Runaway Global Warming Possible!

Rand Simberg wrote:

On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 19:52:50 -0800, in a place far, far away, Alain
Fournier made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:


Hate seems to be an extreme emotion that leftists
tend to feel, and project on others. I didn't hate Ted Bundy, either.

We hate those who want to kill.
- George W. Bush
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...020521-11.html


I'm George Bush? Who knew?

Having problem with english comprehension again?
Or do you think you are the only one to not be a leftist?


No, many people aren't leftists, who are also not George Bush. Also,
I never stated that only leftists feel hate. Many on the "right"
(whatever the heck that means) do to. As does, apparently, at least
occasionally, George Bush.

Apparently, you still need to work on that logic thing.

Could you point out what logical error I made?
Could you point out why you asked whether you were
George Bush? That doesn't seem too logical to me.

Alain Fournier

Rand Simberg wrote:

On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 20:09:32 -0800, in a place far, far away, Alain
Fournier made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:


I wonder what's in the Bekaa Valley that the Syrians want to protect
with their troops?

Lebanese people? Syria went into Lebanon because a civil war was
having devastating effects on the Lebanese people.


Yes, right.

The fascist, Ba'athist Syrian government, the one that killed everyone
in Hama and bulldozed the town, the one that has been earning millions
from its occupation of Lebanon for decades, exporting workers there to
send money home, and supporting Hizbollah to murder Israelis, has
nothing but the best interests of the Lebanese people at heart.

Do you expect any sane person to take this seriously?

I did not say that Syria has nothing but the best interest of
the Lebanese people at heart. I don't consider the Syrian
government to be anything like a good government. Nonetheless
the reason why they went into Lebanon is because there was
chaos in Lebanon at the time.

Alain Fournier

On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 20:35:43 -0800, in a place far, far away, Alain
Fournier made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

Hate seems to be an extreme emotion that leftists
tend to feel, and project on others. I didn't hate Ted Bundy, either.

We hate those who want to kill.
- George W. Bush
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...020521-11.html


I'm George Bush? Who knew?

Having problem with english comprehension again?
Or do you think you are the only one to not be a leftist?


No, many people aren't leftists, who are also not George Bush. Also,
I never stated that only leftists feel hate. Many on the "right"
(whatever the heck that means) do too. As does, apparently, at least
occasionally, George Bush.

Apparently, you still need to work on that logic thing.

Could you point out what logical error I made?

I already did. I'm sorry that you don't understand what I wrote. I
don't know how to state it any clearer in English. If I knew someone
who could rewrite in Quebecois, perhaps I could do so. But I doubt
it.

On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 20:40:06 -0800, in a place far, far away, Alain
Fournier made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

I wonder what's in the Bekaa Valley that the Syrians want to protect
with their troops?

Lebanese people? Syria went into Lebanon because a civil war was
having devastating effects on the Lebanese people.


Yes, right.

The fascist, Ba'athist Syrian government, the one that killed everyone
in Hama and bulldozed the town, the one that has been earning millions
from its occupation of Lebanon for decades, exporting workers there to
send money home, and supporting Hizbollah to murder Israelis, has
nothing but the best interests of the Lebanese people at heart.

Do you expect any sane person to take this seriously?

I did not say that Syria has nothing but the best interest of
the Lebanese people at heart. I don't consider the Syrian
government to be anything like a good government. Nonetheless
the reason why they went into Lebanon is because there was
chaos in Lebanon at the time.

So, what's your point? That they should stay?

And that they have no particular interests in the Bekaa Valley?
Because that's the point that you seemed to be responding to.

Alain Fournier wrote:

:I did not say that Syria has nothing but the best interest of
:the Lebanese people at heart. I don't consider the Syrian
:government to be anything like a good government. Nonetheless
:the reason why they went into Lebanon is because there was
:chaos in Lebanon at the time.

The reason they went into Lebanon was because they could get away with
it at the time and they've always wanted the Bekaa.

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

Fred J. McCall wrote:
Alain Fournier wrote:

I did not say that Syria has nothing but the best interest of
the Lebanese people at heart. I don't consider the Syrian
government to be anything like a good government. Nonetheless
the reason why they went into Lebanon is because there was
chaos in Lebanon at the time.

The reason they went into Lebanon was because they could get away with
it at the time and they've always wanted the Bekaa.

