Uruknet is a crucial and irreplaceable source regarding Occupied Iraq and the Middle East.
Google has, once again, stopped indexing Uruknet as a news source.
This censorship is totally unacceptable.
Write to Google against removing Uruknet from the news!
Please click here to send your complaints to google.news.
Please read below for the facts from Uruknet:
On January 12, 2007 Google stopped indexing Uruknet.info as a news source
(The latest Uruknet article included in the Google News index is Iraqi Children "Play" Civil War, February 18, 2005) .
URUKNET wrote to Google News and this is their reply:
Hi Vincenzo,
Thank you for your message. We apologize for the confusion, we've reviewed your site again and are unable to include it in Google News at this time. We appreciate your willingness to provide your articles to us, and we will log your site for future consideration. Thank you for your interest in Google News.
They are unable? and for which reason? Of course there isn’t any technical reason, because Google.news have been indexing Uruknet up to five days ago and although old pages are still available, there has been no update since then. The only "technical reason" is censorship.
We rewrote to Google.news and their reply was even more cryptic:
Thank you for your note. Although we're unable to provide specific information at this time, we sincerely appreciate your interest in Google News and your willingness to provide us with your content. Please be assured that we'll keep your site on file should we be able to crawl it in the future.
Thanks again for taking the time to contact us.
Regards, The Google Team
Of course, it is a lie: In our logs it seems that you (our readers) still crawl Uruknet, but the articles do not appear on Google.news.
We re-rewrote to Google.news and we didn’t get any answer at all. We ignore the reason for which Google has manipulated the rankings for Uruknet , but we think the exclusion of alternative media through search engines results is government/corporate tactics to harness the free flow of information on the Internet. Being banned by Google.news is obviously a serious threat to a news website's existence.
This isn't the first time that Google discontinues indexing Uruknet. On February 18, 2005, Google.news removed Uruknet.info as a news source, apparently thanks to Michelle Malkin's protestations only to reinstate them - following many complaints sent in by our readers.
On June 4, 2005 both Google.com and Google.news dropped Uruknet again without explanation: and in this case too Google reinstated Uruknet only because of complaint messages from our readers.
We must add that Google’s censorship unintentionally occurs in a particularly critical period for our website. Uruknet has been under hacking attacks since September 2005. These attacks increase whenever there are important events from Iraq. Since this past summer, when a great number of attacks were carried out against Uruknet, we have been moving our servers and spending lots of time, money and energies in order to prevent these attacks and to repair the damages. Since the assassination of the Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, the attacks have increased again and last week they managed to destroy our main server and other servers we use for mirroring websites.
As our readers know, we never carried out campaigns neither for fund-raising nor for any other kind of aid. Although we’ve been able to provide, in spite of sacrifice, for maintenance and safeguard of Uruknet and mirroring websites, and although we succeeded, notwithstanding such a great deal of problems, to face all damages caused by hacking attacks, now Google’s censorship risks to be a blow too hard to ward off.
A few hours ago, we asked our readers to send their complaint messages to " source-suggestions@google.com "
Now google.news claims that the address source-suggestions@google.com is no longer active. When one of our readers sends google.news a complaint letter for having stopped indexing uruknet, he receives the following automated response from google:
----- Original Message -----
From: news-feedback@google.com
To: paopisi@tin.it
Sent: Saturday, January 20, 2007 8:00 PM
Subject: Re: [#102548054] Complain for removing www.uruknet.info from google.news
Thank you for your note about Google News. This is an automated response
to let you know that we appreciate your interest and feedback. Please note
that this email address is no longer active.
To further assist our users, we've created a Google News Help Center,
where you can search or browse all of our available support information.
Our Help Center is located at http://www.google.com/support/news/
If you're a news publisher, please visit our Publisher Help Center at
http://www.google.com/support/news_pub where you'll find extensive,
up-to-date information and solutions.
But four days ago google.news did reply us from the same email address: so on 16 January 2006 the address " source-suggestions@google.com " surely was active.
Messaggio Originale --------
Oggetto: Re: [#81255140] Re-inserting uruknet.info into google-news
*Data: * *Tue, 16 Jan 2007 11:24:43 -0800*
*Da: * *Google Help source-suggestions@google.com*
A: enzo@uruknet.eu
Hi Vincenzo,
Thank you for your message. We apologize for the confusion, we've reviewed your site again and are unable to include it in Google News at this time. We appreciate your willingness to provide your articles to us, and we will log your site for future consideration.
Thank you for your interest in Google News.
Regards,
The Google Team
-------- Messaggio Originale -------- Oggetto: Re: [#81255140] Re-inserting uruknet.info into google-news
Data: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 17:45:05 -0800
Da: Google Help source-suggestions@google.com
A: enzo@uruknet.eu
Hi Vincenzo,
Thank you for your note. Although we're unable to provide specific information at this time, we sincerely appreciate your interest in Google News and your willingness to provide us with your content. Please be assured that we'll keep your site on file should we be able to crawl it in the future.
Thanks again for taking the time to contact us.
Regards,
The Google Team
We therefore strongly suspect that google.news "source-suggestions@google.com" has put a filter on the word "uruknet".
We made some test, and we made sure that if someone sends
to source-suggestions@google.com an email message
without the word "uruknet", google news doesn't reply that the address is inactive.
Please click here to send your complaints to google.news.
www.uruknet.info?p=29907
Read more!!
Saturday, January 20, 2007
Thursday, January 18, 2007
DRANT #209: TAPEWORM/INCONVENIENT TRUTH
The entire discourse regarding the rape of our planet and its inhabitants has been framed as an "environmental" problem, benignly named "Global Warming" by the corporate pimp media and PR firms who work for the rapists.
Ho Hum, global warming.
Not local, not me, not here. Global -- a nicely indefinite unthreatening somewhere else.
And not destruction, or devastation or ruination. Warming. Like one of George and Laura's chicken pot pies in the White House microwave.
Perpetrators 'R Us of course. They be too many of us. Its our fault.
Not that a tiny few of Them take more than all the rest of us combined, or that the real perps are meticulously maintained in their fortress corporate anonymity- as their global parasite corporations voraciously consume the earth. Its not the insatiable waging of global war, which murderously squanders incalculable mountains of energy-- no, its us commuters in our SUVS. All we gots ta do is grow some mighty fine Monsanto GMO corn and Rumpelstilskin it into ethanol, and lordy lord our troubles are OVER !
Please read this brilliant deconstruction of our polite tsk-tsk machine -- the world of Gore and our own pervasive refusal to take real responsibility for our own annihilation.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"My nickname for our current economic system is 'The Tapeworm.' ...Believing that our solutions for addressing global warming lie within the system defined by the Tapeworm goes hand in hand with obtaining our media from companies controlled by the Tapeworm, and having to choose from among leaders anointed by the Tapeworm, such as Al Gore. This belief is, in fact, the source of our hopelessness."
"... The fundamental lie that Al Gore is telling comes from defining our problem as environmental -- in this case global warming, whereas our environmental problems -- as real and important as they are -- are but a symptom of the problem, not the problem. Gore defines our problem as "what." He is silent on "who..."
"... Understanding the fundamental imbalance of the corporate model -- where enterprises have the rights of personhood, but not the finite existence of people or the legal responsibilities and liabilities -- and the corporate model's economic dependence on subsidy that drives up debt, economic warfare and the destruction of all living things is a critical piece to developing actions to reverse environmental damage. Al Gore is a man that has made money for corporations his entire life. He is a member in good standing of the Tapeworm and his current lifestyle and this documentary are rich with the resources that corporations can provide...
"... There is also no personal accountability. Al Gore has not "come clean." There is no discussion of Gore's role in the Clinton Administration in facilitating worldwide economic centralization and warfare, and with it genocide and environmental destruction..."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
THE SOURCE OF HOPELESSNESS: A REVIEW OF 'AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH'
Solari, Inc., January 1, 2007
http://www.precaution.org/lib/07/prn_the_tapeworm.070112.htm (http://www.rachel.org/bulletin/index.cfm?St=1 The Environmental Research Foundation)
By Catherine Austin Fitts,
Solari Inc. -- http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/Archives2007/FittsGore.html
[Catherine Austin Fitts served as Assistant Secretary of Housing and Federal Housing Commissioner at HUD in the first Bush Administration; she previously served as Managing Director and Member of the Board of Directors of the Wall Street investment bank, Dillon, Read & Co., Inc.]
The day after 9-11, a person whom I respect and care about a great deal said to me, "George Bush was anointed by God for a time such as this." He then asked me what I thought. I said that I thought that the Bush family was anointed by financial fraud, narcotics trafficking, and pedophilia. Stunned, he said, "If that is true, then it's hopeless." I replied that things were far from hopeless, but that for me solutions started with faith in a divine intelligence rather than affirming a dependent relationship with organized crime.
Last week I had dinner with a wonderful couple -- activists in the San Francisco Bay Area-- and the woman told me how wonderful she thought Al Gore's documentary An Inconvenient Truth was. She then asked for my opinion. When I gave it, she said, "If that is true, then it's hopeless." We then proceeded to have a rich conversation about why folks who used to call themselves "liberal" or progressive are in the same trap as folks who use to call themselves "conservative."
In order to respond to the problem of global warming, it is necessary to look at the ways that we as citizens support criminal activity by our government and how we as consumers, depositors and investors support the private banking, corporate and investment interests that run our government in this manner. This is easier said than done. When we 'get it' -- i.e., that we have to withdraw from a co-dependent relationship with organized crime in order to save and rebuild our world -- we can find ourselves struggling to envision the system-wide actions that are needed and feeling overwhelmed by the task of determining how to go about them personally and in collaboration with others.
My nickname for our current economic system is "The Tapeworm." For decades I have listened to Americans from all walks of life insist that we must find solutions within the system -- i.e. within the socially acceptable boundaries laid down by the Tapeworm. Believing that our solutions for addressing global warming lie within the system defined by the Tapeworm goes hand in hand with obtaining our media from companies controlled by the Tapeworm, and having to choose from among leaders anointed by the Tapeworm, such as Al Gore. This belief is, in fact, the source of our hopelessness.
George Orwell once said that omission is the greatest form of lie. Gore's omissions in An Inconvenient Truth are so extraordinary that it is hard to know where to start.
Watching An Inconvenient Truth is more useful for understanding how propaganda is made and used than for understanding the risks of global warming (I am not qualified to judge the scientific evidence here -- I am assuming that Gore's presentation on global warming is sound).
The fundamental lie that Al Gore is telling comes from defining our problem as environmental -- in this case global warming, whereas our environmental problems -- as real and important as they are -- are but a symptom of the problem, not the problem. Gore defines our problem as "what." He is silent on "who." For example, Gore does not ask or answer:
** Who is doing this?
** Who has been governing our planet this way and why?
** Cui bono? Who benefits?
** Who has suppressed alternative technologies resulting in our dependency on fossil fuels? Why?
** Who has generated how much financial capital generated from this damage?
** How did things get this bad without our changing? How much was related to fear of and dirty tricks of those in charge?
** How do we recapture resources that have been criminally drained and use them to invest in restoring environmental balance?
Utah Phillips once said, "The earth is not dying. It is being killed, and the people killing it have names and addresses." In one sentence, Utah Phillips told us more about global warming than Al Gore has told us in a lifetime of writing and speaking, let alone in An Inconvenient Truth.
Needless to say, Gore offers no names and addresses. Gore's "who" discussion is limited to population. He seems to imply that the issue is the growth in population combined with busy people being shortsighted, leading to some giant incompetency "accident." That makes it easy to avoid digging into the areas that would naturally follow from starting with "who" -- which should lead to dissecting the relationship between environmental deterioration and the prevailing global investment model that is such a critical part of the governance infrastructure and incentive systems.
Gore walks us through timelines showing the global warming of temperatures. By defining the problem as simply environmental damage, and shrinking the history down to temperatures, there is no need to correlate environmental deterioration with the growth of the global financial system and the resulting centralization of economic and political power. The planet is being run by people who are intentionally killing it. Their power is their ability to offer all of us ways of making money by helping them kill it. Hence, understanding how the mechanics of the financial system and the accumulation of financial capital relate to environmental destruction is essential. If we integrate these deeper systems into an historical timeline, authentic solutions will begin to emerge. But Gore omits the deeper systems and the lessons of how we got here and in so doing closes the door on transformation.
For example, there is no place on Gore's time line that shows:
** the creation of the Federal Reserve:
** the movement of currencies away from the gold standard:
** the growth of non-accountable fiat currency systems:
** the growth of consumer, mortgage and government debt;
** the growth in the superior rights of corporations over people and living things;
** the growth of "privatization" (which I call "piratization");
** the subversive and sometimes violent suppression of renewable energy, housing and transportation technologies and innovations;
** the growth of the offshore financial system and the use of that system to launder and accumulate vast sums of pirated capital accumulated through the onshore destruction of communities.
Understanding the fundamental imbalance of the corporate model -- where enterprises have the rights of personhood, but not the finite existence of people or the legal responsibilities and liabilities -- and the corporate model's economic dependence on subsidy that drives up debt, economic warfare and the destruction of all living things is a critical piece to developing actions to reverse environmental damage. Al Gore is a man that has made money for corporations his entire life. He is a member in good standing of the Tapeworm and his current lifestyle and this documentary are rich with the resources that corporations can provide.
There is also no personal accountability. Al Gore has not "come clean." There is no discussion of Gore's role in the Clinton Administration in facilitating worldwide economic centralization and warfare, and with it genocide and environmental destruction -- for example, there is no mention of The Rape Of Russia or the driving out of Washington of an investment model proposing to align places with capital markets to create a win-win economic model that he intimates is possible. For more, see my recently published case study on Tapeworm Economics, and the competition between two economic visions during the Clinton Administration, "Dillon, Read & the Aristocracy of Prison Profits".
The documentary ends with a long list of things that we can do. Many of these items are on my list. We all need to come clean in the process of evolving towards sustainability. However, without a new investment model and the governance changes that automatically follow, the result of An Inconvenient Truth is to teach us to be good consumers of global oil and consumer product corporations and banks and -- we are supposed to intuitively understand -- vote for Al Gore or the candidates he endorses. Gore draws us down a rabbit hole, which leaves us even more dependent on the people and institutions that created and profited from the problem in the first place. What that means is that the real solution will be significant depopulation. The viewer is left to preserve a bit of the shrinking American bubble to protect us from having to face the depopulation solutions underway (See above links on "The Rape Of Russia" and "Dillon, Read & The Aristocracy of Prison Profits".)
The way a tapeworm operates inside our bodies is to inject a chemical into its host that makes it crave what is good for the tapeworm and bad for the host. An Inconvenient Truth is an injection from the Tapeworm. Don't see it and crave a new round of what has not worked before. Things are not hopeless. There is no need to waste time and money adoring and financing the people who are killing the planet, or counting on the politicians who protect them.
To get you started, let me recommend that you take the money and time that you would spend watching An Inconvenient Truth and invest it in reading or watching a few of many authentic leaders with useful maps and solutions that are leading to serious ecosystem healing and transformation:
Mind Control, Mind Freedom By Jon Rappoport
Escaping the Matrix: How We the People Can Change the World By Richard Moore
America: From Freedom to Fascism A documentary by Aaron Russo
Scholars for 9/11 Truth
What The Bleep Do We Know? A documentary by William Arntz, Betsy Chasse and Mark Vicente
Messages from Water
The Gold Anti-Trust Action Committee Bill Murphy, Chris Powell
Cynthia McKinney for Congress
Ron Paul for Congress
Can you imagine what these folks could do and what could happen if we all invested 2 hours each and the price of a movie theatre ticket in their work? Can you imagine what would happen if all the money donated to Al Gore and candidates like him were invested in authentic leaders and our access to them? I can -- and the truth and beauty of that future fills my life and work with hope.
Catherine Austin Fitts is President of Solari and may be contacted at www.solari.com
Read more!!
Ho Hum, global warming.
Not local, not me, not here. Global -- a nicely indefinite unthreatening somewhere else.
And not destruction, or devastation or ruination. Warming. Like one of George and Laura's chicken pot pies in the White House microwave.
Perpetrators 'R Us of course. They be too many of us. Its our fault.
Not that a tiny few of Them take more than all the rest of us combined, or that the real perps are meticulously maintained in their fortress corporate anonymity- as their global parasite corporations voraciously consume the earth. Its not the insatiable waging of global war, which murderously squanders incalculable mountains of energy-- no, its us commuters in our SUVS. All we gots ta do is grow some mighty fine Monsanto GMO corn and Rumpelstilskin it into ethanol, and lordy lord our troubles are OVER !
Please read this brilliant deconstruction of our polite tsk-tsk machine -- the world of Gore and our own pervasive refusal to take real responsibility for our own annihilation.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"My nickname for our current economic system is 'The Tapeworm.' ...Believing that our solutions for addressing global warming lie within the system defined by the Tapeworm goes hand in hand with obtaining our media from companies controlled by the Tapeworm, and having to choose from among leaders anointed by the Tapeworm, such as Al Gore. This belief is, in fact, the source of our hopelessness."
"... The fundamental lie that Al Gore is telling comes from defining our problem as environmental -- in this case global warming, whereas our environmental problems -- as real and important as they are -- are but a symptom of the problem, not the problem. Gore defines our problem as "what." He is silent on "who..."
"... Understanding the fundamental imbalance of the corporate model -- where enterprises have the rights of personhood, but not the finite existence of people or the legal responsibilities and liabilities -- and the corporate model's economic dependence on subsidy that drives up debt, economic warfare and the destruction of all living things is a critical piece to developing actions to reverse environmental damage. Al Gore is a man that has made money for corporations his entire life. He is a member in good standing of the Tapeworm and his current lifestyle and this documentary are rich with the resources that corporations can provide...
