses before the March 2003 invasion and has sought and continues to seek political support from the Turkish government, which it regards as an ally. All this was done in the face of enormous popular opposition by the Turkish people. As a spokesperson for the jury of conscience, it would make me uneasy if I did not mention that the government of India is also, like the government of Turkey, positioning itself as a ally of the United States in its economic policies and the so-called War on Terror.
The testimonies at the previous sessions of the World Tribunal on Iraq in Brussels and New York have demonstrated that even those of us who have tried to follow the war in Iraq closely are not aware of a fraction of the horrors that have been unleashed in Iraq.
The Jury of Conscience at this tribunal is not here to deliver a simple verdict of guilty or not guilty against the United States and its allies. We are here to examine a vast spectrum of evidence about the motivations and consequences of the US invasion and occupation, evidence that has been deliberately marginalized or suppressed. Every aspect of the war will be examined--its legality, the role of international institutions and major corporations in the occupation, the role of the media, the impact of weapons such as depleted uranium munitions, napalm, and cluster bombs, the use of and legitimation of torture, the ecological impacts of the war, the responsibility of Arab governments, the impact of Iraq's occupation on Palestine, and the history of US and British military interventions in Iraq. This tribunal is an attempt to correct the record. To document the history of the war not from the point of view of the victors but of the temporarily--and I repeat the word temporarily--anguished.'

Lees verder: http://baltimorechronicle.com/062705Roy.shtml

De Bush Bende 38

'Most important, though, is to spread the word to as many people as possible.
How much money will big oil companies make in Iraq, how much money and blood
will US citizens lose?

Can those with economic background or research skills give me a better
picture of this issue. These are my rough calculations based on bits and
pieces of information on oil production costs, royalties etc.

According to a study by Prof R. Dobie Langenkamp (Director, National
Energy-Environment Law and Policy Institute University of Tulsa College of
Law):

“Iraq has reserves of at least 112 billion barrels. The significance of this
number is often overlooked. Imagine all the oil reserves in the U.S., the
North Sea, China, the Caspian Sea, and West Africa all combined under one
jurisdiction. This oil is not to be found under high seas in 1,000 feet of
water or more, in arctic snows, in equatorial jungles or in third world
conditions where men and material must be brought in from great distances.
Iraq’s oil is on land in a flat, temperate, geographically compact area and
at a depth which is commonly drilled without difficulty. Iraq is not a
third world country and possesses considerable experience and skill in
petroleum development.”(www.beg.utexas.edu/energyecon/documents/
behind_the_gas_pump/Langenkamp_FullPaper.pdf)

Iraqi oil production costs are the lowest anywhere but of course do not
include security because that is picked up not by the oil companies but by
US taxpayer funded; as one retired general put it, the US army has become
corporate mercenaries paid by tax payers. So far we have spent $400 billion
for securing Iraq and that is not counting billions more separate issues.
Projects like the separately funded $600 million US “embassy”: a large US
city that will serve to house all the 8000 imperial employees of the US who
will use it as a base not just to control/manage Iraq but be the epicenter
of US power in West Asia. The cost of production in Iraq for oil companies
is estimated at $1/barrel. But even if one doubles that to $2 and the
current price of Iraq crude on the market is $52-60/barrel, this means that
at a minimum there are $50 per barrel profit. It is not clear where this
money has gone in the past nearly four years (roughly $150 billion in
profit, perhaps congress will find the guts to investigate?) but I am more
interested in a forward looking projections/understanding.

The draft oil bill pushed by the US (and mentioned in Bush’s speech) offers
Big oil companies production rights for 20 years at a mere 12.5% royalties
to the Iraqi government
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1576593,00.html) . The delay
in approval is not about whether to accept the 12.5% (this was not
negotiable) but about how to divvy up the 12.5% among the provinces (as Bush
clearly pointed out)! The US imposed that number of 12.5% based on deep see
royalties on US oil companies in the Gulf of Mexico but this is a rip-off
because:
1) Deep see drilling costs about 20 times higher than surface drilling
2) American and British oil companies pay significant local tax and incur
significant other expenses (e.g.; on environmental issues0 that they do not
have to do in Iraq.
3) US law promotes sharing of US natural resources with US companies not
foreign companies.