Unlike the American looting of Iraq and the Israeli looting of Palestinian
land, Syria gets nothing but a good friend from it's support. They own
nothing in the Bekaa Valley and will have nothing to show for years of
assistance, which is why they are so easily convinced to leave. It is clear
that the Lebanese, at least, consider it time to stand on their own feet,
and thus the need for the expensive military presence of Syria is over.

The U.S. has mistepped, thinking that killijg Kirriri would cause a rush to
judgment that Bush could get out in front of and claim to be 'leading'. All
he has done with his speeches is to call attention to the fact that the U.S.
is the only country with the motive to kill Hirirri. Trying to take eyes off
of Iran which has come out as the next 'installment' of the Bush plot. Not
only that, but his clumsy speeched putting the 'hard line' to Syrian
presence have been bolixed by the fact that Syria is quite willing to go,
the facts get ahead of and do not follow his assumed 'timetable' of results,
and thus he starts to look like the fool he is as he spouts endless
rhetoric, missing the point entirely.


Hopefully, the Lebanese people will choose to consider them an ally after
they go and form partnerships on a national level for trade and mutual
support. I hate to think that the CIA will get away with murder....

On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 09:05:50 -0500, in a place far, far away, "Ian St.
John" made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

Unlike the American looting of Iraq and the Israeli looting of Palestinian
land, Syria gets nothing but a good friend from it's support. They own
nothing in the Bekaa Valley and will have nothing to show for years of
assistance, which is why they are so easily convinced to leave. It is clear
that the Lebanese, at least, consider it time to stand on their own feet,
and thus the need for the expensive military presence of Syria is over.

The U.S. has mistepped, thinking that killijg Kirriri would cause a rush to
judgment that Bush could get out in front of and claim to be 'leading'. All
he has done with his speeches is to call attention to the fact that the U.S.
is the only country with the motive to kill Hirirri. Trying to take eyes off
of Iran which has come out as the next 'installment' of the Bush plot. Not
only that, but his clumsy speeched putting the 'hard line' to Syrian
presence have been bolixed by the fact that Syria is quite willing to go,
the facts get ahead of and do not follow his assumed 'timetable' of results,
and thus he starts to look like the fool he is as he spouts endless
rhetoric, missing the point entirely.

You're completely nuts.

In sci.space.policy Ian St. John wrote:
Hopefully, the Lebanese people will choose to consider them an ally after
they go and form partnerships on a national level for trade and mutual
support. I hate to think that the CIA will get away with murder....

Its rather unlikely it was done by CIA - it is instead rather likely
he didn't deliver on some bribe or favour to a business associate and
was eliminated for that. For US or Israel or Syria to have orchesatrted it,
way were all caught suprisingly wrong-footed to take any real advantage
of it - navar mind that at the very least Israel and Syria could have
made far better use of him alive.

--
Sander

+++ Out of cheese error +++

Sander Vesik wrote:
In sci.space.policy Ian St. John wrote:
Hopefully, the Lebanese people will choose to consider them an ally
after they go and form partnerships on a national level for trade
and mutual support. I hate to think that the CIA will get away with
murder....

Its rather unlikely it was done by CIA -

It could be a black ops under direct Neocon control, but generally it would
more likely be a standard CIA operation under the renewed policy of allowing
assassination as a political tool. The reversal of the law against such
operations probably impacted the CIA more than most and they would certainly
be eager to try their hand. I do not think that direct CIA operatives would
have been involved in the setting the explosives but supplying the materials
and priming the group responsible? Almost certain. Bush needed a distraction
and expeically one he could use to point fingers at Syria as a way of both
cliaming to be the leader of any democracy movement anywhere in the world
(regardless of his actual involvement) but also of isolating and weakening
Syria as a secondary objective.

it is instead rather likely
he didn't deliver on some bribe or favour to a business associate and
was eliminated for that.

I find that unlikely.

For US or Israel or Syria to have
orchesatrted it, way were all caught suprisingly wrong-footed to take
any real advantage

But they WERE instantly ready to take advantage of it and even claim to be
the force behind the 'democratic rallies' despite having nothing to connect
them to Lebanon, the bombing ( at least on the surface ) or Syria.

of it - navar mind that at the very least Israel and Syria could have
made far better use of him alive.

Perhaps he would not play ball? Regardless, the motives and actions seem to
suggest that Bush was ready and primed and Syria caught flat footed. That
tends to suggest that the U.S. had a hand in the planning.