"... There is also no personal accountability. Al Gore has not "come clean." There is no discussion of Gore's role in the Clinton Administration in facilitating worldwide economic centralization and warfare, and with it genocide and environmental destruction..."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
THE SOURCE OF HOPELESSNESS: A REVIEW OF 'AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH'
Solari, Inc., January 1, 2007
http://www.precaution.org/lib/07/prn_the_tapeworm.070112.htm (http://www.rachel.org/bulletin/index.cfm?St=1 The Environmental Research Foundation)
By Catherine Austin Fitts,
Solari Inc. -- http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/Archives2007/FittsGore.html
[Catherine Austin Fitts served as Assistant Secretary of Housing and Federal Housing Commissioner at HUD in the first Bush Administration; she previously served as Managing Director and Member of the Board of Directors of the Wall Street investment bank, Dillon, Read & Co., Inc.]
The day after 9-11, a person whom I respect and care about a great deal said to me, "George Bush was anointed by God for a time such as this." He then asked me what I thought. I said that I thought that the Bush family was anointed by financial fraud, narcotics trafficking, and pedophilia. Stunned, he said, "If that is true, then it's hopeless." I replied that things were far from hopeless, but that for me solutions started with faith in a divine intelligence rather than affirming a dependent relationship with organized crime.
Last week I had dinner with a wonderful couple -- activists in the San Francisco Bay Area-- and the woman told me how wonderful she thought Al Gore's documentary An Inconvenient Truth was. She then asked for my opinion. When I gave it, she said, "If that is true, then it's hopeless." We then proceeded to have a rich conversation about why folks who used to call themselves "liberal" or progressive are in the same trap as folks who use to call themselves "conservative."
In order to respond to the problem of global warming, it is necessary to look at the ways that we as citizens support criminal activity by our government and how we as consumers, depositors and investors support the private banking, corporate and investment interests that run our government in this manner. This is easier said than done. When we 'get it' -- i.e., that we have to withdraw from a co-dependent relationship with organized crime in order to save and rebuild our world -- we can find ourselves struggling to envision the system-wide actions that are needed and feeling overwhelmed by the task of determining how to go about them personally and in collaboration with others.
My nickname for our current economic system is "The Tapeworm." For decades I have listened to Americans from all walks of life insist that we must find solutions within the system -- i.e. within the socially acceptable boundaries laid down by the Tapeworm. Believing that our solutions for addressing global warming lie within the system defined by the Tapeworm goes hand in hand with obtaining our media from companies controlled by the Tapeworm, and having to choose from among leaders anointed by the Tapeworm, such as Al Gore. This belief is, in fact, the source of our hopelessness.
George Orwell once said that omission is the greatest form of lie. Gore's omissions in An Inconvenient Truth are so extraordinary that it is hard to know where to start.
Watching An Inconvenient Truth is more useful for understanding how propaganda is made and used than for understanding the risks of global warming (I am not qualified to judge the scientific evidence here -- I am assuming that Gore's presentation on global warming is sound).
The fundamental lie that Al Gore is telling comes from defining our problem as environmental -- in this case global warming, whereas our environmental problems -- as real and important as they are -- are but a symptom of the problem, not the problem. Gore defines our problem as "what." He is silent on "who." For example, Gore does not ask or answer:
** Who is doing this?
** Who has been governing our planet this way and why?
** Cui bono? Who benefits?
** Who has suppressed alternative technologies resulting in our dependency on fossil fuels? Why?
** Who has generated how much financial capital generated from this damage?
** How did things get this bad without our changing? How much was related to fear of and dirty tricks of those in charge?
** How do we recapture resources that have been criminally drained and use them to invest in restoring environmental balance?
Utah Phillips once said, "The earth is not dying. It is being killed, and the people killing it have names and addresses." In one sentence, Utah Phillips told us more about global warming than Al Gore has told us in a lifetime of writing and speaking, let alone in An Inconvenient Truth.
Needless to say, Gore offers no names and addresses. Gore's "who" discussion is limited to population. He seems to imply that the issue is the growth in population combined with busy people being shortsighted, leading to some giant incompetency "accident." That makes it easy to avoid digging into the areas that would naturally follow from starting with "who" -- which should lead to dissecting the relationship between environmental deterioration and the prevailing global investment model that is such a critical part of the governance infrastructure and incentive systems.
Gore walks us through timelines showing the global warming of temperatures. By defining the problem as simply environmental damage, and shrinking the history down to temperatures, there is no need to correlate environmental deterioration with the growth of the global financial system and the resulting centralization of economic and political power. The planet is being run by people who are intentionally killing it. Their power is their ability to offer all of us ways of making money by helping them kill it. Hence, understanding how the mechanics of the financial system and the accumulation of financial capital relate to environmental destruction is essential. If we integrate these deeper systems into an historical timeline, authentic solutions will begin to emerge. But Gore omits the deeper systems and the lessons of how we got here and in so doing closes the door on transformation.
For example, there is no place on Gore's time line that shows:
** the creation of the Federal Reserve:
** the movement of currencies away from the gold standard:
** the growth of non-accountable fiat currency systems:
** the growth of consumer, mortgage and government debt;
** the growth in the superior rights of corporations over people and living things;
** the growth of "privatization" (which I call "piratization");
** the subversive and sometimes violent suppression of renewable energy, housing and transportation technologies and innovations;
** the growth of the offshore financial system and the use of that system to launder and accumulate vast sums of pirated capital accumulated through the onshore destruction of communities.
Understanding the fundamental imbalance of the corporate model -- where enterprises have the rights of personhood, but not the finite existence of people or the legal responsibilities and liabilities -- and the corporate model's economic dependence on subsidy that drives up debt, economic warfare and the destruction of all living things is a critical piece to developing actions to reverse environmental damage. Al Gore is a man that has made money for corporations his entire life. He is a member in good standing of the Tapeworm and his current lifestyle and this documentary are rich with the resources that corporations can provide.
There is also no personal accountability. Al Gore has not "come clean." There is no discussion of Gore's role in the Clinton Administration in facilitating worldwide economic centralization and warfare, and with it genocide and environmental destruction -- for example, there is no mention of The Rape Of Russia or the driving out of Washington of an investment model proposing to align places with capital markets to create a win-win economic model that he intimates is possible. For more, see my recently published case study on Tapeworm Economics, and the competition between two economic visions during the Clinton Administration, "Dillon, Read & the Aristocracy of Prison Profits".
The documentary ends with a long list of things that we can do. Many of these items are on my list. We all need to come clean in the process of evolving towards sustainability. However, without a new investment model and the governance changes that automatically follow, the result of An Inconvenient Truth is to teach us to be good consumers of global oil and consumer product corporations and banks and -- we are supposed to intuitively understand -- vote for Al Gore or the candidates he endorses. Gore draws us down a rabbit hole, which leaves us even more dependent on the people and institutions that created and profited from the problem in the first place. What that means is that the real solution will be significant depopulation. The viewer is left to preserve a bit of the shrinking American bubble to protect us from having to face the depopulation solutions underway (See above links on "The Rape Of Russia" and "Dillon, Read & The Aristocracy of Prison Profits".)
The way a tapeworm operates inside our bodies is to inject a chemical into its host that makes it crave what is good for the tapeworm and bad for the host. An Inconvenient Truth is an injection from the Tapeworm. Don't see it and crave a new round of what has not worked before. Things are not hopeless. There is no need to waste time and money adoring and financing the people who are killing the planet, or counting on the politicians who protect them.
To get you started, let me recommend that you take the money and time that you would spend watching An Inconvenient Truth and invest it in reading or watching a few of many authentic leaders with useful maps and solutions that are leading to serious ecosystem healing and transformation:
Mind Control, Mind Freedom By Jon Rappoport
Escaping the Matrix: How We the People Can Change the World By Richard Moore
America: From Freedom to Fascism A documentary by Aaron Russo
Scholars for 9/11 Truth
What The Bleep Do We Know? A documentary by William Arntz, Betsy Chasse and Mark Vicente
Messages from Water
The Gold Anti-Trust Action Committee Bill Murphy, Chris Powell
Cynthia McKinney for Congress
Ron Paul for Congress
Can you imagine what these folks could do and what could happen if we all invested 2 hours each and the price of a movie theatre ticket in their work? Can you imagine what would happen if all the money donated to Al Gore and candidates like him were invested in authentic leaders and our access to them? I can -- and the truth and beauty of that future fills my life and work with hope.
Catherine Austin Fitts is President of Solari and may be contacted at www.solari.com
Read more!!
Tuesday, January 16, 2007
DRANT #208: THE CAUSES OF POVERTY
Causes of Poverty
by Anup Shah
This Page Last Updated Friday, November 24, 2006
http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Facts.asp.
Consider the following poverty statistics:
1. Half the world — nearly three billion people — live on less than two dollars a day. source 1
2. The GDP (Gross Domestic Product) of the poorest 48 nations (i.e. a quarter of the world’s countries) is less than the wealth of the world’s three richest people combined. source 2
3. Nearly a billion people entered the 21st century unable to read a book or sign their names. source 3
4. Less than one per cent of what the world spent every year on weapons was needed to put every child into school by the year 2000 and yet it didn't happen. source 4
5. 51 percent of the world’s 100 hundred wealthiest bodies are corporations. source 5
6. The wealthiest nation on Earth has the widest gap between rich and poor of any industrialized nation. source 6
7. The poorer the country, the more likely it is that debt repayments are being extracted directly from people who neither contracted the loans nor received any of the money. source 7
8. 20% of the population in the developed nations, consume 86% of the world’s goods. source 8
9. The top fifth of the world’s people in the richest countries enjoy 82% of the expanding export trade and 68% of foreign direct investment — the bottom fifth, barely more than 1%. source 9
10. In 1960, the 20% of the world’s people in the richest countries had 30 times the income of the poorest 20% — in 1997, 74 times as much. source 10
11. An analysis of long-term trends shows the distance between the richest and poorest countries was about:
* 3 to 1 in 1820
* 11 to 1 in 1913
* 35 to 1 in 1950
* 44 to 1 in 1973
* 72 to 1 in 1992 source 11
12. “The lives of 1.7 million children will be needlessly lost this year [2000] because world governments have failed to reduce poverty levels” source 12
13. The developing world now spends $13 on debt repayment for every $1 it receives in grants. source 13
14. A few hundred millionaires now own as much wealth as the world’s poorest 2.5 billion people. source 14
15. “The 48 poorest countries account for less than 0.4 per cent of global exports.” source 15
16. “The combined wealth of the world’s 200 richest people hit $1 trillion in 1999; the combined incomes of the 582 million people living in the 43 least developed countries is $146 billion.” source 16
17. “Of all human rights failures today, those in economic and social areas affect by far the larger number and are the most widespread across the world’s nations and large numbers of people.” source 17
18. “Approximately 790 million people in the developing world are still chronically undernourished, almost two-thirds of whom reside in Asia and the Pacific.” source 18
19. According to UNICEF, 30,000 children die each day due to poverty. And they “die quietly in some of the poorest villages on earth, far removed from the scrutiny and the conscience of the world. Being meek and weak in life makes these dying multitudes even more invisible in death.” That is about 210,000 children each week, or just under 11 million children under five years of age, each year. source 19
20. For economic growth and almost all of the other indicators, the last 20 years [of the current form of globalization, from 1980 - 2000] have shown a very clear decline in progress as compared with the previous two decades [1960 - 1980]. For each indicator, countries were divided into five roughly equal groups, according to what level the countries had achieved by the start of the period (1960 or 1980). Among the findings:
* Growth: The fall in economic growth rates was most pronounced and across the board for all groups or countries.
* Life Expectancy: Progress in life expectancy was also reduced for 4 out of the 5 groups of countries, with the exception of the highest group (life expectancy 69-76 years).
* Infant and Child Mortality: Progress in reducing infant mortality was also considerably slower during the period of globalization (1980-1998) than over the previous two decades.
* Education and literacy: Progress in education also slowed during the period of globalization. source 20
21. Water problems affect half of humanity:
* Some 1.1 billion people in developing countries have inadequate access to water, and 2.6 billion lack basic sanitation.
* Almost two in three people lacking access to clean water survive on less than $2 a day, with one in three living on less than $1 a day.
* More than 660 million people without sanitation live on less than $2 a day, and more than 385 million on less than $1 a day.
* Access to piped water into the household averages about 85% for the wealthiest 20% of the population, compared with 25% for the poorest 20%.
* 1.8 billion people who have access to a water source within 1 kilometre, but not in their house or yard, consumpe around 20 litres per day. In the United Kingdom the average person uses more than 50 litres of water a day flushing toilets (where average daily water usage is about 150 liters a day. The highest average water use in the world is in the US, at 600 liters day.)
* Some 1.8 million child deaths each year as a result of diarrhoea
* The loss of 443 million school days each year from water-related illness.
* Close to half of all people in developing countries suffering at any given time from a health problem caused by water and sanitation deficits.
* Millions of women spending several hours a day collecting water.
* To these human costs can be added the massive economic waste associated with the water and sanitation deficit.… The costs associated with health spending, productivity losses and labour diversions … are greatest in some of the poorest countries. Sub-Saharan Africa loses about 5% of GDP, or some $28.4 billion annually, a figure that exceeds total aid flows and debt relief to the region in 2003. source 21
22. The richest 50 million people in Europe and North America have the same income as 2.7 billion poor people. “The slice of the cake taken by 1% is the same size as that handed to the poorest 57%.” source 22
23. The world’s 497 billionaires in 2001 registered a combined wealth of $1.54 trillion, well over the combined gross national products of all the nations of sub-Saharan Africa ($929.3 billion) or those of the oil-rich regions of the Middle East and North Africa ($1.34 trillion). It is also greater than the combined incomes of the poorest half of humanity. source 23
24. A mere 12 percent of the world’s population uses 85 percent of its water, and these 12 percent do not live in the Third World. source 24
25. Consider the global priorities in spending in 1998
Global Priority $U.S. Billions
Cosmetics in the United States 8
Ice cream in Europe 11
Perfumes in Europe and the United States 12
Pet foods in Europe and the United States 17
Business entertainment in Japan 35
Cigarettes in Europe 50
Alcoholic drinks in Europe 105
Narcotics drugs in the world 400
Military spending in the world 780
And compare that to what was estimated as additional costs to achieve universal access to basic social services in all developing countries:
Global Priority $U.S. Billions
Basic education for all 6
Water and sanitation for all 9
Reproductive health for all women 12
Basic health and nutrition 13
source 25
26. Number of children in the world
2.2 billion
Number in poverty
1 billion (every second child)
For the 1.9 billion children from the developing world, there are:
* 640 million without adequate shelter (1 in 3)
* 400 million with no access to safe water (1 in 5)
* 270 million with no access to health services (1 in 7)
Children out of education worldwide 121 million
Worldwide,
* 10.6 million died in 2003 before they reached the age of 5 (same as children population in France, Germany, Greece and Italy)
* 1.4 million die each year from lack of access to safe drinking water and adequate sanitation
Health of children
Worldwide,
* 2.2 million children die each year because they are not immunized
* 15 million children orphaned due to HIV/AIDS (similar to the total children population in Germany or United Kingdom) source 26
27. The total wealth of the top 8.3 million people around the world “rose 8.2 percent to $30.8 trillion in 2004, giving them control of nearly a quarter of the world’s financial assets.”
In other words, about 0.13% of the world’s population controlled 25% of the world’s assets in 2004. source 27
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Notes and Sources
1) This figure is based on purchasing power parity (PPP1), which basically suggests that prices of goods in countries tend to equate under floating exchange rates and therefore people would be able to purchase the same quantity of goods in any country for a given sum of money. That is, the notion that a dollar should buy the same amount in all countries. Hence if a poor person in a poor country living on a dollar a day moved to the U.S. with no changes to their income, they would still be living on a dollar a day. In addition, see the following:
* Ignacio Ramonet, The politics of hunger 2, Le Monde diplomatique, November 1998
* The 9th International Anti-Corruption Conference3 Plenary Address by James Wolfensohn, August 2000
* March recognizes the billions living on less than two dollars a day4, EarthTimes.org, October 24, 2000
* The poverty lines: population living with less than 2 dollars and less than 1 dollar a day5 from PovertyMap.net provides two maps showing the concentration of people living on less than 1 and 2 dollars per day, around the world.
* Also note that these numbers, from the World Bank, have been questioned and criticized.
o The World Bank has been criticized for almost arbitrarily coming up with a definition of a poverty line to mean one dollar per day6 (of which they say there are about 1.3 billion people). That figure and how it has been chosen has been much criticized by many, as shown by University of Ottawa Professor, Michel Chossudovsky in the previous link.
o In addition, as also stated in the previous link, in the United States for example, the poverty threshold for a family of four has been estimated to be around eleven dollars per day. The one dollar a day definition then misses out much of humanity to understand the impacts. Even the two dollars per day that I have pointed out here, while affecting half of humanity, also misses out the numbers under three or four, or eleven dollars per day. These statistics are harder to find, and as I come across them, I will post them here!
o As an aside, Morgan Spurlock, the Oscar nominee for his documentary Super Size Me where he went 30 days on a diet of burgers only to see the effects, produced another documentary where for 30 days he tried to live on the minimum wage of $5.15 per hour7. At times he was earning $50 to $70 a day and yet the tremendous hardships he faced was incredible (including a ludicrous $40 for a bandage in a hospital, and some $500 for just being seen to).
o More fundamental than that though, for example, is a critique from Columbia University, called How not to count the poor 8. The report describes an ill-defined poverty line, a misleading and inaccurate measure of purchasing power equivalence, and false precision as the three main errors that may lead to “a large understatement of the extent of global income poverty and to an incorrect inference that it has declined.” (Emphasis added). This allows the World Bank to insist that the world is indeed “on the right track” in terms of poverty reduction strategy, attributing this “success” to the design and implementation of “good” or “better policies”.
