by jdp

We have had several discussions at the Moon of Alabama about peak oil, what the market does concerning energy and how world stability affects oil prices. Well, instead of arguing over oil, I feel it’s better to try and figure out and apply methods to reduce our dependence on foreign oil and be environmentally friendly. While this may not wet our appetites for Bush bashing, energy conservation surely isn’t his favourite subject.

Cont. reading: The Real Test Is Your Action

by Koreyel

The REAL reason we went to war in Iraq, if you must know, is that after 9-11 we needed to kick the shit out of someone, anyone…
Contributor on a previous MoA thread

No doubt there is truth in that. In fact I’ve pointed in that direction as well. An “eye for an eye” is a primitive human theorem. It lies buried within all of us, and needs but a lure to lunge to the surface.

Cont. reading: Bush with a Bathtub in Baghdad

KARL: You better ring him up.

GEORGE: Okay Karl, I´ll call him now: 202 342-3800

VOICE: Hello?

GEORGE: Hi, this is George, is Bandarboy in?

VOICE: Sorry sir, no, he is on vacation.

GEORGE: But you will have a number for me won´t you. This is George!

VOICE: Oh I am sorry George, he left no number. I am afraid he is unreachable right now.

GEORGE: But, but when do you expect him back?

VOICE: Oh, that may take a while. I think he´ll be back in November. Early November that is.

GEORGE: Oh fuck.

Oil Charges to $50.47 Record
Morgan Stanley Says Oil Price Could Reach $61
Nothing Opec can do to bring oil down, says Purnomo
Bandarboy

Through Andy Mukherjee of Bloomberg and Dr.”Gloom” Marc Faber we got our hands on a transcript of a speech held at a meeting of the Central Economic Commission of the Chinese Communist Party. The speaker is unknown but is believed to be in a very high party position.

“Dear Comrades,

One of the next days we will publish our paper on the “Ruling Capacity of the Party”. Let me cite three passages:

We should always put national sovereignty and security in the first place and firmly safeguard state security.
…
Hostile forces are still pursuing their strategic attempts to westernize and separate our country.
…
We will effectively guard against and deal with various risks from the international economic field, so as to safeguard China’s political, economic, cultural and information security.

The US cronies at the IMF, the G-7 and the World Bank are putting pressure on us to loosen the peg of our Yuan to the US-Dollar. If we would do so, the US-Dollar could slowly devalue against all Asian currencies and the US economy could move back on a sustainable path. For now we do some cheap talk of planed revaluation to calm them down.

A week US Dollar is NOT in our interest.

The United States have fulfilled their long dream and occupied Iraq to achieve control over Middle Eastern commodities. They are fighting our interests in Sudan and Iran. They are engaged in various Central Asian countries at our north western border. They are even selling German made submarines, offensive weapons with cruise missiles, to the illegal government of our province Taiwan.

We continue actively to buy large amounts of US securities, especially treasuries, to keep the Yuan value bound to the US Dollar. We now have accumulated some US$ 500 billion in such instruments. There are three major positive effects to this:

• We enable the US Federal Reserve to keep the interest rates low in spite of the huge US deficits and we thereby induce the US consumer to buy more of our goods and services.
• We make the US manufacturing and service industries uncompetitive and force them to move to Asia, teaching our workers the skills we will need in the future.
• We make imports to our country expansive and induce our people to save and to invest their money into our industrial build-up.

There are also negative effects, like some increased inflation here. But for now we are able to control these by central administrative means.

There is no chance that this scheme will work into eternity. But there is a good chance that we, the Party, can determine the point in time where a break will occur. Until then we will use the accumulated dollars to build significant strategic reserves of all commodities and increase the abilities of the People’s Liberation Army and especially the People’s Liberation Army’s naval forces.

At some point, for some reason, the US, in their quest of world domination, will threaten us – either directly through military means or indirectly through the oil lever. That will be the right moment do de-peg the Yuan, devalue the US Dollar and throw the treasuries we own onto the international markets.

US treasury rates will then increase immediately to double digit values, the US economy will falter first into recession and then into a Weimar like hyperinflationary depression.

Then we will pick up what is left over from the US empire paying the cheap price of some paper losses in our US security portfolio.

Comrades, lets work to keep the US dollar strong, very strong, for the glory of the Party and the wellbeing of the people of China.”

All is said with few words at the WhiskeyBar.

… the Bush administration launches a new pre-election antiterrorism campaign this week that will include the likely arrests of hundreds of aliens from Middle Eastern and other countries known to be havens for terrorists. Homeland Security has targeted for possible detention as many as 2,000 foreigners who are believed to be in violation of their visas and about whom there is “soft intelligence” suggesting possible terror connections.