Obviously, if Bush is going to authorise himself ( by rewriting laws) to
assassinate people for polticial advantage, it is not a far stretch to think
that a political assassination that helps Bush might be more than an
'accident' of timing.

-----------------------------
http://www.usyd.edu.au/news/newseven...tispeech.shtml
Arundhati Roy - The 2004 Sydney Peace Prize Lecture

04 November 2004



Peace and the new corporate liberation theology


It's official now. The Sydney Peace Foundation is neck deep in the business
of gambling and calculated risk. Last year, very courageously, it chose Dr
Hanan Ashrawi of Palestine for the Sydney Peace Prize. And, as if that were
not enough, this year - of all the people in the world - it goes and chooses
me!


However I'd like to make a complaint. My sources inform me that Dr Ashrawi
had a picket all to herself. This is discriminatory. I demand equal
treatment for all Peace Prizes. May I formally request the Foundation to
organize a picket against me after the lecture? From what I've heard, it
shouldn't be hard to organize. If this is insufficient notice, then tomorrow
will suit me just as well.

When this year's Sydney Peace Prize was announced, I was subjected to some
pretty arch remarks from those who know me well: Why did they give it to the
biggest trouble-maker we know? Didn't anybody tell them that you don't have
a peaceful bone in your body? And, memorably, Arundhati didi what's the
Sydney Peace Prize? Was there a war in Sydney that you helped to stop?

Speaking for myself, I am utterly delighted to receive the Sydney Peace
Prize. But I must accept it as a literary prize that honors a writer for her
writing, because contrary to the many virtues that are falsely attributed to
me, I'm not an activist, nor the leader of any mass movement, and I'm
certainly not the "voice of the voiceless". (We know of course there's
really no such thing as the 'voiceless'. There are only the deliberately
silenced, or the preferably unheard.) I am a writer who cannot claim to
represent anybody but herself. So even though I would like to, it would be
presumptuous of me to say that I accept this prize on behalf of those who
are involved in the struggle of the powerless and the disenfranchised
against the powerful. However, may I say I accept it as the Sydney Peace
Foundationâ?Ts expression of solidarity with a kind of politics, a kind of
world-view, that millions of us around the world subscribe to?

It might seem ironic that a person who spends most of her time thinking of
strategies of resistance and plotting to disrupt the putative peace, is
given a peace prize. You must remember that I come from an essentially
feudal country - and there are few things more disquieting than a feudal
peace. Sometimes there's truth in old cliches. There can be no real peace
without justice. And without resistance there will be no justice.

Today, it is not merely justice itself, but the idea of justice that is
under attack. The assault on vulnerable, fragile sections of society is at
once so complete, so cruel and so clever - all encompassing and yet
specifically targeted, blatantly brutal and yet unbelievably insidious -
that its sheer audacity has eroded our definition of justice. It has forced
us to lower our sights, and curtail our expectations. Even among the
well-intentioned, the expansive, magnificent concept of justice is gradually
being substituted with the reduced, far more fragile discourse of 'human
rights'.

If you think about it, this is an alarming shift of paradigm. The difference
is that notions of equality, of parity have been pried loose and eased out
of the equation. It's a process of attrition. Almost unconsciously, we begin
to think of justice for the rich and human rights for the poor. Justice for
the corporate world, human rights for its victims. Justice for Americans,
human rights for Afghans and Iraqis. Justice for the Indian upper castes,
human rights for Dalits and Adivasis (if that.) Justice for white
Australians, human rights for Aboriginals and immigrants (most times, not
even that.)

It is becoming more than clear that violating human rights is an inherent
and necessary part of the process of implementing a coercive and unjust
political and economic structure on the world. Without the violation of
human rights on an enormous scale, the neo-liberal project would remain in
the dreamy realm of policy. But increasingly Human Rights violations are
being portrayed as the unfortunate, almost accidental fallout of an
otherwise acceptable political and economic system. As though they're a
small problem that can be mopped up with a little extra attention from some
NGOs. This is why in areas of heightened conflict - in Kashmir and in Iraq
for example - Human Rights Professionals are regarded with a degree of
suspicion. Many resistance movements in poor countries which are fighting
huge injustice and questioning the underlying principles of what constitutes
"liberation" and "development", view Human Rights NGOs as modern day
missionaries who've come to take the ugly edge off Imperialism. To defuse
political anger and to maintain the status quo.