* But the statistic is not lost on some of the most prominent people in the world
o The New York Times in one of their email updates, in their Quote of the Day section, for July 18, 2001 provided the following quote: “A world where some live in comfort and plenty, while half of the human race lives on less than $2 a day, is neither just, nor stable.” — President Bush
o See also James Wolfenson, The Other Crisis, World Bank, October 1998 who said: “Today, across the world, 1.3 billion people live on less than one dollar a day; 3 billion live on under two dollars a day; 1.3 billion have no access to clean water; 3 billion have no access to sanitation; 2 billion have no access to electricity.” (See also note 21 below.)
o Koffi Anan, UN Secretary General, in a speech9 on the International Day for the Eradication of Poverty, 17 October 2000, said “Almost half the world’s population lives on less than two dollars a day, yet even this statistic fails to capture the humiliation, powerlessness and brutal hardship that is the daily lot of the world’s poor.”
2) Ignacio Ramonet, The politics of hunger10, Le Monde Diplomatique, November 1998
3) The State of the World’s Children, 199911, UNICEF
4) State of the World12, Issue 287 - Feb 1997, New Internationalist
5) See the following:
* Holding Transnationals Accountable13, IPS, August 11, 1998
* Top 200: The Rise of Corporate Global Power14, by Sarah Anderson and John Cavanagh, Institute for Policy Studies, November 2000
6) The Corporate Planet15, Corporate Watch, 1997
7) Debt - The facts16, Issue 312 - May 1999, New Internationalist
8) 1998 Human Development Report17, United Nations Development Programme
9) 1999 Human Development Report18, United Nations Development Programme
10) Ibid
11) Ibid
12) Missing the Target; The price of empty promises19, Oxfam, June 2000
13) Global Development Finance20, World Bank, 1999
14) Economics forever; Building sustainability into economic policy21 PANOS Briefing 38, March 2000
15) Human Development Report 200022, p. 82, United Nations Development Programme
16) Ibid, p. 82
17) Ibid, p. 73
18) World Resources Institute Pilot Analysis of Global Ecosystems, February 2001, (in the Food Feed and Fiber section23). Note, that dispite the food production rate being better than population growth rate, there is still so much hunger around the world.
19) See the following:
* Progress of Nations 200024, UNICEF, 2000;
* Robert E. Black, Saul S Morris, Jennifer Bryce, Where and why are 10 million children dying every year?25, The Lancet, Volume 361, Number 9376, 28 June 2003. (Note, while the article title says 10 million, their paper says 10.8 million.)
* State of the World’s Children, 2005, UNICEF (this cites the number as 10.6 million in 2003)
Note that the statistic cited uses children as those under the age of five. If it was say 6, or 7, the numbers would be even higher.
20) The Scorecard on Globalization 1980-2000: Twenty Years of Diminished Progress 26, by Mark Weisbrot, Dean Baker, Egor Kraev and Judy Chen, Center for Economic Policy and Research, August 2001.
21) 2006 United Nations Human Development Report 27, pp.6, 7, 35
22) Larry Elliott, A cure worse than the disease28, The Guardian, January 21, 2002
23) John Cavanagh and Sarah Anderson , World’s Billionaires Take a Hit, But Still Soar29, The Institute for Policy Studies, March 6, 2002
24) Maude Barlow, Water as Commodity - The Wrong Prescription30, The Institute for Food and Development Policy, Backgrounder, Summer 2001, Vol. 7, No. 3
25) Consumerism31, Volunteer Now! (undated)
26) State of the World’s Children, 2005 32, UNICEF
27) Eileen Alt Powell, Some 600,000 join millionaire ranks in 2004 33, Associate Press, June 9, 2005
Online Sources:
(Note that listed here are only those hyperlinks to other articles from other web sites or elsewhere on this web site. Other sources such as journal, books and magazines, are mentioned above in the original text. Please also note that links to external sites are beyond my control. They might become unavailable temporarily or permanently since you read this, depending on the policies of those sites, which I cannot unfortunately do anything about.)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
1. 'PPP Glossary Definition', Biz/ed web site, http://bized.ac.uk/cgi-bin/glossarydb/browse.pl?glostopic=1&glos
id=401
2. http://mondediplo.com/1998/11/01leader
Note, if the above link has expired, please try the following alternative
http://www.zmag.org/crisescurevts/hunger.htm
3. http://www.transparency.org/iacc/9th_iacc/papers/day1/plenary/d1
pl_jwolfensohn.html
4. Web Archive’s archive of the article, http://web.archive.org/web/20010321003640/http://www.earthtimes.
org/oct/developmentmarchrecognizesoct24_00.htm
5. http://www.povertymap.net/mapsgraphics/index.cfm?data_id=23417&t
heme=
6. Prof. Michel Chossudovsky, 'Global Falsehoods: How the World Bank and the UNDP Distort the Figures on Global Poverty', TFF, 1999, http://www.transnational.org/features/chossu_worldbank.html
7. '30 Days Minimum Wage', More4 (part of Channel 4 in the UK), first broadcast November 2005, http://www.channel4.com/more4/documentaries/doc-feature.jsp?id=12
8. Sanjay G. Reddy and Thomas W. Pogge, 'How not to count the poor', Columbia University, June 14, 2002, http://www.columbia.edu/~sr793/count.pdf
Note, if the above link has expired, please try the following alternative locations:
* This reposted version is in HTML, whereas the original link is to a PDF document
http://www.brettonwoodsproject.org/article.shtml?
cmd[126]=i-126-241b14a5be9a5b47cd5a88778ac79532
* Institute of Social Analysis, an organization set up by Colombia University
http://www.socialanalysis.org
9. http://www.un.org/events/poverty2000/messages.htm
10. http://mondediplo.com/1998/11/01leader
11. http://www.unicef.org/sowc99/index.html
12. http://www.newint.org/issue287/keynote.html
13. http://www.oneworld.org/ips2/aug98/16_20_084.html
14. http://www.ips-dc.org/reports/top200.htm
15. http://www.corpwatch.org/trac/feature/planet/fact_3.html
16. http://www.newint.org/issue312/facts.htm
17. http://hdr.undp.org/reports/global/1998/en/
18. http://hdr.undp.org/reports/global/1999/en/
19. http://www.oxfam.org.uk/press/releases/target.htm
20. http://www.worldbank.org/prospects/gdf99/
21. http://www.panos.org.uk/global/reportdownload.asp?type=report&id
=1000&reportid=1006
22. http://hdr.undp.org/reports/global/2000/en/
23. http://www.wri.org/wr2000/agro_food.html
24. http://www.unicef.org/pon00/immu1.htm
25. http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS01406736031
37798/fulltext
26. http://www.cepr.net/globalization/scorecard_on_globalization.htm
Note, if the above link has expired, please try the following alternative
http://www.attac.org/fra/toil/doc/cepr05.htm
27. http://hdr.undp.org/hdr2006/
Note, if the above link has expired, please try the following alternative
Full report, 8Mb in size
http://hdr.undp.org/hdr2006/pdfs/report/HDR06-complete.pdf
28. http://www.guardian.co.uk/debt/Story/0,2763,636624,00.html
29. http://www.ips-dc.org/projects/global_econ/billionaires.htm
30. http://www.foodfirst.org/pubs/backgrdrs/2001/s01v7n3.html
31. http://volunteernow.ca/take_action/issues_consumerism.htm
32. http://www.unicef.org/sowc05/english/index.html
Note, if the above link has expired, please try the following alternative locations:
* Actual report
http://www.unicef.org/sowc05/english/sowc05.pdf
* Home page for the report
http://www.unicef.org/sowc05/
* News report mentioning these stats from Inter Press Service
http://ipsnews.net/new_nota.asp?idnews=27504
33. http://www.charlotte.com/mld/charlotte/business/industries/11853
644.htm
Note, if the above link has expired, please try the following alternative locations:
* http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/world_wealth
* Google search result
http://www.google.com/search?lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-
8&q=Some%20600%2C000%20join%20millionaire%20ranks%20in%202004
* http://thinkprogress.org/index.php?p=1062
* by Anup Shah
* Created: Monday, July 20, 1998
* Last Updated: Friday, November 24, 2006
“When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist.” — Dom Helda Camara
© Copyright 1998–2007
Read more!!
by Anup Shah
This Page Last Updated Friday, November 24, 2006
http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Facts.asp.
Consider the following poverty statistics:
1. Half the world — nearly three billion people — live on less than two dollars a day. source 1
2. The GDP (Gross Domestic Product) of the poorest 48 nations (i.e. a quarter of the world’s countries) is less than the wealth of the world’s three richest people combined. source 2
3. Nearly a billion people entered the 21st century unable to read a book or sign their names. source 3
4. Less than one per cent of what the world spent every year on weapons was needed to put every child into school by the year 2000 and yet it didn't happen. source 4
5. 51 percent of the world’s 100 hundred wealthiest bodies are corporations. source 5
6. The wealthiest nation on Earth has the widest gap between rich and poor of any industrialized nation. source 6
7. The poorer the country, the more likely it is that debt repayments are being extracted directly from people who neither contracted the loans nor received any of the money. source 7
8. 20% of the population in the developed nations, consume 86% of the world’s goods. source 8
9. The top fifth of the world’s people in the richest countries enjoy 82% of the expanding export trade and 68% of foreign direct investment — the bottom fifth, barely more than 1%. source 9
10. In 1960, the 20% of the world’s people in the richest countries had 30 times the income of the poorest 20% — in 1997, 74 times as much. source 10
11. An analysis of long-term trends shows the distance between the richest and poorest countries was about:
* 3 to 1 in 1820
* 11 to 1 in 1913
* 35 to 1 in 1950
* 44 to 1 in 1973
* 72 to 1 in 1992 source 11
12. “The lives of 1.7 million children will be needlessly lost this year [2000] because world governments have failed to reduce poverty levels” source 12
13. The developing world now spends $13 on debt repayment for every $1 it receives in grants. source 13
14. A few hundred millionaires now own as much wealth as the world’s poorest 2.5 billion people. source 14
15. “The 48 poorest countries account for less than 0.4 per cent of global exports.” source 15
16. “The combined wealth of the world’s 200 richest people hit $1 trillion in 1999; the combined incomes of the 582 million people living in the 43 least developed countries is $146 billion.” source 16
17. “Of all human rights failures today, those in economic and social areas affect by far the larger number and are the most widespread across the world’s nations and large numbers of people.” source 17
18. “Approximately 790 million people in the developing world are still chronically undernourished, almost two-thirds of whom reside in Asia and the Pacific.” source 18
19. According to UNICEF, 30,000 children die each day due to poverty. And they “die quietly in some of the poorest villages on earth, far removed from the scrutiny and the conscience of the world. Being meek and weak in life makes these dying multitudes even more invisible in death.” That is about 210,000 children each week, or just under 11 million children under five years of age, each year. source 19
20. For economic growth and almost all of the other indicators, the last 20 years [of the current form of globalization, from 1980 - 2000] have shown a very clear decline in progress as compared with the previous two decades [1960 - 1980]. For each indicator, countries were divided into five roughly equal groups, according to what level the countries had achieved by the start of the period (1960 or 1980). Among the findings:
* Growth: The fall in economic growth rates was most pronounced and across the board for all groups or countries.
* Life Expectancy: Progress in life expectancy was also reduced for 4 out of the 5 groups of countries, with the exception of the highest group (life expectancy 69-76 years).
* Infant and Child Mortality: Progress in reducing infant mortality was also considerably slower during the period of globalization (1980-1998) than over the previous two decades.
* Education and literacy: Progress in education also slowed during the period of globalization. source 20
21. Water problems affect half of humanity:
* Some 1.1 billion people in developing countries have inadequate access to water, and 2.6 billion lack basic sanitation.
* Almost two in three people lacking access to clean water survive on less than $2 a day, with one in three living on less than $1 a day.
* More than 660 million people without sanitation live on less than $2 a day, and more than 385 million on less than $1 a day.
* Access to piped water into the household averages about 85% for the wealthiest 20% of the population, compared with 25% for the poorest 20%.
* 1.8 billion people who have access to a water source within 1 kilometre, but not in their house or yard, consumpe around 20 litres per day. In the United Kingdom the average person uses more than 50 litres of water a day flushing toilets (where average daily water usage is about 150 liters a day. The highest average water use in the world is in the US, at 600 liters day.)
* Some 1.8 million child deaths each year as a result of diarrhoea
* The loss of 443 million school days each year from water-related illness.
* Close to half of all people in developing countries suffering at any given time from a health problem caused by water and sanitation deficits.
* Millions of women spending several hours a day collecting water.
* To these human costs can be added the massive economic waste associated with the water and sanitation deficit.… The costs associated with health spending, productivity losses and labour diversions … are greatest in some of the poorest countries. Sub-Saharan Africa loses about 5% of GDP, or some $28.4 billion annually, a figure that exceeds total aid flows and debt relief to the region in 2003. source 21
22. The richest 50 million people in Europe and North America have the same income as 2.7 billion poor people. “The slice of the cake taken by 1% is the same size as that handed to the poorest 57%.” source 22
23. The world’s 497 billionaires in 2001 registered a combined wealth of $1.54 trillion, well over the combined gross national products of all the nations of sub-Saharan Africa ($929.3 billion) or those of the oil-rich regions of the Middle East and North Africa ($1.34 trillion). It is also greater than the combined incomes of the poorest half of humanity. source 23
24. A mere 12 percent of the world’s population uses 85 percent of its water, and these 12 percent do not live in the Third World. source 24
25. Consider the global priorities in spending in 1998
Global Priority $U.S. Billions
Cosmetics in the United States 8
Ice cream in Europe 11
Perfumes in Europe and the United States 12
Pet foods in Europe and the United States 17
Business entertainment in Japan 35
Cigarettes in Europe 50
Alcoholic drinks in Europe 105
Narcotics drugs in the world 400
Military spending in the world 780
And compare that to what was estimated as additional costs to achieve universal access to basic social services in all developing countries:
Global Priority $U.S. Billions
Basic education for all 6
Water and sanitation for all 9
Reproductive health for all women 12
Basic health and nutrition 13
source 25
26. Number of children in the world
2.2 billion
Number in poverty
1 billion (every second child)
For the 1.9 billion children from the developing world, there are:
* 640 million without adequate shelter (1 in 3)
* 400 million with no access to safe water (1 in 5)
* 270 million with no access to health services (1 in 7)
Children out of education worldwide 121 million
Worldwide,
* 10.6 million died in 2003 before they reached the age of 5 (same as children population in France, Germany, Greece and Italy)
* 1.4 million die each year from lack of access to safe drinking water and adequate sanitation
Health of children
Worldwide,
* 2.2 million children die each year because they are not immunized
* 15 million children orphaned due to HIV/AIDS (similar to the total children population in Germany or United Kingdom) source 26
27. The total wealth of the top 8.3 million people around the world “rose 8.2 percent to $30.8 trillion in 2004, giving them control of nearly a quarter of the world’s financial assets.”
In other words, about 0.13% of the world’s population controlled 25% of the world’s assets in 2004. source 27
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Notes and Sources
1) This figure is based on purchasing power parity (PPP1), which basically suggests that prices of goods in countries tend to equate under floating exchange rates and therefore people would be able to purchase the same quantity of goods in any country for a given sum of money. That is, the notion that a dollar should buy the same amount in all countries. Hence if a poor person in a poor country living on a dollar a day moved to the U.S. with no changes to their income, they would still be living on a dollar a day. In addition, see the following:
* Ignacio Ramonet, The politics of hunger 2, Le Monde diplomatique, November 1998
* The 9th International Anti-Corruption Conference3 Plenary Address by James Wolfensohn, August 2000
* March recognizes the billions living on less than two dollars a day4, EarthTimes.org, October 24, 2000
* The poverty lines: population living with less than 2 dollars and less than 1 dollar a day5 from PovertyMap.net provides two maps showing the concentration of people living on less than 1 and 2 dollars per day, around the world.
* Also note that these numbers, from the World Bank, have been questioned and criticized.
o The World Bank has been criticized for almost arbitrarily coming up with a definition of a poverty line to mean one dollar per day6 (of which they say there are about 1.3 billion people). That figure and how it has been chosen has been much criticized by many, as shown by University of Ottawa Professor, Michel Chossudovsky in the previous link.
o In addition, as also stated in the previous link, in the United States for example, the poverty threshold for a family of four has been estimated to be around eleven dollars per day. The one dollar a day definition then misses out much of humanity to understand the impacts. Even the two dollars per day that I have pointed out here, while affecting half of humanity, also misses out the numbers under three or four, or eleven dollars per day. These statistics are harder to find, and as I come across them, I will post them here!
o As an aside, Morgan Spurlock, the Oscar nominee for his documentary Super Size Me where he went 30 days on a diet of burgers only to see the effects, produced another documentary where for 30 days he tried to live on the minimum wage of $5.15 per hour7. At times he was earning $50 to $70 a day and yet the tremendous hardships he faced was incredible (including a ludicrous $40 for a bandage in a hospital, and some $500 for just being seen to).
o More fundamental than that though, for example, is a critique from Columbia University, called How not to count the poor 8. The report describes an ill-defined poverty line, a misleading and inaccurate measure of purchasing power equivalence, and false precision as the three main errors that may lead to “a large understatement of the extent of global income poverty and to an incorrect inference that it has declined.” (Emphasis added). This allows the World Bank to insist that the world is indeed “on the right track” in terms of poverty reduction strategy, attributing this “success” to the design and implementation of “good” or “better policies”.