Newsweek: Homeland Security’s Info: Miles from Nowhere – last graph

RING, RING, RING

TOM: Ridge here

KARL: Hi Tom, this is Karl – how are you – hey we have a problem here and I need your help.

Cont. reading: Tom is Happy to Help

Your links, discussions and opinions to pieces and events you deem of interest

… a film recommendation by anna missed

The recent documentary film Where Are We? is now on DVD. Co-directed by Oscar recipients Jeffery Friedman and Rob Epstein, the film, on the surface is a sort of “road” movie, where the pair set out on an eighteen day tour of the South and the Southwest interviewing the common people they meet without any apparent judgment.

Under the surface, as the film unfolds, there is a curious blurring of boundaries on what is normal, what is bizarre, and what collectively might be thought of as a culture gone stark raving mad, incapable of meaningful reflection, or direction. The common character of all the people interviewed, as even their own words belie their own condition, is one of being adrift in a sea of banality, anchored only by religion or patriotism.

If Fahrenheit 9-11 documented the method and consequences of unrestrained American power, this film, in its own little way documents the amorphous cultural sediments that enable that power.

This is a beautiful, ethereal, and terrifying look at America that recalls the “normal” torment evidenced in the photographs of Diane Arbus.

This part of Bush’s speech at the United Nation General Assembly needs to be thought about:

In this young century, our world needs a new definition of security. Our security is not merely found in spheres of influence, or some balance of power. The security of our world is found in the advancing rights of mankind.

Paul Krugman says “He doesn’t really believe that.” because Bush doesn´t live up to the claim when he supports Russias Putin. Other see reason to be concerned.

In a letter to the NYT Editor Benjamin Solomon explains:

In the context of recent history, many will interpret this to mean the United States’ leading a group of countries to bring a version of freedom to the designated country in accord with American interests and aims.

Such a policy would also signify a marked change in the United Nations Charter and the prospect of unending war.

For the American body politic, such a policy declares that the conceptual position with which the administration now defends the Iraq war will be permanently central to America’s role in the world.

Most people in this world will not agree to have their “rights of mankind” “advanced” to the fundamentalistic faith based George Warmonger Bush version. Those who do not have the gift of basic rights today for sure would like to have it. But what price are they willing to pay?

Unlike during the last ideologic world struggle, the Cold War, this doctrine leaves the US without an ideologic coalition. Has any other country a vision of advancing rights of mankind that is compatible with Bush’? I hope not, but the power of the United States may be big enough to intermediatly press others into this framework.

In a recent comment barfly Fran points to one, two remarkable articles and opines with regard to the US election:

“the rising of the Banana Republic”

With a respectful nod towards South American entities I strongly disagree.

If there are comparisons to the US election system these are to be found in places where the US is supporting the implementation of democracy. There, like in the US, every effort is made to make the elections outcome as effortless as possible.

Take a look at Afghanistan, where a distinguished ambassador is continuously consulting with all presidential candidates. In an effort to make it easy to vote, he is tediously working to shorten the ballot list, even if this involves incuring significant expenditures.

After the hourlong meeting last month, the ethnic Hazara warlord said in an interview Tuesday, he wasn’t satisfied with the rewards offered for quitting.

New meetings are said to be scheduled. To guarantee a high voter outcome, some 10.5 million of 9.5 million estimated eligible Afghan voters are registered by now. Efforts continue to additionally register expatriates like Mr. Rahman.

“We are a bit confused about the candidates,” said Saifur Rahman, 52, a Jalozai[, Pakistan,] resident. “Nobody knows what their plans are for our country.”

But he insists he’ll vote. “I’m an Afghan, and this is my right. I will use that right.”

Another good example for a decent election process may be found in Iraq. The voters there will have to cast the ballot on party lists of candidates. To disburden the electorate and to reduce the costs of ballot printing, the major parties are agreeing to form one “consensus list“. The voter’s arduous decision process will significantly lighten as there will be one simple circle on the ballot that may be marked. This entitles the Iraqi voter to exactly the same extensive variety of policy choices the US voter is demanding and given.

The democratic legitimation of the next President of the US of A, Prime Minister of Iraq and President of Afghanistan will be on comparable levels. To liken these with Banana Republic standards is an insult.

Two female Iraqi scientist are in custody. They are said to have worked for Saddam’s weapon programs. A group that has killed two US hostages during the last days, and still has one British hostage, has demanded all female prisoners to be freed. It is not known whether they referred to these women. Today there were a couple of announcements on the scientists future.