It has been only a few weeks since a majority of Australians voted to
re-elect Prime Minister John Howard who, among other things, led Australia
to participate in the illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq. The invasion
of Iraq will surely go down in history as one of the most cowardly wars ever
fought. It was a war in which a band of rich nations, armed with enough
nuclear weapons to destroy the world several times over, rounded on a poor
nation, falsely accused it of having nuclear weapons, used the United
Nations to force it to disarm, then invaded it, occupied it and are now in
the process of selling it.

I speak of Iraq, not because everybody is talking about it, (sadly at the
cost of leaving other horrors in other places to unfurl in the dark), but
because it is a sign of things to come. Iraq marks the beginning of a new
cycle. It offers us an opportunity to watch the Corporate-Military cabal
that has come to be known as 'Empire' at work. In the new Iraq the gloves
are off.

As the battle to control the world's resources intensifies, economic
colonialism through formal military aggression is staging a comeback. Iraq
is the logical culmination of the process of corporate globalization in
which neo-colonialism and neo-liberalism have fused. If we can find it in
ourselves to peep behind the curtain of blood, we would glimpse the pitiless
transactions taking place backstage. But first, briefly, the stage itself.

In 1991 US President George Bush senior mounted Operation Desert Storm. Tens
of thousands of Iraqis were killed in the war. Iraq's fields were bombed
with more than 300 tonnes of depleted uranium, causing a fourfold increase
in cancer among children. For more than 13 years, twenty four million Iraqi
people have lived in a war zone and been denied food and medicine and clean
water. In the frenzy around the US elections, let's remember that the levels
of cruelty did not fluctuate whether the Democrats or the Republicans were
in the White House. Half a million Iraqi children died because of the regime
of economic sanctions in the run up to Operation Shock and Awe. Until
recently, while there was a careful record of how many US soldiers had lost
their lives, we had no idea of how many Iraqis had been killed. US General
Tommy Franks said "We don't do body counts" (meaning Iraqi body counts). He
could have added "We don't do the Geneva Convention either." A new, detailed
study, fast-tracked by the Lancet medical journal and extensively peer
reviewed, estimates that 100,000 Iraqis have lost their lives since the 2003
invasion. That's one hundred halls full of people - like this one. That's
one hundred halls full of friends, parents, siblings, colleagues, lovers . .
.. like you. The difference is that there aren't many children here today . .
.. let's not forget Iraq's children. Technically that bloodbath is called
precision bombing. In ordinary language, it's called butchering.

Most of this is common knowledge now. Those who support the invasion and
vote for the invaders cannot take refuge in ignorance. They must truly
believe that this epic brutality is right and just or, at the very least,
acceptable because it's in their interest.

So the 'civilized' 'modern' world - built painstakingly on a legacy of
genocide, slavery and colonialism - now controls most of the world's oil.
And most of the world's weapons, most of the world's money, and most of the
world's media. The embedded, corporate media in which the doctrine of Free
Speech has been substituted by the doctrine of Free If You Agree Speech.

The UN's Chief Weapons Inspector Hans Blix said he found no evidence of
nuclear weapons in Iraq. Every scrap of evidence produced by the US and
British governments was found to be false - whether it was reports of Saddam
Hussein buying uranium from Niger, or the report produced by British
Intelligence which was discovered to have been plagiarized from an old
student dissertation. And yet, in the prelude to the war, day after day the
most 'respectable' newspapers and TV channels in the US, headlined the
'evidence' of Iraq's arsenal of weapons of nuclear weapons. It now turns out
that the source of the manufactured 'evidence' of Iraq's arsenal of nuclear
weapons was Ahmed Chalabi who, (like General Suharto of Indonesia, General
Pinochet of Chile, the Shah of Iran, the Taliban and of course, Saddam
Hussein himself) - was bankrolled with millions of dollars from the good old
CIA.

And so, a country was bombed into oblivion. It's true there have been some
murmurs of apology. Sorry 'bout that folks, but we have really have to move
on. Fresh rumours are coming in about nuclear weapons in Eye-ran and Syria.
And guess who is reporting on these fresh rumours? The same reporters who
ran the bogus 'scoops' on Iraq. The seriously embedded A Team.

The head of Britain's BBC had to step down and one man committed suicide
because a BBC reporter accused the Blair administration of 'sexing up'
intelligence reports about Iraq's WMD programme. But the head of Britain
retains his job even though his government did much more than 'sex up'
intelligence reports. It is responsible for the illegal invasion of a
country and the mass murder of its people.