* But the statistic is not lost on some of the most prominent people in the world
o The New York Times in one of their email updates, in their Quote of the Day section, for July 18, 2001 provided the following quote: “A world where some live in comfort and plenty, while half of the human race lives on less than $2 a day, is neither just, nor stable.” — President Bush
o See also James Wolfenson, The Other Crisis, World Bank, October 1998 who said: “Today, across the world, 1.3 billion people live on less than one dollar a day; 3 billion live on under two dollars a day; 1.3 billion have no access to clean water; 3 billion have no access to sanitation; 2 billion have no access to electricity.” (See also note 21 below.)
o Koffi Anan, UN Secretary General, in a speech9 on the International Day for the Eradication of Poverty, 17 October 2000, said “Almost half the world’s population lives on less than two dollars a day, yet even this statistic fails to capture the humiliation, powerlessness and brutal hardship that is the daily lot of the world’s poor.”
2) Ignacio Ramonet, The politics of hunger10, Le Monde Diplomatique, November 1998
3) The State of the World’s Children, 199911, UNICEF
4) State of the World12, Issue 287 - Feb 1997, New Internationalist
5) See the following:
* Holding Transnationals Accountable13, IPS, August 11, 1998
* Top 200: The Rise of Corporate Global Power14, by Sarah Anderson and John Cavanagh, Institute for Policy Studies, November 2000
6) The Corporate Planet15, Corporate Watch, 1997
7) Debt - The facts16, Issue 312 - May 1999, New Internationalist
8) 1998 Human Development Report17, United Nations Development Programme
9) 1999 Human Development Report18, United Nations Development Programme
10) Ibid
11) Ibid
12) Missing the Target; The price of empty promises19, Oxfam, June 2000
13) Global Development Finance20, World Bank, 1999
14) Economics forever; Building sustainability into economic policy21 PANOS Briefing 38, March 2000
15) Human Development Report 200022, p. 82, United Nations Development Programme
16) Ibid, p. 82
17) Ibid, p. 73
18) World Resources Institute Pilot Analysis of Global Ecosystems, February 2001, (in the Food Feed and Fiber section23). Note, that dispite the food production rate being better than population growth rate, there is still so much hunger around the world.
19) See the following:
* Progress of Nations 200024, UNICEF, 2000;
* Robert E. Black, Saul S Morris, Jennifer Bryce, Where and why are 10 million children dying every year?25, The Lancet, Volume 361, Number 9376, 28 June 2003. (Note, while the article title says 10 million, their paper says 10.8 million.)
* State of the World’s Children, 2005, UNICEF (this cites the number as 10.6 million in 2003)
Note that the statistic cited uses children as those under the age of five. If it was say 6, or 7, the numbers would be even higher.
20) The Scorecard on Globalization 1980-2000: Twenty Years of Diminished Progress 26, by Mark Weisbrot, Dean Baker, Egor Kraev and Judy Chen, Center for Economic Policy and Research, August 2001.
21) 2006 United Nations Human Development Report 27, pp.6, 7, 35
22) Larry Elliott, A cure worse than the disease28, The Guardian, January 21, 2002
23) John Cavanagh and Sarah Anderson , World’s Billionaires Take a Hit, But Still Soar29, The Institute for Policy Studies, March 6, 2002
24) Maude Barlow, Water as Commodity - The Wrong Prescription30, The Institute for Food and Development Policy, Backgrounder, Summer 2001, Vol. 7, No. 3
25) Consumerism31, Volunteer Now! (undated)
26) State of the World’s Children, 2005 32, UNICEF
27) Eileen Alt Powell, Some 600,000 join millionaire ranks in 2004 33, Associate Press, June 9, 2005
Online Sources:
(Note that listed here are only those hyperlinks to other articles from other web sites or elsewhere on this web site. Other sources such as journal, books and magazines, are mentioned above in the original text. Please also note that links to external sites are beyond my control. They might become unavailable temporarily or permanently since you read this, depending on the policies of those sites, which I cannot unfortunately do anything about.)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
1. 'PPP Glossary Definition', Biz/ed web site, http://bized.ac.uk/cgi-bin/glossarydb/browse.pl?glostopic=1&glos
id=401
2. http://mondediplo.com/1998/11/01leader
Note, if the above link has expired, please try the following alternative
http://www.zmag.org/crisescurevts/hunger.htm
3. http://www.transparency.org/iacc/9th_iacc/papers/day1/plenary/d1
pl_jwolfensohn.html
4. Web Archive’s archive of the article, http://web.archive.org/web/20010321003640/http://www.earthtimes.
org/oct/developmentmarchrecognizesoct24_00.htm
5. http://www.povertymap.net/mapsgraphics/index.cfm?data_id=23417&t
heme=
6. Prof. Michel Chossudovsky, 'Global Falsehoods: How the World Bank and the UNDP Distort the Figures on Global Poverty', TFF, 1999, http://www.transnational.org/features/chossu_worldbank.html
7. '30 Days Minimum Wage', More4 (part of Channel 4 in the UK), first broadcast November 2005, http://www.channel4.com/more4/documentaries/doc-feature.jsp?id=12
8. Sanjay G. Reddy and Thomas W. Pogge, 'How not to count the poor', Columbia University, June 14, 2002, http://www.columbia.edu/~sr793/count.pdf
Note, if the above link has expired, please try the following alternative locations:
* This reposted version is in HTML, whereas the original link is to a PDF document
http://www.brettonwoodsproject.org/article.shtml?
cmd[126]=i-126-241b14a5be9a5b47cd5a88778ac79532
* Institute of Social Analysis, an organization set up by Colombia University
http://www.socialanalysis.org
9. http://www.un.org/events/poverty2000/messages.htm
10. http://mondediplo.com/1998/11/01leader
11. http://www.unicef.org/sowc99/index.html
12. http://www.newint.org/issue287/keynote.html
13. http://www.oneworld.org/ips2/aug98/16_20_084.html
14. http://www.ips-dc.org/reports/top200.htm
15. http://www.corpwatch.org/trac/feature/planet/fact_3.html
16. http://www.newint.org/issue312/facts.htm
17. http://hdr.undp.org/reports/global/1998/en/
18. http://hdr.undp.org/reports/global/1999/en/
19. http://www.oxfam.org.uk/press/releases/target.htm
20. http://www.worldbank.org/prospects/gdf99/
21. http://www.panos.org.uk/global/reportdownload.asp?type=report&id
=1000&reportid=1006
22. http://hdr.undp.org/reports/global/2000/en/
23. http://www.wri.org/wr2000/agro_food.html
24. http://www.unicef.org/pon00/immu1.htm
25. http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS01406736031
37798/fulltext
26. http://www.cepr.net/globalization/scorecard_on_globalization.htm
Note, if the above link has expired, please try the following alternative
http://www.attac.org/fra/toil/doc/cepr05.htm
27. http://hdr.undp.org/hdr2006/
Note, if the above link has expired, please try the following alternative
Full report, 8Mb in size
http://hdr.undp.org/hdr2006/pdfs/report/HDR06-complete.pdf
28. http://www.guardian.co.uk/debt/Story/0,2763,636624,00.html
29. http://www.ips-dc.org/projects/global_econ/billionaires.htm
30. http://www.foodfirst.org/pubs/backgrdrs/2001/s01v7n3.html
31. http://volunteernow.ca/take_action/issues_consumerism.htm
32. http://www.unicef.org/sowc05/english/index.html
Note, if the above link has expired, please try the following alternative locations:
* Actual report
http://www.unicef.org/sowc05/english/sowc05.pdf
* Home page for the report
http://www.unicef.org/sowc05/
* News report mentioning these stats from Inter Press Service
http://ipsnews.net/new_nota.asp?idnews=27504
33. http://www.charlotte.com/mld/charlotte/business/industries/11853
644.htm
Note, if the above link has expired, please try the following alternative locations:
* http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/world_wealth
* Google search result
http://www.google.com/search?lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-
8&q=Some%20600%2C000%20join%20millionaire%20ranks%20in%202004
* http://thinkprogress.org/index.php?p=1062
* by Anup Shah
* Created: Monday, July 20, 1998
* Last Updated: Friday, November 24, 2006
“When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist.” — Dom Helda Camara
© Copyright 1998–2007
Read more!!
Monday, January 8, 2007
DRANT #207: UPDATE: THE BUSH VICTORY IN IRAQ
After DRANT #206 was sent, the mail brought some terrific stuff, (available below) which provide brilliant and essential new insight and precise facts- I urge you to read them in their entirety. Links are provided.
Excerpts from DRANT (#206)--
"...Bush may be a dummy, but the people who run him are not, and their global aims are best served by disorder, destabilization, and conflict, locally and globally...Chaos and disorder are not the unintended negative byproducts of stupidity, but rather are the desired results of a well-conceived and long standing plan-- to serve not the best interests of the world, humanity or even the USA, but to fulfill a limitless greed for power, money and domination.
Every "stupid" move the dummies have made has not only been brilliantly designed, but - to this point, extraordinarily successful..."
"Who gains ?" The USA and Israel gain. The Carlyle Group and Halliburton and Bechtel and the other members of the rapacious herd of American arms manufacturers and dealers reallllly gain. They create chaos, disorder, enmity, breakdown, thus justifying the arming and installation of still more nations, and their occupying troops and "contractors" -- further to impose their odious control and fatten their hideously bulging wallets.
None of this is by mistake...The USA plan is and has always been precisely to sow and proliferate and cause and finance and impose and ARM chaos, disorder, mutual annihilation, internecine "civil" warfare, the collapse of infrastructure and the very breakdown of society...The politicians cry beloved country, and claim to act for the security of the "Homeland" and "American Values" and "Democracy" -- but really folks, its all about BUSINESS."
"...It would seem that US policy regarding Iraq, Iran and Saddam was consistent only in its self-contradictory inconsistency and illogic.
But -- that's only if one assumes that the US Government works on behalf of We (the group formerly known as) The People.
Once you realize that the US Government has actually been working for Big Oil and the Global corporations, everything they did makes sense."
"Paul Bremer was sent to Iraq to create chaos and destabilize what remained of Iraq. Once in power, he created an environment where the oil could be pumped with no accountability, oversight or basic record keeping, and where staggering piles of cash (over $12 billion) flew all over the country without the most rudimentary accounting controls.
"...All of this subverted the most fundamental elements of the interests of the USA, escalating the casualty rate to quadruple the previous, greatly energized the insurgency, and serving the interests only of the global corporations trafficking in oil, arms, and the so-called reconstruction of Iraq: KBR (Halliburton), Bechtel, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Blackwater Security, G.E. and myriad others including poppa Bush's Carlyle Group of course.
"... Many American businesses may have bitten the dust in the years since Desert Storm, but the arms business has metastasized to DOUBLE what it was in 1990. By sowing global destabilization, the American arms industry has now grown to comprise approximately twenty percent of the entire annual national budget.
The price of gas at the pump has nearly doubled, from $1.75 to approximately $3.00 since 2001.
The profits of the major oil companies have exploded exponentially, to the point where Exxon posted the largest corporate quarterly profit in history.
The value of Halliburton's shares have more than tripled since the invasion, in obscene but clear proportion to the numbers of Iraqi and American casualties, the more death, the more profit. Cheney's personal Halliburton portfolio has appreciated- get this-- three THOUSAND percent.
And let's be sure and include alla US GUYS. The Dow has set new records, and investors are celebrating. The stock market businesses, traders, funds, etc. and their clients - -- (does this mean you Bunky ?) are raking in stupifying profits. Goldman Sachs made (no kidding) 93 million dollars in PROFIT in the last quarter, for a total of 14 BILLION dollars pre tax PROFIT in 2006.
Forgive me, but I see no bungling here. No stupidity.
Nor do I see a drop of idiocy or mishandling in the capture, trial or lynching of Saddam Hussein.
"...A final footnote: Yesterday, the Iraqi (sic) Government announced a new law whereby Iraq's Oil reserves will be handed to foreign oil corporations, primarily Exxon, BP, Shell, Chevron, on terms that are profoundly unfair to the people of Iraq, and (no surprise here) grossly favorable to Big Oil.
I just thought you might wanna know.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
1.
New Oil Law Means Victory in Iraq for Bush
By Chris Floyd t r u t h o u t | UK Correspondent
Monday 08 January 2007
"...Iraq not only has the world's second largest oil reserves; it also has the world's most easily retrievable oil. As the Independent succinctly notes: "The cost-per-barrel of extracting oil in Iraq is among the lowest in the world because the reserves are relatively close to the surface. This contrasts starkly with the expensive and risky lengths to which the oil industry must go to find new reserves elsewhere - witness the super-deep offshore drilling and cost-intensive techniques needed to extract oil form Canada's tar sands."
This is precisely what Cheney was getting at in his 1999 talk to the Institute of Petroleum. In a world of dwindling petroleum resources, those who control large reserves of cheaply-produced oil will reap unimaginable profits - and command the heights of the global economy. It's not just about profit, of course; control of such resources would offer tremendous strategic advantages to anyone who was interested in "full spectrum domination" of world affairs, which the Bush-Cheney faction and their outriders among the neo-cons and the "national greatness" fanatics have openly sought for years. With its twin engines of corporate greed and military empire, the war in Iraq is a marriage made in Valhalla."
"...And this unholy union is what Bush is really talking about when he talks about "victory." This is the reason for so much of the drift and dithering and chaos and incompetence of the occupation: Bush and his cohorts don't really care what happens on the ground in Iraq - they care about what comes out of the ground. The end - profit and dominion - justifies any means. What happens to the human beings caught up in the war is of no ultimate importance; the game is worth any number of broken candles.
And in plain point of fact, the Bush-Cheney faction - and the elite interests they represent - has already won the war in Iraq. I've touched on this theme before elsewhere, but it is a reality of the war that is very often overlooked, and is worth examining again. This ultimate victory was clear as long ago as June 2004, when I first set down the original version of some of the updated observations below.
Put simply, the Bush Family and their allies and cronies represent the confluence of three long-established power factions in the American elite: oil, arms and investments. These groups equate their own interests, their own wealth and privilege, with the interests of the nation - indeed, the world - as a whole. And they pursue these interests with every weapon at their command, including war, torture, deceit and corruption. Democracy means nothing to them - not even in their own country, as we saw in the 2000 election. Laws are just whips to keep the common herd in line; they don't apply to the elite, as Bush's own lawyers and minions have openly asserted in the memos, signing statements, court cases and presidential decrees asserting the "inherent power" of the "unitary executive" to override any law he pleases.
The Iraq war has been immensely profitable for these Bush-linked power factions (and their tributary industries, such as construction); billions of dollars in public money have already poured into their coffers. Halliburton has been catapulted from the edge of bankruptcy to the heights of no-bid, open-ended, guaranteed profit. The Carlyle Group is gorging on war contracts. Individual Bush family members are making out like bandits from war-related investments, while dozens of Bush minions - like Richard Perle, James Woolsey, and Joe Allbaugh - have cashed in their insider chips for blood money."
2.
U.S. Arms Sales: Agreements with and Deliveries to Major Clients, 1998-2005 -
[pdf format]
3.
Paper: 'Blood and oil; How the West will make a killing on Iraqi oil riches'
Ron Brynaert
Published: Sunday January 7, 2007
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
DRANT now at: http://drantblog.com · POB 411197 · San Francisco · CA · 94141 1197
If you wish to UNSUBSCRIBE, please just reply to this email, and put UNSUBSCRIBE in the Subject line of your email.
Thanks.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
David Rubinson
,,,, ,,,,
\\\ ///
~~~~~~~~~~{ô¿ô}~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~( . ) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
:::::::::::::::::: ooo:::ooo :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
:::::::::::::::::: ( ) :::( )::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
( ) ( )
in J A M A I C A
YAH !! MON !!
--------------------------------
To Subscribe to DRANT please click here- http://drrant.blogspot.com
Ill-tempered, Iconoclastic, Impatient and Ideologically-unpredictable views, comments, and sources about the World, how we humans are messing it up, and how we can all DO SOMETHING about it.
--------------------------------------
"...Ultimately, the ease with which Western academics casually decide to reshape the countries of their choice owes itself to the continuing legacy of Orientalism. In classic nineteenth century style, the chattering classes suggest that Iraq, despite its five thousand-year history, is now incapable of managing itself, and so its fate must be decided by outside powers...To bolster their case, the myth of ancient sectarian hatreds, a staple of the 'humanitarian intervention’ crowd, is rehashed and fed on a daily basis by journalists who neither question the authorship of "sectarian" attacks nor report the view of ordinary Iraqis, who blame the Occupation army and its puppet government for the orchestrated chaos..."
David Montoute
The Strategy of Disintegration: False flags, dirty tricks and the dismemberment of Iraq
http://mparent7777.blogspot.com/2006/12/strategy-of-disintegration-false-flags.html
December 22, 2006
Read more!!
Excerpts from DRANT (#206)--
"...Bush may be a dummy, but the people who run him are not, and their global aims are best served by disorder, destabilization, and conflict, locally and globally...Chaos and disorder are not the unintended negative byproducts of stupidity, but rather are the desired results of a well-conceived and long standing plan-- to serve not the best interests of the world, humanity or even the USA, but to fulfill a limitless greed for power, money and domination.
Every "stupid" move the dummies have made has not only been brilliantly designed, but - to this point, extraordinarily successful..."
"Who gains ?" The USA and Israel gain. The Carlyle Group and Halliburton and Bechtel and the other members of the rapacious herd of American arms manufacturers and dealers reallllly gain. They create chaos, disorder, enmity, breakdown, thus justifying the arming and installation of still more nations, and their occupying troops and "contractors" -- further to impose their odious control and fatten their hideously bulging wallets.
None of this is by mistake...The USA plan is and has always been precisely to sow and proliferate and cause and finance and impose and ARM chaos, disorder, mutual annihilation, internecine "civil" warfare, the collapse of infrastructure and the very breakdown of society...The politicians cry beloved country, and claim to act for the security of the "Homeland" and "American Values" and "Democracy" -- but really folks, its all about BUSINESS."
"...It would seem that US policy regarding Iraq, Iran and Saddam was consistent only in its self-contradictory inconsistency and illogic.
But -- that's only if one assumes that the US Government works on behalf of We (the group formerly known as) The People.