• Noori Abdul-Rahim Ibrahim, a spokesman for the Justice Ministry, said [Rihab Rashid Taha] will be released soon and on bail (NYT)

Cont. reading: Sovereign and Just Screw Up

From a recent StratFor piece:

Bush’s view is that every alliance must be evaluated in terms of its utility for the United States and that the United States must pursue its foreign interests, even if an existing alliance resists it. Kerry appears to be arguing that since alliances should be seen as permanent institutional frameworks, accepting limitations on American freedom of action is a small price to pay for retaining critical international institutions.
…
The real debate has always been between two schools of internationalism. … One school looks at the United Nations as a hindrance to the pursuit of national interest. The other looks at the United Nations as being at the heart of the national interest.
…
Bush represents the former view; Kerry represents the latter view.

The difference between these views has a relation to the assumed time horizon. It takes time to build coaltions and functioning international institutions. It takes time to build trust. Long term partners who trust each other will go along, even when there are some accute disagreements and no short term benefits. When this trust is broken, like it currently is in some cases, the wound is usually deep and takes a long time to heal.

Bush´s view is relying on short term allies, pressured into duty by short term relative benefits. Allies exchangable at hoc when needed. Kerry´s view relies on long term allies, were pressure is applied by the threat of changes in long term real benefits. Most non-US countries traditionally have a long term view.

This short term / long term divergence can be seen in other issues too. The small saving rate in the US vs. other countries. Houses build for decades from plywood vs. build from stone to last centuries.

Stratfor continues:

One of the things hurting Kerry is that his view has, in general, been a minority view in the United States.

Was this the minority view after the second world war? Has this dichotomy change in recent years? Has the US time horizon shortened?

State of the Union Address, January 2003

Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent.

Remarks by President Bush and Prime Minister Allawi …, September 2004

Q Right here, Mr. President, thank you. Why do you think the CIA’s assessment of conditions in Iraq are so much at odds with the optimism that you and Prime Minister Allawi are expressing at the moment?

PRESIDENT BUSH: The CIA laid out a — several scenarios that said, life could be lousy, like could be okay, life could be better. And they were just guessing as to what the conditions might be like. …

Juan Cole asks the question every voter in the US should be asked: What if what is happening in Iraq would happen at the appropriate scale in the US and the European Union would say “freedom and democracy are just around the corner”?

Passenger Cat Stevens Gets Plane Diverted

A London-to-Washington flight was diverted to Maine on Tuesday when it was discovered passenger Yusuf Islam — formerly known as singer Cat Stevens — was on a government watch list and barred from entering the country, federal officials said.
…
Homeland Security Department spokesman Dennis Murphy identified the passenger as Islam. “He was interviewed and denied admission to the United States on national security grounds,” Murphy said, and would be put on the first available flight out of the country Wednesday.

Cat Stevens – Peace Train

Now I’ve been crying lately,
thinking about the world as it is
Why must we go on hating,
why can’t we live in bliss

Cause out on the edge of darkness,
there rides a peace train
Oh peace train take this country,
come take me home again

Context:
Small Kindness
Yusuf Islam
Cat Stevens Lyrics
NYT – U.S. Wants All Air Traveler Files for Security Test

Hattip to reader Harry Chapin

In today’s address to the US General Assembly Bush said:

Both the American Declaration of Independence and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights proclaim the equal value and dignity of every human life. That dignity is honored by the rule of law, limits on the power of the state, respect for women, protection of private property, free speech, equal justice, and religious tolerance.

Some delegates may have read today’s LA Times: U.S. Probing Alleged Abuse of Afghans

The dead soldier, identified as Jamal Naseer, a member of the Afghan Army III Corps, was severely beaten over a span of at least two weeks, according to a report prepared for the Afghan attorney general. A witness described his battered corpse as being “green and black” with bruises.

Alleged American mistreatment of the detainees included repeated beatings, immersion in cold water, electric shocks, being hung upside down and toenails being torn off, according to Afghan investigators and an internal memorandum prepared by a United Nations delegation that interviewed the surviving soldiers.

Some of the Afghan soldiers were beaten to the point that they could not walk or sit, Afghan doctors and other witnesses said.

Others delegates may have read yesterday’s Guardian: After Abu Ghraib

Like most Iraqi women, Alazawi is reluctant to talk about what she saw but says that her brother Mu’taz was brutally sexually assaulted. Then it was her turn to be interrogated. “The informant and an American officer were both in the room. The informant started talking. He said, ‘You are the lady who funds your brothers to attack the Americans.’ I speak some English so I replied: ‘He is a liar.’ The American officer then hit me on both cheeks. I fell to the ground.

Alazawi says that American guards then made her stand with her face against the wall for 12 hours, from noon until midnight. Afterwards they returned her to her cell. “The cell had no ceiling. It was raining. At midnight they threw something at my sister’s feet. It was my brother Ayad. He was bleeding from his legs, knees and forehead. I told my sister: ‘Find out if he’s still breathing.’ She said: ‘No. Nothing.’ I started crying. The next day they took away his body.”

Kofi Annans Opening remarks (PDF) included the general theme of the rule of law beginning in Mesopotamia.