Visitors to Australia like myself, are expected to answer the following
question when they fill in the visa form: Have you ever committed or been
involved in the commission of war crimes or crimes against humanity or human
rights? Would George Bush and Tony Blair get visas to Australia? Under the
tenets of International Law they must surely qualify as war criminals.

However, to imagine that the world would change if they were removed from
office is naive. The tragedy is that their political rivals have no real
dispute with their policies. The fire and brimstone of the US election
campaign was about who would make a better 'Commander-in-Chief' and a more
effective manager of the American Empire. Democracy no longer offers voters
real choice. Only specious choice.

Even though no weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq -
stunning new evidence has revealed that Saddam Hussein was planning a
weapons programme. (Like I was planning to win an Olympic Gold in
synchronized swimming.) Thank goodness for the doctrine of pre-emptive
strike. God knows what other evil thoughts he harbored - sending Tampax in
the mail to American senators, or releasing female rabbits in burqas into
the London underground. No doubt all will be revealed in the free and fair
trial of Saddam Hussein that's coming up soon in the New Iraq.

All except the chapter in which we would learn of how the US and Britain
plied him with money and material assistance at the time he was carrying out
murderous attacks on Iraqi Kurds and Shias. All except the chapter in which
we would learn that a 12,000 page report submitted by the Saddam Hussein
government to the UN, was censored by the United States because it lists
twenty-four US corporations that participated in Iraq's pre-Gulf War nuclear
and conventional weapons programme. (They include Bechtel, DuPont, Eastman
Kodak, Hewlett Packard, International Computer Systems and Unisys.)

So Iraq has been 'liberated.' Its people have been subjugated and its
markets have been 'freed'. That's the anthem of neo-liberalism. Free the
markets. Screw the people.

The US government has privatized and sold entire sectors of Iraq's economy.
Economic policies and tax laws have been re-written. Foreign companies can
now buy 100 per cent of Iraqi firms and expatriate the profits. This is an
outright violation of international laws that govern an occupying force, and
is among the main reasons for the stealthy, hurried charade in which power
was 'handed over' to an 'interim Iraqi government'. Once handing over of
Iraq to the Multi-nationals is complete, a mild dose of genuine democracy
won't do any harm. In fact it might be good PR for the Corporate version of
Liberation Theology, otherwise known as New Democracy.

Not surprisingly, the auctioning of Iraq caused a stampede at the feeding
trough. Corporations like Bechtel and Halliburton, the company that US
Vice-president Dick Cheney once headed, have won huge contracts for
'reconstruction' work. A brief c.v. of any one of these corporations would
give us a lay person's grasp of how it all works - not just in Iraq, but all
over the world. Say we pick Bechtel - only because poor little Halliburton
is under investigation on charges of overpricing fuel deliveries to Iraq and
for its contracts to 'restore' Iraq's oil industry which came with a pretty
serious price-tag - 2.5 billion dollars.

The Bechtel Group and Saddam Hussein are old business acquaintances. Many of
their dealings were negotiated by none other than Donald Rumsfeld. In 1988,
after Saddam Hussein gassed thousands of Kurds, Bechtel signed contracts
with his government to build a dual-use chemical plant in Baghdad.

Historically, the Bechtel Group has had and continues to have inextricably
close links to the Republican establishment. You could call Bechtel and the
Reagan Bush administration a team. Former Secretary of Defense, Caspar
Weinberger was a Bechtel general counsel. Former Deputy Secretary of Energy,
W. Kenneth Davis was Bechtel's vice president. Riley Bechtel, the company
chairman, is on the President's Export Council. Jack Sheehan, a retired
marine corps general, is a senior vice president at Bechtel and a member of
the US Defense Policy Board. Former Secretary of State George Shultz, who is
on the Board of Directors of the Bechtel Group, was the chairman of the
advisory board of the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq.

When he was asked by the New York Times whether he was concerned about the
appearance of a conflict of interest between his two 'jobs', he said, "I
don't know that Bechtel would particularly benefit from it [The invasion of
Iraq]. But if there's work to be done, Bechtel is the type of company that
could do it." Bechtel has been awarded reconstruction contracts in Iraq
worth over a billion dollars, which include contracts to re-build power
generation plants, electrical grids, water supply, sewage systems, and
airport facilities. Never mind revolving doors, this - if it weren't so
drenched in blood- would be a bedroom farce.