Once you realize that the US Government has actually been working for Big Oil and the Global corporations, everything they did makes sense."
"Paul Bremer was sent to Iraq to create chaos and destabilize what remained of Iraq. Once in power, he created an environment where the oil could be pumped with no accountability, oversight or basic record keeping, and where staggering piles of cash (over $12 billion) flew all over the country without the most rudimentary accounting controls.
"...All of this subverted the most fundamental elements of the interests of the USA, escalating the casualty rate to quadruple the previous, greatly energized the insurgency, and serving the interests only of the global corporations trafficking in oil, arms, and the so-called reconstruction of Iraq: KBR (Halliburton), Bechtel, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Blackwater Security, G.E. and myriad others including poppa Bush's Carlyle Group of course.
"... Many American businesses may have bitten the dust in the years since Desert Storm, but the arms business has metastasized to DOUBLE what it was in 1990. By sowing global destabilization, the American arms industry has now grown to comprise approximately twenty percent of the entire annual national budget.
The price of gas at the pump has nearly doubled, from $1.75 to approximately $3.00 since 2001.
The profits of the major oil companies have exploded exponentially, to the point where Exxon posted the largest corporate quarterly profit in history.
The value of Halliburton's shares have more than tripled since the invasion, in obscene but clear proportion to the numbers of Iraqi and American casualties, the more death, the more profit. Cheney's personal Halliburton portfolio has appreciated- get this-- three THOUSAND percent.
And let's be sure and include alla US GUYS. The Dow has set new records, and investors are celebrating. The stock market businesses, traders, funds, etc. and their clients - -- (does this mean you Bunky ?) are raking in stupifying profits. Goldman Sachs made (no kidding) 93 million dollars in PROFIT in the last quarter, for a total of 14 BILLION dollars pre tax PROFIT in 2006.
Forgive me, but I see no bungling here. No stupidity.
Nor do I see a drop of idiocy or mishandling in the capture, trial or lynching of Saddam Hussein.
"...A final footnote: Yesterday, the Iraqi (sic) Government announced a new law whereby Iraq's Oil reserves will be handed to foreign oil corporations, primarily Exxon, BP, Shell, Chevron, on terms that are profoundly unfair to the people of Iraq, and (no surprise here) grossly favorable to Big Oil.
I just thought you might wanna know.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
1.
New Oil Law Means Victory in Iraq for Bush
By Chris Floyd t r u t h o u t | UK Correspondent
Monday 08 January 2007
"...Iraq not only has the world's second largest oil reserves; it also has the world's most easily retrievable oil. As the Independent succinctly notes: "The cost-per-barrel of extracting oil in Iraq is among the lowest in the world because the reserves are relatively close to the surface. This contrasts starkly with the expensive and risky lengths to which the oil industry must go to find new reserves elsewhere - witness the super-deep offshore drilling and cost-intensive techniques needed to extract oil form Canada's tar sands."
This is precisely what Cheney was getting at in his 1999 talk to the Institute of Petroleum. In a world of dwindling petroleum resources, those who control large reserves of cheaply-produced oil will reap unimaginable profits - and command the heights of the global economy. It's not just about profit, of course; control of such resources would offer tremendous strategic advantages to anyone who was interested in "full spectrum domination" of world affairs, which the Bush-Cheney faction and their outriders among the neo-cons and the "national greatness" fanatics have openly sought for years. With its twin engines of corporate greed and military empire, the war in Iraq is a marriage made in Valhalla."
"...And this unholy union is what Bush is really talking about when he talks about "victory." This is the reason for so much of the drift and dithering and chaos and incompetence of the occupation: Bush and his cohorts don't really care what happens on the ground in Iraq - they care about what comes out of the ground. The end - profit and dominion - justifies any means. What happens to the human beings caught up in the war is of no ultimate importance; the game is worth any number of broken candles.
And in plain point of fact, the Bush-Cheney faction - and the elite interests they represent - has already won the war in Iraq. I've touched on this theme before elsewhere, but it is a reality of the war that is very often overlooked, and is worth examining again. This ultimate victory was clear as long ago as June 2004, when I first set down the original version of some of the updated observations below.
Put simply, the Bush Family and their allies and cronies represent the confluence of three long-established power factions in the American elite: oil, arms and investments. These groups equate their own interests, their own wealth and privilege, with the interests of the nation - indeed, the world - as a whole. And they pursue these interests with every weapon at their command, including war, torture, deceit and corruption. Democracy means nothing to them - not even in their own country, as we saw in the 2000 election. Laws are just whips to keep the common herd in line; they don't apply to the elite, as Bush's own lawyers and minions have openly asserted in the memos, signing statements, court cases and presidential decrees asserting the "inherent power" of the "unitary executive" to override any law he pleases.
The Iraq war has been immensely profitable for these Bush-linked power factions (and their tributary industries, such as construction); billions of dollars in public money have already poured into their coffers. Halliburton has been catapulted from the edge of bankruptcy to the heights of no-bid, open-ended, guaranteed profit. The Carlyle Group is gorging on war contracts. Individual Bush family members are making out like bandits from war-related investments, while dozens of Bush minions - like Richard Perle, James Woolsey, and Joe Allbaugh - have cashed in their insider chips for blood money."
2.
U.S. Arms Sales: Agreements with and Deliveries to Major Clients, 1998-2005 -
[pdf format]
3.
Paper: 'Blood and oil; How the West will make a killing on Iraqi oil riches'
Ron Brynaert
Published: Sunday January 7, 2007
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
DRANT now at: http://drantblog.com · POB 411197 · San Francisco · CA · 94141 1197
If you wish to UNSUBSCRIBE, please just reply to this email, and put UNSUBSCRIBE in the Subject line of your email.
Thanks.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
David Rubinson
,,,, ,,,,
\\\ ///
~~~~~~~~~~{ô¿ô}~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~( . ) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
:::::::::::::::::: ooo:::ooo :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
:::::::::::::::::: ( ) :::( )::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
( ) ( )
in J A M A I C A
YAH !! MON !!
--------------------------------
To Subscribe to DRANT please click here- http://drrant.blogspot.com
Ill-tempered, Iconoclastic, Impatient and Ideologically-unpredictable views, comments, and sources about the World, how we humans are messing it up, and how we can all DO SOMETHING about it.
--------------------------------------
"...Ultimately, the ease with which Western academics casually decide to reshape the countries of their choice owes itself to the continuing legacy of Orientalism. In classic nineteenth century style, the chattering classes suggest that Iraq, despite its five thousand-year history, is now incapable of managing itself, and so its fate must be decided by outside powers...To bolster their case, the myth of ancient sectarian hatreds, a staple of the 'humanitarian intervention’ crowd, is rehashed and fed on a daily basis by journalists who neither question the authorship of "sectarian" attacks nor report the view of ordinary Iraqis, who blame the Occupation army and its puppet government for the orchestrated chaos..."
David Montoute
The Strategy of Disintegration: False flags, dirty tricks and the dismemberment of Iraq
http://mparent7777.blogspot.com/2006/12/strategy-of-disintegration-false-flags.html
December 22, 2006
Read more!!
Sunday, January 7, 2007
DRANT: SPECIAL EDITION: THE COMPLETE STORY
You must stop what you are doing, and sit down and read this.
All of it.
Slowly.
Then send it everywhere you can, to everyone you know. Even the people who you know will hate it. Even people who support Israel. You may very well lose a friend or a relative -- but man, this is the time.
It's all here, and it's all REAL, and we must do something about it - now.
The threat of an actual NUCLEAR attack on Iran is not some flaky British coocoo musing.
Read the brilliant and unsurpassingly well researched Chossudovsky article, and its there in every detail.
Look, if this doesn't get you off your ass and out in the street, if you can't see that this Arma is really Geddon down right now-
If this is all nice and kosher for you - then do nothing.
But that boom you hear may not be as far away as it sounds.
DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Global Research Feature Article
URL of this article: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=CHO20070107&articleId=4361
www.GlobalResearch.ca
Planned US-Israeli Nuclear Attack on Iran
by Michel Chossudovsky
Global Research, January 7, 2007
GlobalResearch.ca
According to a report in the London's Sunday Times (7 January 2007): (Note: for the actual complete article click HERE.)
The nuclear-tipped bunker-busters would be used only if a conventional attack was ruled out and if the United States declined to intervene, senior sources said. "Two Israeli air force squadrons are training to blow up an Iranian facility using low-yield nuclear “bunker-busters”, according to several Israeli military sources.
The attack would be the first with nuclear weapons since 1945, when the United States dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The Israeli weapons would each have a force equivalent to one-fifteenth of the Hiroshima bomb.
Under the plans, conventional laser-guided bombs would open “tunnels” into the targets. “Mini-nukes” would then immediately be fired into a plant at Natanz, exploding deep underground to reduce the risk of radioactive fallout.
“As soon as the green light is given, it will be one mission, one strike and the Iranian nuclear project will be demolished,” said one of the sources.
The plans, disclosed to The Sunday Times last week, have been prompted in part by the Israeli intelligence service Mossad’s assessment that Iran is on the verge of producing enough enriched uranium to make nuclear weapons within two years
Israeli military commanders believe conventional strikes may no longer be enough to annihilate increasingly well-defended enrichment facilities. Several have been built beneath at least 70ft of concrete and rock. However, the nuclear-tipped bunker-busters would be used only if a conventional attack was ruled out and if the United States declined to intervene, senior sources said.
For two years, the Western media has remained notoriously silent on what has already been known and documented, namely the threat of a US-Israeli sponsored nuclear holocaust. The anti-war movement has failed to address it.
This belated report by the London Times confirms what the media has ommitted from its reports in the course of the last two years. The release of this information at this particular juncture could also serve to galvanize the support of public opinion in favour of a first US-Israeli strike nuclear attack on Iran.
It is abosulteley essential that people around the World act decisively to prevent the use of nukes against Iran.
We bring to the consideration of our readers the following text by Michel Chossudovsky, published in May 2005, which contains a Timeline of military planning and details on weapons systems to be used in the case of an attack on Iran, using both conventional and nuclear weapons.
This text was followed by several other articles, which carefully document the US-Israeli nuclear threat, which provide details
Planned US-Israeli Attack on Iran
by Michel Chossudovsky
Global Research, May 1, 2005
Excerpts (scroll down for complete article )
.
The World is at an important crossroads.
The Bush Administration has embarked upon a military adventure which threatens the future of humanity.
Iran is the next military target. The planned military operation, which is by no means limited to punitive strikes against Iran's nuclear facilities, is part of a project of World domination, a military roadmap, launched at the end of the Cold War.
Military action against Iran would directly involve Israel's participation, which in turn is likely to trigger a broader war throughout the Middle East, not to mention an implosion in the Palestinian occupied territories. Turkey is closely associated with the proposed aerial attacks.
Israel is a nuclear power with a sophisticated nuclear arsenal. (See text box below). The use of nuclear weapons by Israel or the US cannot be excluded, particularly in view of the fact that tactical nuclear weapons have now been reclassified as a variant of the conventional bunker buster bombs and are authorized by the US Senate for use in conventional war theaters. ("they are harmless to civilians because the explosion is underground")
In this regard, Israel and the US rather than Iran constitute a nuclear threat.
The planned attack on Iran must be understood in relation to the existing active war theaters in the Middle East, namely Afghanistan, Iraq and Palestine.
The conflict could easily spread from the Middle East to the Caspian sea basin. It could also involve the participation of Azerbaijan and Georgia, where US troops are stationed.
An attack on Iran would have a direct impact on the resistance movement inside Iraq. It would also put pressure on America's overstretched military capabilities and resources in both the Iraqi and Afghan war theaters. (The 150,000 US troops in Iraq are already fully engaged and could not be redeployed in the case of a war with Iran.)
In other words, the shaky geopolitics of the Central Asia- Middle East region, the three existing war theaters in which America is currently, involved, the direct participation of Israel and Turkey, the structure of US sponsored military alliances, etc. raises the specter of a broader conflict.
Moreover, US military action on Iran not only threatens Russian and Chinese interests, which have geopolitical interests in the Caspian sea basin and which have bilateral agreements with Iran. It also backlashes on European oil interests in Iran and is likely to produce major divisions between Western allies, between the US and its European partners as well as within the European Union.
Through its participation in NATO, Europe, despite its reluctance, would be brought into the Iran operation. The participation of NATO largely hinges on a military cooperation agreement reached between NATO and Israel. This agreement would bind NATO to defend Israel against Syria and Iran. NATO would therefore support a preemptive attack on Iran's nuclear facilities, and could take on a more active role if Iran were to retaliate following US-Israeli air strikes.
Needless to say, the war against Iran is part of a longer term US military agenda which seeks to militarize the entire Caspian sea basin, eventually leading to the destabilization and conquest of the Russian Federation.
See also:
The Dangers of a Middle East Nuclear War, by Michel Chossudovsky (This article goes into detail on nuclear weapons and nuclear policy), February 2006
Nuclear War against Iran, by Michel Chossudovsky, January 2006
Is the Bush Adminstration planning a Nuclear Holocaust, Febraury 2006
COMPLETE ARTICLE
Planned US-Israeli Attack on Iran
by Michel Chossudovsky
Global Research, May 1, 2005
At the outset of Bush's second term, Vice President Dick Cheney dropped a bombshell. He hinted, in no uncertain terms, that Iran was "right at the top of the list" of the rogue enemies of America, and that Israel would, so to speak, "be doing the bombing for us", without US military involvement and without us putting pressure on them "to do it":
"One of the concerns people have is that Israel might do it without being asked... Given the fact that Iran has a stated policy that their objective is the destruction of Israel, the Israelis might well decide to act first, and let the rest of the world worry about cleaning up the diplomatic mess afterwards," (quoted from an MSNBC Interview Jan 2005)
Israel is a Rottweiler on a leash: The US wants to "set Israel loose" to attack Iran. Commenting the Vice President's assertion, former National Security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski in an interview on PBS, confirmed with some apprehension, yes: Cheney wants Prime Ariel Sharon to act on America's behalf and "do it" for us:
"Iran I think is more ambiguous. And there the issue is certainly not tyranny; it's nuclear weapons. And the vice president today in a kind of a strange parallel statement to this declaration of freedom hinted that the Israelis may do it and in fact used language which sounds like a justification or even an encouragement for the Israelis to do it."
The foregoing statements are misleading. The US is not "encouraging Israel". What we are dealing with is a joint US-Israeli military operation to bomb Iran, which has been in the active planning stage for more than a year. The Neocons in the Defense Department, under Douglas Feith, have been working assiduously with their Israeli military and intelligence counterparts, carefully identifying targets inside Iran ( Seymour Hersh, http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/HER501A.html )
Under this working arrangement, Israel will not act unilaterally, without a green light from Washington. In other words, Israel will not implement an attack without the participation of the US.
Covert Intelligence Operations: Stirring Ethnic Tensions in Iran
Meanwhile, for the last two years, Washington has been involved in covert intelligence operations inside Iran. American and British intelligence and special forces (working with their Israeli counterparts) are involved in this operation.
"A British intelligence official said that any campaign against Iran would not be a ground war like the one in Iraq. The Americans will use different tactics, said the intelligence officer. 'It is getting quite scary.'" (Evening Standard, 17 June 2003, http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/FOX306A.html)
The expectation is that a US-Israeli bombing raid of Iran's nuclear facilities will stir up ethnic tensions and trigger "regime change" in favor of the US. (See Arab Monitor, http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/ARA502A.html).
Bush advisers believe that the "Iranian opposition movement" will unseat the Mullahs. This assessment constitutes a gross misjudgment of social forces inside Iran. What is more likely to occur is that Iranians will consistently rally behind a wartime government against foreign aggression. In fact, the entire Middle East and beyond would rise up against US interventionism.
Retaliation in the Case of a US-Israeli Aerial Attack
Tehran has confirmed that it will retaliate if attacked, in the form of ballistic missile strikes directed against Israel (CNN, 8 Feb 2005). These attacks, could also target US military facilities in the Persian Gulf, which would immediately lead us into a scenario of military escalation and all out war.
In other words, the air strikes against Iran could contribute to unleashing a war in the broader Middle East Central Asian region.
Moreover, the planned attack on Iran should also be understood in relation to the timely withdrawal of Syrian troops from Lebanon, which has opened up a new space, for the deployment of Israeli forces. The participation of Turkey in the US-Israeli military operation is also a factor, following an agreement reached between Ankara and Tel Aviv.
In other words, US and Israeli military planners must carefully weigh the far-reaching implications of their actions.
Israel Builds up its Stockpile of Deadly Military Hardware
A massive buildup in military hardware has occurred in preparation for a possible attack on Iran.
Israel has recently taken delivery from the US of some 5,000"smart air launched weapons" including some 500 BLU 109 'bunker-buster bombs. The (uranium coated) munitions are said to be more than "adequate to address the full range of Iranian targets, with the possible exception of the buried facility at Natanz, which may require the [more powerful] BLU-113 bunker buster ":
"Given Israel's already substantial holdings of such weapons, this increase in its inventory would allow a sustained assault with or without further US involvement."(See Richard Bennett, http://globalresearch.ca/articles/BEN501A.html)
Gbu 28 Guided Bomb Unit-28 (GBU-28)
The Israeli Air Force would attack Iran's nuclear facility at Bushehr using US as well Israeli produced bunker buster bombs. The attack would be carried out in three separate waves "with the radar and communications jamming protection being provided by U.S. Air Force AWACS and other U.S. aircraft in the area". (See W Madsen, http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/MAD410A.html)
Bear in mind that the bunker buster bombs can also be used to deliver tactical nuclear bombs. The B61-11 is the "nuclear version" of the "conventional" BLU 113. It can be delivered in much same way as the conventional bunker buster bomb. (See Michel Chossudovsky,http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO112C.html, see also http://www.thebulletin.org/article_nn.php?art_ofn=jf03norris).