Much of Hammurabi’s code now seems impossibly harsh. But etched into its tablets are principles of justice that have been recognised, if seldom fully implemented, by almost every human society since his time:

• Legal protection for the poor.
• Restraints on the strong, so they cannot oppress the weak.
• Laws publicly enacted, and known to all.

That code was a landmark in mankind’s struggle to build an order where, instead of might making right, right would make might.
…
Yet today the rule of law is at risk around the world.
…
In Iraq, we see civilians massacred in cold blood, … At the same time, we have seen Iraqi prisoners disgracefully abused.
…
I believe we can restore and extend the rule of law throughout the world. But ultimately, that will depend on the hold that the law has on our consciences.

Guess who received warm applause.

Just as I start to write about Iran and the IAEA, George Monbiot of The Guardian comes up with much better writing in Proliferation treaty .

Here is the world’s most nonsensical job description. Your duty is to work tirelessly to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons. And to work tirelessly to encourage the proliferation of the means of building them. This is the task of the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Mohamed El Baradei.
…
His agency’s motto – “Atoms for Peace” – wasn’t always a lie. In 1953, when Eisenhower founded it with his famous speech to the United Nations, people really seemed to believe that nuclear fission could solve the world’s problems.
…
The nuclear powers, he said, “should… make joint contributions from their stockpiles of normal uranium and fissionable materials” which should then be given to “the power-starved areas of the world”, “to provide abundant electrical energy”. This would give them, he argued, the necessary incentive to forswear the use of nuclear weapons.
…
Now there are about 20 countries which, as a result of foreign help for their civilian nuclear programmes, could, if they choose, become nuclear weapons states within months. When Russia shipped uranium and the technologies required to build a bomb to Iran, it not only had a right to do so: under the non-proliferation treaty, it had a duty to do so.

It’s not yet clear whether Iran has stepped over the brink. It is plainly enriching uranium and producing heavy water, which could enable it to build both uranium- and plutonium-based bombs. But both processes are also legitimate means of developing materials for nuclear power generation.
…
Both the US and the UK have abandoned their own obligations to disarm, and appear to be contemplating a new generation of nuclear weapons. Both governments have also suggested that they would be prepared to use them pre-emptively. Iran is surrounded by American military bases, and is one of the two surviving members of the axis of evil. The other one, North Korea, has been threatening its neighbours with impunity. Why? Because it has the bomb. If Iran is not developing a nuclear weapons programme, it hasn’t understood the drift of global politics.

Let me add some links to further the point. The International Atomic Energy Agency was setup after Eisenhower´s speech to the UN General Assembly. Any sovereign country may sign the IAEA statute and join or leave the organization at its will.

The US pressure on the IAEA and Iran is ridicules, when the US supports Israel not only by harmless giveaways like 5,000 smart bombs but also by not discussing Israel’s nuclear weapons at the IAEA. The US also refrains from pressure on South Korea that has, unlike Iran, broken its IAEA obligation at least twice in recent years.
Other friends of the US suspect of military nuclear ambitions are Japan and Taiwan.

Iran today announced to restart work on machines for enriching uranium. There are legal duties for IAEA members to support this. There is no legal ground to hinder Iran by any means.

When Eisenhower initiated “Atoms for Peace”, the promise was to help countries to develop civil nuclear capacity while the military nuclear powers would diminish their arsenals. Part one of these promises were fulfilled, part two never got traction.

This is the reason why there are Bush Aides Divided on Confronting Iran Over A-Bomb. There are no good options until the US restrains itself from the US plan for new nuclear arsenal and gets equal handed and serious about proliferation.

Admission free!

You don´t have to agree to send troops into a battle zone, but if troops are send to a battle zone they should be in a state that serves the purpose. Thomas E. Ricks reports in WaPo about a battalion of the South Carolina National Guard that yesterday left for Iraq. Their task in Iraq will be to escort support convoys, i.e. riding shotgun for KBR trucks, in northern Iraq.

This is an artillery battalion (“They don´t know friend from foe, just valuable targets.”) filled up with a hodgepodge of personal from other units. The last two month they were retrained to military police and infantry tasks.

During this time they:
– were on duty and training 7 days a week usually more than 12 hours a day
– had only one leave of 36 hours total on Labour Day
– were not allowed to wear civilian cloth, even when off duty
– had fights between soldiers
– were barred to leave their rooms when off duty since Labour Day
– had a high rate of AWOL and other incidents.

The share of National Guards and Reserve troops in Iraq will increase during the current rotation with more call ups for Guard troops coming. Moral of troops in Iraq is already low and with these new troops coming in, it will sink to the bottom. How can you expect these troops to fight in a classic guerrilla war? You can not and sending them is a crime in and of itself regardless of the any underlying reason for the war.