OK so this leaves the oil companies with roughly $44/per barrel. But what
about exploration costs you say: well much of Iraq oil is located in well
designated and discovered areas and close to the surface, the cost would be
minimal. But even if it triples the cost to $3 , that would still leave
$43/barrel profit. OK say $40 to account for the $100-500 million executive
pays of these companies/administration etc. At a minimum of 3 million
barrels per day production, this is $120 million per day profit or $43,800
million per year or $876 billion for the 20 years at a minimum (if no new
field development happens). But this is assuming production remains as is.
Iraq actually has reserves estimated at 120-300 billion barrels. Taking an
intermediate/low level of 150 billion barrels and an extraction rate of
2/3rd means roughly 100 billion barrels total x $44/barrel profit, that
means $4.4 TRILLION. The bottom line is that it appears the Big oil
companies are about to make between $1 to $4.4 trillion over the next 20
years if Bush succeeds in his plan (he says “win in Iraq”). If he fails,
that money could be used for the Iraqi people AND the security for oil
company profits would Corporate greed would not be watered by US and Iraqi
blood and fertilized by our taxes. For those with backgrounds or research
skills, I would love to have more information or corrections to this
guestimation of the oil loot. Email me.

Addendeum: the following link a brief history of Iraq oil policy under the
leadership of Kassem before CIA asset Saddam Hussain tried to assainate hjm
and later Baath party with Saddam being key succeded in ousting him.
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/oil/5873nation.htm

Mazin Qumsiyeh'

Zie: http://www.qumsiyeh.org/

De Pro-Israel Lobby 22

'Wolf Blitzer worked for the Israel lobby before he worked for CNN. Here
is a video of him advocating Israeli perspecives on a Panel with Norman
Finkelstein before he became CNN employee.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2-8aTGnjHnI

Iran 83

'Iran target of US Gulf military moves, Gates says.
Guardian Unlimited

Increased US military activity in the Gulf is aimed at Iran's "very
negative" behaviour, the Bush administration said today.

The defence secretary, Robert Gates, told reporters that the decision
to deploy a Patriot missile battalion and a second aircraft carrier
to the Gulf in conjunction with a "surge" of troops in Iraq was
designed to show Iran that the US was not "overcommitted" in Iraq.

Speaking in Brussels after meeting Nato officials, Mr Gates said: "We
are simply reaffirming that statement of the importance of the Gulf
region to the United States and our determination to be an ongoing
strong presence in that area for a long time into the future."

His remarks followed tough comments on Iran at the weekend from other
senior US officials. The vice-president, Dick Cheney, accused Iran of
"fishing in troubled waters inside Iraq", while the national security
adviser, Stephen Hadley, said the US was "going to need to deal with
what Iran is doing inside Iraq".Such remarks, following the prospect
of "hot pursuit" raids into Iran as raised by George Bush in his
televised address last week, have fuelled speculation that the US is
softening up the American public for possible action against Tehran. The increasingly confrontational pose struck by the US is a
repudiation of one of the key recommendations of the Iraq Study
Group, which called for the start of a dialogue with Iran and Syria
in an effort to extricate the US from Iraq.

Mr Gates, who as recently as 2004 publicly called for diplomatic
engagement with Iran, said the situation was now different. In 2004,
Iran was concerned by the presence of US forces on its eastern and
western borders, in Iraq and Afghanistan, but its behaviour had changed.

"The Iranians clearly believe that we are tied down in Iraq, that
they have the initiative, that they are in position to press us in
many ways," he said. "They are doing nothing to be constructive in
Iraq at this point."

"And so the Iranians are acting in a very negative way in many
respects. My view is that when the Iranians are prepared to play a
constructive role in dealing with some of these problems then there
might be opportunities for engagement."

Besides concerns about Iran's nuclear programme, the US has accused
Tehran of supporting Shia militia and of not doing enough to stop
foreign fighters from infiltrating Iraq.
US-led forces in northern Iraq arrested five Iranians last week who
the US military says were connected to an Iranian Revolutionary Guard
faction that funds and arms insurgents in Iraq - a claim Iran has
rejected.'

Lees verder: http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,,1990962,00.html?gusrc=rss&feed=1