According to the Pentagon, tactical nuclear weapons are "safe for civilians". Their use has been authorized by the US Senate. (See Miochel Chossudovsky,http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO405A.html)
Moreover, reported in late 2003, Israeli Dolphin-class submarines equipped with US Harpoon missiles armed with nuclear warheads are now aimed at Iran. (See Gordon Thomas, http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/THO311A.html)
Even if tactical nuclear weapons are not used by Israel, an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities not only raises the specter of a broader war, but also of nuclear radiation over a wide area:
"To attack Iran's nuclear facilities will not only provoke war, but it could also unleash clouds of radiation far beyond the targets and the borders of Iran." (Statement of Prof Elias Tuma, Arab Internet Network, Federal News Service, 1 March 2005)
Moreover, while most reports have centered on the issue of punitive air strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities, the strikes would most probably extend to other targets.
While a ground war is contemplated as a possible "scenario" at the level of military planning, the US military would not be able to wage a an effective ground war, given the situation in Iraq. In the words of former National Security Adviser Lawrence Eagelberger:
"We are not going to get in a ground war in Iran, I hope. If we get into that, we are in serious trouble. I don't think anyone in Washington is seriously considering that." ( quoted in the National Journal, 4 December 2004).
Iran's Military Capabilities
Despite its overall weaknesses in relation to Israel and the US, Iran has an advanced air defense system, deployed to protect its nuclear sites; "they are dispersed and underground making potential air strikes difficult and without any guarantees of success." (Jerusalem Post, 20 April 2005). It has upgraded its Shahab-3 missile, which can reach targets in Israel. Iran's armed forces have recently conducted high-profile military exercises in anticipation of a US led attack. Iran also possesses some 12 X-55 strategic cruise missiles, produced by the Ukraine. Iran's air defense systems is said to feature Russian SA-2, SA-5, SA-6 as well as shoulder-launched SA-7 missiles (Jaffa Center for Strategic Studies).
The US "Military Road Map"
The Bush administration has officially identified Iran and Syria as the next stage of “the road map to war”.
Targeting Iran is a bipartisan project, which broadly serves the interests of the Anglo-American oil conglomerates, the Wall Street financial establishment and the military-industrial complex.
The broader Middle East-Central Asian region encompasses more than 70% of the World's reserves of oil and natural gas. Iran possesses 10% of the world's oil and ranks third after Saudi Arabia (25 %) and Iraq (11 %) in the size of its reserves. In comparison, the US possesses less than 2.8 % of global oil reserves. (See Eric Waddell, The Battle for Oil, http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/WAD412A.html)
The announcement to target Iran should come as no surprise. It is part of the battle for oil. Already during the Clinton administration, US Central Command (USCENTCOM) had formulated "in war theater plans" to invade both Iraq and Iran:
"The broad national security interests and objectives expressed in the President's National Security Strategy (NSS) and the Chairman's National Military Strategy (NMS) form the foundation of the United States Central Command's theater strategy. The NSS directs implementation of a strategy of dual containment of the rogue states of Iraq and Iran as long as those states pose a threat to U.S. interests, to other states in the region, and to their own citizens. Dual containment is designed to maintain the balance of power in the region without depending on either Iraq or Iran. USCENTCOM's theater strategy is interest-based and threat-focused. The purpose of U.S. engagement, as espoused in the NSS, is to protect the United States' vital interest in the region - uninterrupted, secure U.S./Allied access to Gulf oil.
(USCENTCOM, http://www.milnet.com/milnet/pentagon/centcom/chap1/stratgic.htm#USPolicy , emphasis added)
Main Military Actors
While the US, Israel, as well as Turkey (with borders with both Iran and Syria) are the main actors in this process, a number of other countries, in the region, allies of the US, including several Central Asian former Soviet republics have been enlisted. Britain is closely involved despite its official denials at the diplomatic level. Turkey occupies a central role in the Iran operation. It has an extensive military cooperation agreement with Israel. There are indications that NATO is also formally involved in the context of an Israel-NATO agreement reached in November 2004.
Planning The Aerial Attack on Iran
According to former weapons inspector Scott Ritter, George W. Bush has already signed off on orders for an aerial attack on Iran, scheduled for June.
(See http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/JEN502A.html)
The June cut-off date should be understood. It does not signify that the attack will occur in June. What it suggests is that the US and Israel are "in a state of readiness" and are prepared to launch an attack by June or at a later date. In other words, the decision to launch the attack has not been made.
Ritter's observation concerning an impending military operation should nonetheless be taken seriously. In recent months, there is ample evidence that a major military operation is in preparation:
1) several high profile military exercises have been conducted in recent months, involving military deployment and the testing of weapons systems.
2) military planning meetings have been held between the various parties involved. There has been a shuttle of military and government officials between Washington, Tel Aviv and Ankara.
3) A significant change in the military command structure in Israel has occurred, with the appointment of a new Chief of Staff.
4) Intense diplomatic exchanges have been carried out at the international level with a view to securing areas of military cooperation and/or support for a US-Israeli led military operation directed against Iran.
5) Ongoing intelligence operations inside Iran have been stepped up.
6) Consensus Building: Media propaganda on the need to intervene in Iran has been stepped up, with daily reports on how Iran constitutes a threat to peace and global security.
Timeline of Key Initiatives
In the last few months, various key initiatives have been taken, which are broadly indicative that an aerial bombing of Iran is in the military pipeline:
November 2004 in Brussels: NATO-Israel protocol: Israel's IDF delegation to the NATO conference to met with military brass of six members of the Mediterranean basin nations, including Egypt, Jordan, Algeria, Tunisia, Morocco, Algeria and Mauritania. "NATO seeks to revive the framework, known as the Mediterranean Dialogue program, which would include Israel. The Israeli delegation accepted to participate in military exercises and "anti-terror maneuvers" together with several Arab countries.
January 2005: the US, Israel and Turkey held military exercises in the Eastern Mediterranean , off the coast of Syria. These exercises, which have been held in previous years were described as routine.
February 2005. Following the decision reached in Brussels in November 2004, Israel was involved for the first time in military exercises with NATO, which also included several Arab countries.
February 2005: Assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri. The assassination, which was blamed on Syria, serves Israeli and US interests and was used as a pretext to demand the withdrawal of Syrian troops from Lebanon.
February 2005: Sharon fires his Chief-of-Staff, Moshe Ya’alon and appoints Air Force General Dan Halutz. This is the first time in Israeli history that an Air Force General is appointed Chief of Staff (See Uri Avnery, http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/AVN502A.html)
The appointment of Major General Dan Halutz as IDF Chief of Staff is considered in Israeli political circles as "the appointment of the right man at the right time." The central issue is that a major aerial operation against Iran is in the planning stage, and Maj General Halutz is slated to coordinate the aerial bombing raids on Iran. Halutz's appointment was specifically linked to Israel's Iran agenda: "As chief of staff, he will in the best position to prepare the military for such a scenario."
March 2005: NATO's Secretary General was in Jerusalem for follow-up talks with Ariel Sharon and Israel's military brass, following the joint NATO-Israel military exercise in February. These military cooperation ties are viewed by the Israeli military as a means to "enhance Israel's deterrence capability regarding potential enemies threatening it, mainly Iran and Syria." The premise underlying NATO-Israel military cooperation is that Israel is under attack:
"The more Israel's image is strengthened as a country facing enemies who attempt to attack it for no justified reason, the greater will be the possibility that aid will be extended to Israel by NATO. Furthermore, Iran and Syria will have to take into account the possibility that the increasing cooperation between Israel and NATO will strengthen Israel's links with Turkey, also a member of NATO. Given Turkey's impressive military potential and its geographic proximity to both Iran and Syria, Israel's operational options against them, if and when it sees the need, could gain considerable strength. " (Jaffa Center for Strategic Studies, http://www.tau.ac.il/jcss/sa/v7n4p4Shalom.html)
The Israel-NATO protocol is all the more important because it obligates NATO to align itself with the US-Israeli plan to bomb Iran, as an act of self defense on the part of Israel. It also means that NATO is also involved in the process of military consultations relating to the planned aerial bombing of Iran. It is of course related to the bilateral military cooperation agreement between Israel and Turkey and the likelihood that part of the military operation will be launched from Turkey, which is a member of NATO.
Late March 2005: News leaks in Israel indicated an "initial authorization" by Prime Minster Ariel Sharon of an Israeli attack on Iran's Natanz uranium enrichment plant "if diplomacy failed to stop Iran's nuclear program". (The Hindu, 28 March 2005)
March-April 2005: The Holding in Israel of Joint US-Israeli military exercises specifically pertaining to the launching of Patriot missiles.
US Patriot missile crews stationed in Germany were sent to Israel to participate in the joint Juniper Cobra exercise with the Israeli military. The exercise was described as routine and "unconnected to events in the Middle East": "As always, we are interested in implementing lessons learned from training exercises." (UPI, 9 March 2005).
April 2005: Donald Rumsfeld was on an official visits to Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Kyrgyzstan and Azerbaijan. His diplomatic endeavors were described by the Russian media as "literally circling Iran in an attempt to find the best bridgehead for a possible military operation against that country."
In Baku, Azerbaijan Rumsfeld was busy discussing the date for deployment of US troops in Azerbaijan on Iran's North-Western border. US military bases described as "mobile groups" in Azerbaijan are slated to play a role in a military operation directed against Iran.
Azerbaijan is a member of GUUAM, a military cooperation agreement with the US and NATO, which allows for the stationing of US troops in several of the member countries, including Georgia, Uzbekistan and Azerbaijan. The stated short term objective is to "neutralize Iran". The longer term objective under the Pentagon's "Caspian Plan" is to exert military and economic control over the entire Caspian sea basin, with a view to ensuring US authority over oil reserves and pipeline corridors.
During his visit in April, Rumsfeld was pushing the US initiative of establishing "American special task forces and military bases to secure US influence in the Caspian region:
"Called Caspian Watch, the project stipulates a network of special task forces and police units in the countries of the regions to be used in emergencies including threats to objects of the oil complex and pipelines. Project Caspian Watch will be financed by the United States ($100 million). It will become an advance guard of the US European Command whose zone of responsibility includes the Caspian region. Command center of the project with a powerful radar is to be located in Baku."( Defense and Security Russia, April 27, 2005)
Rumsfeld's visit followed shortly after that of Iranian President Mohammad Khatami's to Baku.
April 2005: Iran signs a military cooperation with Tajikistan, which occupies a strategic position bordering Afghanistan's Northern frontier. Tajikistan is a member of "The Shanghai Five" military cooperation group, which also includes Kazakhstan, China, Kyrgyzstan, and Russia. Iran also has economic cooperation agreements with Turkmenistan.
Mid April 2005: Israel Prime Minister Ariel Sharon meets George W Bush at his Texas Ranch. Iran is on the agenda of bilateral talks. More significantly, the visit of Ariel Sharon was used to carry out high level talks between US and Israeli military planners pertaining to Iran.
Late April 2005. President Vladmir Putin is in Israel on an official visit. He announces Russia's decision to sell short-range anti-aircraft missiles to Syria and to continue supporting Iran's nuclear industry. Beneath the gilded surface of international diplomacy, Putin's timely visit to Israel must be interpreted as "a signal to Israel" regarding its planned aerial attack on Iran.
Late April 2005: US pressure in the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has been exerted with a view to blocking the re-appointment of Mohammed Al Baradei, who according to US officials "is not being tough enough on Iran..." Following US pressures, the vote on the appointment of a new IAEA chief was put off until June. These developments suggest that Washington wants to put forth their own hand-picked nominee prior to launching US-Israeli aerial attacks on Iran's nuclear facilities. (See VOA, http://www.voanews.com/english/2005-04-27-voa51.cfm ). (In February 2003, Al Baradei along with UN chief weapons inspector Hans Blix challenged the (phony) intelligence on WMD presented by the US to the UN Security Council, with a view to justifying the war on Iraq.)
Late April 2005. Sale of deadly military hardware to Israel. GBU-28 Buster Bunker Bombs: Coinciding with Putin's visit to Israel, the US Defence Security Cooperation Agency (Department of Defense) announced the sale of an additional 100 bunker-buster bombs produced by Lockheed Martin to Israel. This decision was viewed by the US media as "a warning to Iran about its nuclear ambitions."
The sale pertains to the larger and more sophisticated "Guided Bomb Unit-28 (GBU-28) BLU-113 Penetrator" (including the WGU-36A/B guidance control unit and support equipment). The GBU-28 is described as "a special weapon for penetrating hardened command centers located deep underground. The fact of the matter is that the GBU-28 is among the World's most deadly "conventional" weapons used in the 2003 invasion of Iraq, capable of causing thousands of civilian deaths through massive explosions.
The Israeli Air Force are slated to use the GBU-28s on their F-15 aircraft. (See text of DSCA news release at http://www.dsca.osd.mil/PressReleases/36-b/2005/Israel_05-10_corrected.pdf)
Late April 2005- early May: Turkey's Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan in Israel for follow-up talks with Ariel Sharon. He was accompanied by his Defense Minister Vecdi Gonul, who met with senior Israeli military officials. On the official agenda of these talks: joint defense projects, including the joint production of Arrow II Theater Missile Defense and Popeye II missiles. The latter also known as the Have Lite, are advanced small missiles, designed for deployment on fighter planes. Tel Aviv and Ankara decide to establish a hotline to share intelligence.
May 2005: Syrian troops scheduled to withdraw from Lebanon, leading to a major shift in the Middle East security situation, in favor of Israel and the US.
Iran Surrounded
The US has troops and military bases in Turkey, Pakistan, Azerbaijan, Afghanistan, and of course Iraq.
In other words, Iran is virtually surrounded by US military bases. (see Map below). These countries as well as Turkmenistan, are members of NATO`s partnership for Peace Program. and have military cooperation agreements with NATO.
Copyright Eric Waddell, Global Research, 2003 (Click Map to enlarge)
In other words, we are dealing with a potentially explosive scenario in which a number of countries, including several former Soviet republics, could be brought into a US led war with Iran. IranAtom.ru, a Russian based news and military analysis group has suggested, in this regard:
"since Iranian nuclear objects are scattered all over the country, Israel will need a mass strike with different fly-in and fly-out approaches - Jordan, Iraq, Turkey, Azerbaijan, and other countries... Azerbaijan seriously fears Tehran's reaction should Baku issue a permit to Israeli aircraft to overfly its territory." (Defense and Security Russia, 12 April 2005).
Concluding remarks:
The World is at an important crossroads.
The Bush Administration has embarked upon a military adventure which threatens the future of humanity.
Iran is the next military target. The planned military operation, which is by no means limited to punitive strikes against Iran's nuclear facilities, is part of a project of World domination, a military roadmap, launched at the end of the Cold War.
Military action against Iran would directly involve Israel's participation, which in turn is likely to trigger a broader war throughout the Middle East, not to mention an implosion in the Palestinian occupied territories. Turkey is closely associated with the proposed aerial attacks.
Israel is a nuclear power with a sophisticated nuclear arsenal. (See text box below). The use of nuclear weapons by Israel or the US cannot be excluded, particularly in view of the fact that tactical nuclear weapons have now been reclassified as a variant of the conventional bunker buster bombs and are authorized by the US Senate for use in conventional war theaters. ("they are harmless to civilians because the explosion is underground")
In this regard, Israel and the US rather than Iran constitute a nuclear threat.
The planned attack on Iran must be understood in relation to the existing active war theaters in the Middle East, namely Afghanistan, Iraq and Palestine.
The conflict could easily spread from the Middle East to the Caspian sea basin. It could also involve the participation of Azerbaijan and Georgia, where US troops are stationed.
An attack on Iran would have a direct impact on the resistance movement inside Iraq. It would also put pressure on America's overstretched military capabilities and resources in both the Iraqi and Afghan war theaters. (The 150,000 US troops in Iraq are already fully engaged and could not be redeployed in the case of a war with Iran.)
In other words, the shaky geopolitics of the Central Asia- Middle East region, the three existing war theaters in which America is currently, involved, the direct participation of Israel and Turkey, the structure of US sponsored military alliances, etc. raises the specter of a broader conflict.
Moreover, US military action on Iran not only threatens Russian and Chinese interests, which have geopolitical interests in the Caspian sea basin and which have bilateral agreements with Iran. It also backlashes on European oil interests in Iran and is likely to produce major divisions between Western allies, between the US and its European partners as well as within the European Union.
Through its participation in NATO, Europe, despite its reluctance, would be brought into the Iran operation. The participation of NATO largely hinges on a military cooperation agreement reached between NATO and Israel. This agreement would bind NATO to defend Israel against Syria and Iran. NATO would therefore support a preemptive attack on Iran's nuclear facilities, and could take on a more active role if Iran were to retaliate following US-Israeli air strikes.
Needless to say, the war against Iran is part of a longer term US military agenda which seeks to militarize the entire Caspian sea basin, eventually leading to the destabilization and conquest of the Russian Federation.
The Antiwar Movement
The antiwar movement must act, consistently, to prevent the next phase of this war from happening.
This is no easy matter. The holding of large antiwar rallies will not in itself reverse the tide of war.
High ranking officials of the Bush administration, members of the military and the US Congress have been granted the authority to uphold an illegal war agenda.
What is required is a grass roots network, a mass movement at national and international levels, which challenges the legitimacy of the military and political actors, and which is ultimately instrumental in unseating those who rule in our name.
War criminals occupy positions of authority. The citizenry is galvanized into supporting the rulers, who are "committed to their safety and well-being". Through media disinformation, war is given a humanitarian mandate.
To reverse the tide of war, military bases must be closed down, the war machine (namely the production of advanced weapons systems) must be stopped and the burgeoning police state must be dismantled.
The corporate backers and sponsors of war and war crimes must also be targeted including the oil companies, the defense contractors, the financial institutions and the corporate media, which has become an integral part of the war propaganda machine.
Antiwar sentiment does not dismantle a war agenda. The war criminals in the US, Israel and Britain must be removed from high office.
What is needed is to reveal the true face of the American Empire and the underlying criminalization of US foreign policy, which uses the "war on terrorism" and the threat of Al Qaeda to galvanize public opinion in support of a global war agenda.
See also:
The Dangers of a Middle East Nuclear War, by Michel Chossudovsky (This article goes into detail on nuclear weapons and nuclear policy), February 2006
Nuclear War against Iran, by Michel Chossudovsky, January 2006
Is the Bush Adminstration planning a Nuclear Holocaust, February 2006
TEXT BOX: Israel's Nuclear Capabilities
With between 200 and 500 thermonuclear weapons and a sophisticated delivery system, Israel has quietly supplanted Britain as the World's 5th Largest nuclear power, and may currently rival France and China in the size and sophistication of its nuclear arsenal. Although dwarfed by the nuclear arsenals of the U.S. and Russia, each possessing over 10,000 nuclear weapons, Israel nonetheless is a major nuclear power, and should be publicly recognized as such.
Today, estimates of the Israeli nuclear arsenal range from a minimum of 200 to a maximum of about 500. Whatever the number, there is little doubt that Israeli nukes are among the world's most sophisticated, largely designed for "war fighting" in the Middle East. A staple of the Israeli nuclear arsenal are "neutron bombs," miniaturized thermonuclear bombs designed to maximize deadly gamma radiation while minimizing blast effects and long term radiation- in essence designed to kill people while leaving property intact.(16) Weapons include ballistic missiles and bombers capable of reaching Moscow...
The bombs themselves range in size from "city busters" larger than the Hiroshima Bomb to tactical mini nukes. The Israeli arsenal of weapons of mass destruction clearly dwarfs the actual or potential arsenals of all other Middle Eastern states combined, and is vastly greater than any conceivable need for "deterrence."
Many Middle East Peace activists have been reluctant to discuss, let alone challenge, the Israeli monopoly on nuclear weapons in the region, often leading to incomplete and uninformed analyses and flawed action strategies. Placing the issue of Israeli weapons of mass destruction directly and honestly on the table and action agenda would have several salutary effects. First, it would expose a primary destabilizing dynamic driving the Middle East arms race and compelling the region's states to each seek their own "deterrent."
Second, it would expose the grotesque double standard which sees the U.S. and Europe on the one hand condemning Iraq, Iran and Syria for developing weapons of mass destruction, while simultaneously protecting and enabling the principal culprit. Third, exposing Israel's nuclear strategy would focus international public attention, resulting in increased pressure to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction and negotiate a just peace in good faith. Finally, a nuclear free Israel would make a Nuclear Free Middle East and a comprehensive regional peace agreement much more likely. Unless and until the world community confronts Israel over its covert nuclear program it is unlikely that there will be any meaningful resolution of the Israeli/Arab conflict, a fact that Israel may be counting on as the Sharon era dawns.
From John Steinbach, Israel's Nuclear Arsenal, http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/STE203A.html
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Centre for Research on Globalization.
To become a Member of Global Research
The CRG grants permission to cross-post original Global Research articles on community internet sites as long as the text & title are not modified. The source and the author's copyright must be displayed. For publication of Global Research articles in print or other forms including commercial internet sites, contact: crgeditor@yahoo.com
www.globalresearch.ca contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of "fair use" in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than "fair use" you must request permission from the copyright owner.
For media inquiries: crgeditor@yahoo.com
© Copyright Michel Chossudovsky, GlobalResearch.ca, 2007
Read more!!
All of it.
Slowly.
Then send it everywhere you can, to everyone you know. Even the people who you know will hate it. Even people who support Israel. You may very well lose a friend or a relative -- but man, this is the time.
It's all here, and it's all REAL, and we must do something about it - now.
The threat of an actual NUCLEAR attack on Iran is not some flaky British coocoo musing.
Read the brilliant and unsurpassingly well researched Chossudovsky article, and its there in every detail.
Look, if this doesn't get you off your ass and out in the street, if you can't see that this Arma is really Geddon down right now-
If this is all nice and kosher for you - then do nothing.
But that boom you hear may not be as far away as it sounds.
DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Global Research Feature Article
URL of this article: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=CHO20070107&articleId=4361
www.GlobalResearch.ca
Planned US-Israeli Nuclear Attack on Iran
by Michel Chossudovsky
Global Research, January 7, 2007
GlobalResearch.ca
According to a report in the London's Sunday Times (7 January 2007): (Note: for the actual complete article click HERE.)
The nuclear-tipped bunker-busters would be used only if a conventional attack was ruled out and if the United States declined to intervene, senior sources said. "Two Israeli air force squadrons are training to blow up an Iranian facility using low-yield nuclear “bunker-busters”, according to several Israeli military sources.
The attack would be the first with nuclear weapons since 1945, when the United States dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The Israeli weapons would each have a force equivalent to one-fifteenth of the Hiroshima bomb.
Under the plans, conventional laser-guided bombs would open “tunnels” into the targets. “Mini-nukes” would then immediately be fired into a plant at Natanz, exploding deep underground to reduce the risk of radioactive fallout.
“As soon as the green light is given, it will be one mission, one strike and the Iranian nuclear project will be demolished,” said one of the sources.
The plans, disclosed to The Sunday Times last week, have been prompted in part by the Israeli intelligence service Mossad’s assessment that Iran is on the verge of producing enough enriched uranium to make nuclear weapons within two years
Israeli military commanders believe conventional strikes may no longer be enough to annihilate increasingly well-defended enrichment facilities. Several have been built beneath at least 70ft of concrete and rock. However, the nuclear-tipped bunker-busters would be used only if a conventional attack was ruled out and if the United States declined to intervene, senior sources said.
For two years, the Western media has remained notoriously silent on what has already been known and documented, namely the threat of a US-Israeli sponsored nuclear holocaust. The anti-war movement has failed to address it.
This belated report by the London Times confirms what the media has ommitted from its reports in the course of the last two years. The release of this information at this particular juncture could also serve to galvanize the support of public opinion in favour of a first US-Israeli strike nuclear attack on Iran.
It is abosulteley essential that people around the World act decisively to prevent the use of nukes against Iran.
We bring to the consideration of our readers the following text by Michel Chossudovsky, published in May 2005, which contains a Timeline of military planning and details on weapons systems to be used in the case of an attack on Iran, using both conventional and nuclear weapons.
This text was followed by several other articles, which carefully document the US-Israeli nuclear threat, which provide details
Planned US-Israeli Attack on Iran
by Michel Chossudovsky
Global Research, May 1, 2005
Excerpts (scroll down for complete article )
.
The World is at an important crossroads.
The Bush Administration has embarked upon a military adventure which threatens the future of humanity.
Iran is the next military target. The planned military operation, which is by no means limited to punitive strikes against Iran's nuclear facilities, is part of a project of World domination, a military roadmap, launched at the end of the Cold War.
Military action against Iran would directly involve Israel's participation, which in turn is likely to trigger a broader war throughout the Middle East, not to mention an implosion in the Palestinian occupied territories. Turkey is closely associated with the proposed aerial attacks.
Israel is a nuclear power with a sophisticated nuclear arsenal. (See text box below). The use of nuclear weapons by Israel or the US cannot be excluded, particularly in view of the fact that tactical nuclear weapons have now been reclassified as a variant of the conventional bunker buster bombs and are authorized by the US Senate for use in conventional war theaters. ("they are harmless to civilians because the explosion is underground")
In this regard, Israel and the US rather than Iran constitute a nuclear threat.
The planned attack on Iran must be understood in relation to the existing active war theaters in the Middle East, namely Afghanistan, Iraq and Palestine.
The conflict could easily spread from the Middle East to the Caspian sea basin. It could also involve the participation of Azerbaijan and Georgia, where US troops are stationed.
An attack on Iran would have a direct impact on the resistance movement inside Iraq. It would also put pressure on America's overstretched military capabilities and resources in both the Iraqi and Afghan war theaters. (The 150,000 US troops in Iraq are already fully engaged and could not be redeployed in the case of a war with Iran.)
In other words, the shaky geopolitics of the Central Asia- Middle East region, the three existing war theaters in which America is currently, involved, the direct participation of Israel and Turkey, the structure of US sponsored military alliances, etc. raises the specter of a broader conflict.
Moreover, US military action on Iran not only threatens Russian and Chinese interests, which have geopolitical interests in the Caspian sea basin and which have bilateral agreements with Iran. It also backlashes on European oil interests in Iran and is likely to produce major divisions between Western allies, between the US and its European partners as well as within the European Union.
Through its participation in NATO, Europe, despite its reluctance, would be brought into the Iran operation. The participation of NATO largely hinges on a military cooperation agreement reached between NATO and Israel. This agreement would bind NATO to defend Israel against Syria and Iran. NATO would therefore support a preemptive attack on Iran's nuclear facilities, and could take on a more active role if Iran were to retaliate following US-Israeli air strikes.
Needless to say, the war against Iran is part of a longer term US military agenda which seeks to militarize the entire Caspian sea basin, eventually leading to the destabilization and conquest of the Russian Federation.
See also:
The Dangers of a Middle East Nuclear War, by Michel Chossudovsky (This article goes into detail on nuclear weapons and nuclear policy), February 2006
Nuclear War against Iran, by Michel Chossudovsky, January 2006
Is the Bush Adminstration planning a Nuclear Holocaust, Febraury 2006
COMPLETE ARTICLE
Planned US-Israeli Attack on Iran
by Michel Chossudovsky
Global Research, May 1, 2005
At the outset of Bush's second term, Vice President Dick Cheney dropped a bombshell. He hinted, in no uncertain terms, that Iran was "right at the top of the list" of the rogue enemies of America, and that Israel would, so to speak, "be doing the bombing for us", without US military involvement and without us putting pressure on them "to do it":
"One of the concerns people have is that Israel might do it without being asked... Given the fact that Iran has a stated policy that their objective is the destruction of Israel, the Israelis might well decide to act first, and let the rest of the world worry about cleaning up the diplomatic mess afterwards," (quoted from an MSNBC Interview Jan 2005)
Israel is a Rottweiler on a leash: The US wants to "set Israel loose" to attack Iran. Commenting the Vice President's assertion, former National Security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski in an interview on PBS, confirmed with some apprehension, yes: Cheney wants Prime Ariel Sharon to act on America's behalf and "do it" for us:
"Iran I think is more ambiguous. And there the issue is certainly not tyranny; it's nuclear weapons. And the vice president today in a kind of a strange parallel statement to this declaration of freedom hinted that the Israelis may do it and in fact used language which sounds like a justification or even an encouragement for the Israelis to do it."
The foregoing statements are misleading. The US is not "encouraging Israel". What we are dealing with is a joint US-Israeli military operation to bomb Iran, which has been in the active planning stage for more than a year. The Neocons in the Defense Department, under Douglas Feith, have been working assiduously with their Israeli military and intelligence counterparts, carefully identifying targets inside Iran ( Seymour Hersh, http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/HER501A.html )
Under this working arrangement, Israel will not act unilaterally, without a green light from Washington. In other words, Israel will not implement an attack without the participation of the US.
Covert Intelligence Operations: Stirring Ethnic Tensions in Iran
Meanwhile, for the last two years, Washington has been involved in covert intelligence operations inside Iran. American and British intelligence and special forces (working with their Israeli counterparts) are involved in this operation.
"A British intelligence official said that any campaign against Iran would not be a ground war like the one in Iraq. The Americans will use different tactics, said the intelligence officer. 'It is getting quite scary.'" (Evening Standard, 17 June 2003, http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/FOX306A.html)
The expectation is that a US-Israeli bombing raid of Iran's nuclear facilities will stir up ethnic tensions and trigger "regime change" in favor of the US. (See Arab Monitor, http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/ARA502A.html).
Bush advisers believe that the "Iranian opposition movement" will unseat the Mullahs. This assessment constitutes a gross misjudgment of social forces inside Iran. What is more likely to occur is that Iranians will consistently rally behind a wartime government against foreign aggression. In fact, the entire Middle East and beyond would rise up against US interventionism.
Retaliation in the Case of a US-Israeli Aerial Attack
Tehran has confirmed that it will retaliate if attacked, in the form of ballistic missile strikes directed against Israel (CNN, 8 Feb 2005). These attacks, could also target US military facilities in the Persian Gulf, which would immediately lead us into a scenario of military escalation and all out war.
In other words, the air strikes against Iran could contribute to unleashing a war in the broader Middle East Central Asian region.
Moreover, the planned attack on Iran should also be understood in relation to the timely withdrawal of Syrian troops from Lebanon, which has opened up a new space, for the deployment of Israeli forces. The participation of Turkey in the US-Israeli military operation is also a factor, following an agreement reached between Ankara and Tel Aviv.
In other words, US and Israeli military planners must carefully weigh the far-reaching implications of their actions.
Israel Builds up its Stockpile of Deadly Military Hardware
A massive buildup in military hardware has occurred in preparation for a possible attack on Iran.
Israel has recently taken delivery from the US of some 5,000"smart air launched weapons" including some 500 BLU 109 'bunker-buster bombs. The (uranium coated) munitions are said to be more than "adequate to address the full range of Iranian targets, with the possible exception of the buried facility at Natanz, which may require the [more powerful] BLU-113 bunker buster ":
"Given Israel's already substantial holdings of such weapons, this increase in its inventory would allow a sustained assault with or without further US involvement."(See Richard Bennett, http://globalresearch.ca/articles/BEN501A.html)
Gbu 28 Guided Bomb Unit-28 (GBU-28)
The Israeli Air Force would attack Iran's nuclear facility at Bushehr using US as well Israeli produced bunker buster bombs. The attack would be carried out in three separate waves "with the radar and communications jamming protection being provided by U.S. Air Force AWACS and other U.S. aircraft in the area". (See W Madsen, http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/MAD410A.html)
Bear in mind that the bunker buster bombs can also be used to deliver tactical nuclear bombs. The B61-11 is the "nuclear version" of the "conventional" BLU 113. It can be delivered in much same way as the conventional bunker buster bomb. (See Michel Chossudovsky,http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO112C.html, see also http://www.thebulletin.org/article_nn.php?art_ofn=jf03norris).
According to the Pentagon, tactical nuclear weapons are "safe for civilians". Their use has been authorized by the US Senate. (See Miochel Chossudovsky,http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO405A.html)
Moreover, reported in late 2003, Israeli Dolphin-class submarines equipped with US Harpoon missiles armed with nuclear warheads are now aimed at Iran. (See Gordon Thomas, http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/THO311A.html)
Even if tactical nuclear weapons are not used by Israel, an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities not only raises the specter of a broader war, but also of nuclear radiation over a wide area:
"To attack Iran's nuclear facilities will not only provoke war, but it could also unleash clouds of radiation far beyond the targets and the borders of Iran." (Statement of Prof Elias Tuma, Arab Internet Network, Federal News Service, 1 March 2005)
Moreover, while most reports have centered on the issue of punitive air strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities, the strikes would most probably extend to other targets.
While a ground war is contemplated as a possible "scenario" at the level of military planning, the US military would not be able to wage a an effective ground war, given the situation in Iraq. In the words of former National Security Adviser Lawrence Eagelberger:
"We are not going to get in a ground war in Iran, I hope. If we get into that, we are in serious trouble. I don't think anyone in Washington is seriously considering that." ( quoted in the National Journal, 4 December 2004).
Iran's Military Capabilities
Despite its overall weaknesses in relation to Israel and the US, Iran has an advanced air defense system, deployed to protect its nuclear sites; "they are dispersed and underground making potential air strikes difficult and without any guarantees of success." (Jerusalem Post, 20 April 2005). It has upgraded its Shahab-3 missile, which can reach targets in Israel. Iran's armed forces have recently conducted high-profile military exercises in anticipation of a US led attack. Iran also possesses some 12 X-55 strategic cruise missiles, produced by the Ukraine. Iran's air defense systems is said to feature Russian SA-2, SA-5, SA-6 as well as shoulder-launched SA-7 missiles (Jaffa Center for Strategic Studies).
The US "Military Road Map"
The Bush administration has officially identified Iran and Syria as the next stage of “the road map to war”.
Targeting Iran is a bipartisan project, which broadly serves the interests of the Anglo-American oil conglomerates, the Wall Street financial establishment and the military-industrial complex.
The broader Middle East-Central Asian region encompasses more than 70% of the World's reserves of oil and natural gas. Iran possesses 10% of the world's oil and ranks third after Saudi Arabia (25 %) and Iraq (11 %) in the size of its reserves. In comparison, the US possesses less than 2.8 % of global oil reserves. (See Eric Waddell, The Battle for Oil, http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/WAD412A.html)
The announcement to target Iran should come as no surprise. It is part of the battle for oil. Already during the Clinton administration, US Central Command (USCENTCOM) had formulated "in war theater plans" to invade both Iraq and Iran:
"The broad national security interests and objectives expressed in the President's National Security Strategy (NSS) and the Chairman's National Military Strategy (NMS) form the foundation of the United States Central Command's theater strategy. The NSS directs implementation of a strategy of dual containment of the rogue states of Iraq and Iran as long as those states pose a threat to U.S. interests, to other states in the region, and to their own citizens. Dual containment is designed to maintain the balance of power in the region without depending on either Iraq or Iran. USCENTCOM's theater strategy is interest-based and threat-focused. The purpose of U.S. engagement, as espoused in the NSS, is to protect the United States' vital interest in the region - uninterrupted, secure U.S./Allied access to Gulf oil.
(USCENTCOM, http://www.milnet.com/milnet/pentagon/centcom/chap1/stratgic.htm#USPolicy , emphasis added)
Main Military Actors
While the US, Israel, as well as Turkey (with borders with both Iran and Syria) are the main actors in this process, a number of other countries, in the region, allies of the US, including several Central Asian former Soviet republics have been enlisted. Britain is closely involved despite its official denials at the diplomatic level. Turkey occupies a central role in the Iran operation. It has an extensive military cooperation agreement with Israel. There are indications that NATO is also formally involved in the context of an Israel-NATO agreement reached in November 2004.
Planning The Aerial Attack on Iran
According to former weapons inspector Scott Ritter, George W. Bush has already signed off on orders for an aerial attack on Iran, scheduled for June.
(See http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/JEN502A.html)
The June cut-off date should be understood. It does not signify that the attack will occur in June. What it suggests is that the US and Israel are "in a state of readiness" and are prepared to launch an attack by June or at a later date. In other words, the decision to launch the attack has not been made.
Ritter's observation concerning an impending military operation should nonetheless be taken seriously. In recent months, there is ample evidence that a major military operation is in preparation:
1) several high profile military exercises have been conducted in recent months, involving military deployment and the testing of weapons systems.
2) military planning meetings have been held between the various parties involved. There has been a shuttle of military and government officials between Washington, Tel Aviv and Ankara.
3) A significant change in the military command structure in Israel has occurred, with the appointment of a new Chief of Staff.
4) Intense diplomatic exchanges have been carried out at the international level with a view to securing areas of military cooperation and/or support for a US-Israeli led military operation directed against Iran.
5) Ongoing intelligence operations inside Iran have been stepped up.
6) Consensus Building: Media propaganda on the need to intervene in Iran has been stepped up, with daily reports on how Iran constitutes a threat to peace and global security.
Timeline of Key Initiatives
In the last few months, various key initiatives have been taken, which are broadly indicative that an aerial bombing of Iran is in the military pipeline:
November 2004 in Brussels: NATO-Israel protocol: Israel's IDF delegation to the NATO conference to met with military brass of six members of the Mediterranean basin nations, including Egypt, Jordan, Algeria, Tunisia, Morocco, Algeria and Mauritania. "NATO seeks to revive the framework, known as the Mediterranean Dialogue program, which would include Israel. The Israeli delegation accepted to participate in military exercises and "anti-terror maneuvers" together with several Arab countries.
January 2005: the US, Israel and Turkey held military exercises in the Eastern Mediterranean , off the coast of Syria. These exercises, which have been held in previous years were described as routine.
February 2005. Following the decision reached in Brussels in November 2004, Israel was involved for the first time in military exercises with NATO, which also included several Arab countries.
February 2005: Assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri. The assassination, which was blamed on Syria, serves Israeli and US interests and was used as a pretext to demand the withdrawal of Syrian troops from Lebanon.
February 2005: Sharon fires his Chief-of-Staff, Moshe Ya’alon and appoints Air Force General Dan Halutz. This is the first time in Israeli history that an Air Force General is appointed Chief of Staff (See Uri Avnery, http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/AVN502A.html)
The appointment of Major General Dan Halutz as IDF Chief of Staff is considered in Israeli political circles as "the appointment of the right man at the right time." The central issue is that a major aerial operation against Iran is in the planning stage, and Maj General Halutz is slated to coordinate the aerial bombing raids on Iran. Halutz's appointment was specifically linked to Israel's Iran agenda: "As chief of staff, he will in the best position to prepare the military for such a scenario."
March 2005: NATO's Secretary General was in Jerusalem for follow-up talks with Ariel Sharon and Israel's military brass, following the joint NATO-Israel military exercise in February. These military cooperation ties are viewed by the Israeli military as a means to "enhance Israel's deterrence capability regarding potential enemies threatening it, mainly Iran and Syria." The premise underlying NATO-Israel military cooperation is that Israel is under attack:
"The more Israel's image is strengthened as a country facing enemies who attempt to attack it for no justified reason, the greater will be the possibility that aid will be extended to Israel by NATO. Furthermore, Iran and Syria will have to take into account the possibility that the increasing cooperation between Israel and NATO will strengthen Israel's links with Turkey, also a member of NATO. Given Turkey's impressive military potential and its geographic proximity to both Iran and Syria, Israel's operational options against them, if and when it sees the need, could gain considerable strength. " (Jaffa Center for Strategic Studies, http://www.tau.ac.il/jcss/sa/v7n4p4Shalom.html)
The Israel-NATO protocol is all the more important because it obligates NATO to align itself with the US-Israeli plan to bomb Iran, as an act of self defense on the part of Israel. It also means that NATO is also involved in the process of military consultations relating to the planned aerial bombing of Iran. It is of course related to the bilateral military cooperation agreement between Israel and Turkey and the likelihood that part of the military operation will be launched from Turkey, which is a member of NATO.
Late March 2005: News leaks in Israel indicated an "initial authorization" by Prime Minster Ariel Sharon of an Israeli attack on Iran's Natanz uranium enrichment plant "if diplomacy failed to stop Iran's nuclear program". (The Hindu, 28 March 2005)
March-April 2005: The Holding in Israel of Joint US-Israeli military exercises specifically pertaining to the launching of Patriot missiles.
US Patriot missile crews stationed in Germany were sent to Israel to participate in the joint Juniper Cobra exercise with the Israeli military. The exercise was described as routine and "unconnected to events in the Middle East": "As always, we are interested in implementing lessons learned from training exercises." (UPI, 9 March 2005).
April 2005: Donald Rumsfeld was on an official visits to Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Kyrgyzstan and Azerbaijan. His diplomatic endeavors were described by the Russian media as "literally circling Iran in an attempt to find the best bridgehead for a possible military operation against that country."
In Baku, Azerbaijan Rumsfeld was busy discussing the date for deployment of US troops in Azerbaijan on Iran's North-Western border. US military bases described as "mobile groups" in Azerbaijan are slated to play a role in a military operation directed against Iran.
Azerbaijan is a member of GUUAM, a military cooperation agreement with the US and NATO, which allows for the stationing of US troops in several of the member countries, including Georgia, Uzbekistan and Azerbaijan. The stated short term objective is to "neutralize Iran". The longer term objective under the Pentagon's "Caspian Plan" is to exert military and economic control over the entire Caspian sea basin, with a view to ensuring US authority over oil reserves and pipeline corridors.
During his visit in April, Rumsfeld was pushing the US initiative of establishing "American special task forces and military bases to secure US influence in the Caspian region:
"Called Caspian Watch, the project stipulates a network of special task forces and police units in the countries of the regions to be used in emergencies including threats to objects of the oil complex and pipelines. Project Caspian Watch will be financed by the United States ($100 million). It will become an advance guard of the US European Command whose zone of responsibility includes the Caspian region. Command center of the project with a powerful radar is to be located in Baku."( Defense and Security Russia, April 27, 2005)
Rumsfeld's visit followed shortly after that of Iranian President Mohammad Khatami's to Baku.
April 2005: Iran signs a military cooperation with Tajikistan, which occupies a strategic position bordering Afghanistan's Northern frontier. Tajikistan is a member of "The Shanghai Five" military cooperation group, which also includes Kazakhstan, China, Kyrgyzstan, and Russia. Iran also has economic cooperation agreements with Turkmenistan.
Mid April 2005: Israel Prime Minister Ariel Sharon meets George W Bush at his Texas Ranch. Iran is on the agenda of bilateral talks. More significantly, the visit of Ariel Sharon was used to carry out high level talks between US and Israeli military planners pertaining to Iran.
Late April 2005. President Vladmir Putin is in Israel on an official visit. He announces Russia's decision to sell short-range anti-aircraft missiles to Syria and to continue supporting Iran's nuclear industry. Beneath the gilded surface of international diplomacy, Putin's timely visit to Israel must be interpreted as "a signal to Israel" regarding its planned aerial attack on Iran.
Late April 2005: US pressure in the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has been exerted with a view to blocking the re-appointment of Mohammed Al Baradei, who according to US officials "is not being tough enough on Iran..." Following US pressures, the vote on the appointment of a new IAEA chief was put off until June. These developments suggest that Washington wants to put forth their own hand-picked nominee prior to launching US-Israeli aerial attacks on Iran's nuclear facilities. (See VOA, http://www.voanews.com/english/2005-04-27-voa51.cfm ). (In February 2003, Al Baradei along with UN chief weapons inspector Hans Blix challenged the (phony) intelligence on WMD presented by the US to the UN Security Council, with a view to justifying the war on Iraq.)
Late April 2005. Sale of deadly military hardware to Israel. GBU-28 Buster Bunker Bombs: Coinciding with Putin's visit to Israel, the US Defence Security Cooperation Agency (Department of Defense) announced the sale of an additional 100 bunker-buster bombs produced by Lockheed Martin to Israel. This decision was viewed by the US media as "a warning to Iran about its nuclear ambitions."
The sale pertains to the larger and more sophisticated "Guided Bomb Unit-28 (GBU-28) BLU-113 Penetrator" (including the WGU-36A/B guidance control unit and support equipment). The GBU-28 is described as "a special weapon for penetrating hardened command centers located deep underground. The fact of the matter is that the GBU-28 is among the World's most deadly "conventional" weapons used in the 2003 invasion of Iraq, capable of causing thousands of civilian deaths through massive explosions.
The Israeli Air Force are slated to use the GBU-28s on their F-15 aircraft. (See text of DSCA news release at http://www.dsca.osd.mil/PressReleases/36-b/2005/Israel_05-10_corrected.pdf)
Late April 2005- early May: Turkey's Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan in Israel for follow-up talks with Ariel Sharon. He was accompanied by his Defense Minister Vecdi Gonul, who met with senior Israeli military officials. On the official agenda of these talks: joint defense projects, including the joint production of Arrow II Theater Missile Defense and Popeye II missiles. The latter also known as the Have Lite, are advanced small missiles, designed for deployment on fighter planes. Tel Aviv and Ankara decide to establish a hotline to share intelligence.
May 2005: Syrian troops scheduled to withdraw from Lebanon, leading to a major shift in the Middle East security situation, in favor of Israel and the US.
Iran Surrounded
The US has troops and military bases in Turkey, Pakistan, Azerbaijan, Afghanistan, and of course Iraq.
In other words, Iran is virtually surrounded by US military bases. (see Map below). These countries as well as Turkmenistan, are members of NATO`s partnership for Peace Program. and have military cooperation agreements with NATO.
Copyright Eric Waddell, Global Research, 2003 (Click Map to enlarge)
In other words, we are dealing with a potentially explosive scenario in which a number of countries, including several former Soviet republics, could be brought into a US led war with Iran. IranAtom.ru, a Russian based news and military analysis group has suggested, in this regard:
"since Iranian nuclear objects are scattered all over the country, Israel will need a mass strike with different fly-in and fly-out approaches - Jordan, Iraq, Turkey, Azerbaijan, and other countries... Azerbaijan seriously fears Tehran's reaction should Baku issue a permit to Israeli aircraft to overfly its territory." (Defense and Security Russia, 12 April 2005).
Concluding remarks:
The World is at an important crossroads.
The Bush Administration has embarked upon a military adventure which threatens the future of humanity.
Iran is the next military target. The planned military operation, which is by no means limited to punitive strikes against Iran's nuclear facilities, is part of a project of World domination, a military roadmap, launched at the end of the Cold War.
Military action against Iran would directly involve Israel's participation, which in turn is likely to trigger a broader war throughout the Middle East, not to mention an implosion in the Palestinian occupied territories. Turkey is closely associated with the proposed aerial attacks.
Israel is a nuclear power with a sophisticated nuclear arsenal. (See text box below). The use of nuclear weapons by Israel or the US cannot be excluded, particularly in view of the fact that tactical nuclear weapons have now been reclassified as a variant of the conventional bunker buster bombs and are authorized by the US Senate for use in conventional war theaters. ("they are harmless to civilians because the explosion is underground")
In this regard, Israel and the US rather than Iran constitute a nuclear threat.
The planned attack on Iran must be understood in relation to the existing active war theaters in the Middle East, namely Afghanistan, Iraq and Palestine.
The conflict could easily spread from the Middle East to the Caspian sea basin. It could also involve the participation of Azerbaijan and Georgia, where US troops are stationed.
An attack on Iran would have a direct impact on the resistance movement inside Iraq. It would also put pressure on America's overstretched military capabilities and resources in both the Iraqi and Afghan war theaters. (The 150,000 US troops in Iraq are already fully engaged and could not be redeployed in the case of a war with Iran.)
In other words, the shaky geopolitics of the Central Asia- Middle East region, the three existing war theaters in which America is currently, involved, the direct participation of Israel and Turkey, the structure of US sponsored military alliances, etc. raises the specter of a broader conflict.
Moreover, US military action on Iran not only threatens Russian and Chinese interests, which have geopolitical interests in the Caspian sea basin and which have bilateral agreements with Iran. It also backlashes on European oil interests in Iran and is likely to produce major divisions between Western allies, between the US and its European partners as well as within the European Union.
Through its participation in NATO, Europe, despite its reluctance, would be brought into the Iran operation. The participation of NATO largely hinges on a military cooperation agreement reached between NATO and Israel. This agreement would bind NATO to defend Israel against Syria and Iran. NATO would therefore support a preemptive attack on Iran's nuclear facilities, and could take on a more active role if Iran were to retaliate following US-Israeli air strikes.
Needless to say, the war against Iran is part of a longer term US military agenda which seeks to militarize the entire Caspian sea basin, eventually leading to the destabilization and conquest of the Russian Federation.
The Antiwar Movement
The antiwar movement must act, consistently, to prevent the next phase of this war from happening.
This is no easy matter. The holding of large antiwar rallies will not in itself reverse the tide of war.
High ranking officials of the Bush administration, members of the military and the US Congress have been granted the authority to uphold an illegal war agenda.
What is required is a grass roots network, a mass movement at national and international levels, which challenges the legitimacy of the military and political actors, and which is ultimately instrumental in unseating those who rule in our name.
War criminals occupy positions of authority. The citizenry is galvanized into supporting the rulers, who are "committed to their safety and well-being". Through media disinformation, war is given a humanitarian mandate.
To reverse the tide of war, military bases must be closed down, the war machine (namely the production of advanced weapons systems) must be stopped and the burgeoning police state must be dismantled.
The corporate backers and sponsors of war and war crimes must also be targeted including the oil companies, the defense contractors, the financial institutions and the corporate media, which has become an integral part of the war propaganda machine.
Antiwar sentiment does not dismantle a war agenda. The war criminals in the US, Israel and Britain must be removed from high office.
What is needed is to reveal the true face of the American Empire and the underlying criminalization of US foreign policy, which uses the "war on terrorism" and the threat of Al Qaeda to galvanize public opinion in support of a global war agenda.
See also:
The Dangers of a Middle East Nuclear War, by Michel Chossudovsky (This article goes into detail on nuclear weapons and nuclear policy), February 2006
Nuclear War against Iran, by Michel Chossudovsky, January 2006
Is the Bush Adminstration planning a Nuclear Holocaust, February 2006
TEXT BOX: Israel's Nuclear Capabilities
With between 200 and 500 thermonuclear weapons and a sophisticated delivery system, Israel has quietly supplanted Britain as the World's 5th Largest nuclear power, and may currently rival France and China in the size and sophistication of its nuclear arsenal. Although dwarfed by the nuclear arsenals of the U.S. and Russia, each possessing over 10,000 nuclear weapons, Israel nonetheless is a major nuclear power, and should be publicly recognized as such.
Today, estimates of the Israeli nuclear arsenal range from a minimum of 200 to a maximum of about 500. Whatever the number, there is little doubt that Israeli nukes are among the world's most sophisticated, largely designed for "war fighting" in the Middle East. A staple of the Israeli nuclear arsenal are "neutron bombs," miniaturized thermonuclear bombs designed to maximize deadly gamma radiation while minimizing blast effects and long term radiation- in essence designed to kill people while leaving property intact.(16) Weapons include ballistic missiles and bombers capable of reaching Moscow...
The bombs themselves range in size from "city busters" larger than the Hiroshima Bomb to tactical mini nukes. The Israeli arsenal of weapons of mass destruction clearly dwarfs the actual or potential arsenals of all other Middle Eastern states combined, and is vastly greater than any conceivable need for "deterrence."
Many Middle East Peace activists have been reluctant to discuss, let alone challenge, the Israeli monopoly on nuclear weapons in the region, often leading to incomplete and uninformed analyses and flawed action strategies. Placing the issue of Israeli weapons of mass destruction directly and honestly on the table and action agenda would have several salutary effects. First, it would expose a primary destabilizing dynamic driving the Middle East arms race and compelling the region's states to each seek their own "deterrent."
Second, it would expose the grotesque double standard which sees the U.S. and Europe on the one hand condemning Iraq, Iran and Syria for developing weapons of mass destruction, while simultaneously protecting and enabling the principal culprit. Third, exposing Israel's nuclear strategy would focus international public attention, resulting in increased pressure to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction and negotiate a just peace in good faith. Finally, a nuclear free Israel would make a Nuclear Free Middle East and a comprehensive regional peace agreement much more likely. Unless and until the world community confronts Israel over its covert nuclear program it is unlikely that there will be any meaningful resolution of the Israeli/Arab conflict, a fact that Israel may be counting on as the Sharon era dawns.
From John Steinbach, Israel's Nuclear Arsenal, http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/STE203A.html
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Centre for Research on Globalization.
To become a Member of Global Research
The CRG grants permission to cross-post original Global Research articles on community internet sites as long as the text & title are not modified. The source and the author's copyright must be displayed. For publication of Global Research articles in print or other forms including commercial internet sites, contact: crgeditor@yahoo.com
www.globalresearch.ca contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of "fair use" in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than "fair use" you must request permission from the copyright owner.
For media inquiries: crgeditor@yahoo.com
© Copyright Michel Chossudovsky, GlobalResearch.ca, 2007
Read more!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