Between 2001 and 2002, nine out of thirty members of the US Defense Policy
Group were connected to companies that were awarded Defense contracts worth
76 billion dollars. Time was when weapons were manufactured in order to
fight wars. Now wars are manufactured in order to sell weapons.

Between 1990 and 2002 the Bechtel group has contributed $3.3 million to
campaign funds, both Republican and Democrat. Since 1990 it has won more
than 2000 government contracts worth more than 11 billion dollars. That's an
incredible return on investment, wouldn't you say?

And Bechtel has footprints around the world. That's what being a
multi-national means.

The Bechtel Group first attracted international attention when it signed a
contract with Hugo Banzer, the former Bolivian dictator, to privatize the
water supply in the city of Cochabamba. The first thing Bechtel did was to
raise the price of water. Hundreds of thousands of people who simply
couldn't afford to pay Bechtel's bills came out onto the streets. A huge
strike paralyzed the city. Martial law was declared. Although eventually
Bechtel was forced to flee its offices, it is currently negotiating an exit
payment of millions of dollars from the Bolivian government for the loss of
potential profits. Which, as we'll see, is growing into a popular corporate
sport.

In India, Bechtel along with General Electric are the new owners of the
notorious and currently defunct Enron power project. The Enron contract,
which legally binds the Government of the State of Maharashtra to pay Enron
a sum of 30 billion dollars, was the largest contract ever signed in India.
Enron was not shy to boast about the millions of dollars it had spent to
"educate" Indian politicians and bureaucrats. The Enron contract in
Maharashtra, which was India's first 'fast-track' private power project, has
come to be known as the most massive fraud in the country's history. (Enron
was another of the Republican Party's major campaign contributors). The
electricity that Enron produced was so exorbitant that the government
decided it was cheaper not to buy electricity and pay Enron the mandatory
fixed charges specified in the contract. This means that the government of
one of the poorest countries in the world was paying Enron 220 million US
dollars a year not to produce electricity!

Now that Enron has ceased to exist, Bechtel and GE are suing the Indian
Government for 5.6 billion US dollars. This is not even a minute fraction of
the sum of money that they (or Enron) actually invested in the project. Once
more, it's a projection of profit they would have made had the project
materialized. To give you an idea of scale 5.6 billion dollars a little more
than the amount that the Government of India would need annually, for a
rural employment guarantee scheme that would provide a subsistence wage to
millions of people currently living in abject poverty, crushed by debt,
displacement, chronic malnutrition and the WTO. This in a country where
farmers steeped in debt are being driven to suicide, not in their hundreds,
but in their thousands. The proposal for a Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme
is being mocked by India's corporate class as an unreasonable, utopian
demand being floated by the 'lunatic' and newly powerful left. Where will
the money come from? they ask derisively. And yet, any talk of reneging on a
bad contract with a notoriously corrupt corporation like Enron, has the same
cynics hyperventilating about capital flight and the terrible risks of
'creating a bad investment climate'. The arbitration between Bechtel, GE and
the Government of India is taking place right now in London. Bechtel and GE
have reason for hope. The Indian Finance Secretary who was instrumental in
approving the disastrous Enron contract has come home after a few years with
the IMF. Not just home, home with a promotion. He is now Deputy Chairman of
the Planning Commission.

Think about it: The notional profits of a single corporate project would be
enough to provide a hundred days of employment a year at minimum wages
(calculated at a weighted average across different states) for 25 million
people. That's five million more than the population of Australia. That is
the scale of the horror of neo-liberalism.

The Bechtel story gets worse. In what can only be called unconscionable,
Naomi Klein writes that Bechtel has successfully sued war-torn Iraq for 'war
reparations' and 'lost profits'. It has been awarded 7 million dollars.

So, all you young management graduates don't bother with Harvard and
Wharton - here's the Lazy Manager's Guide to Corporate Success: First, stock
your Board with senior government servants. Next, stock the government with
members of your board. Add oil and stir. When no one can tell where the
government ends and your company begins, collude with your government to
equip and arm a cold-blooded dictator in an oil-rich country. Look away
while he kills his own people. Simmer gently. Use the time collect to
collect a few billion dollars in government contracts. Then collude with
your government once again while it topples the dictator and bombs his
subjects, taking to specifically target essential infrastructure, killing a
hundred thousand people on the side. Pick up another billion dollars or so
worth of contracts to 'reconstruct' the infrastructure. To cover travel and
incidentals, sue for reparations for lost profits from the devastated
country. Finally, diversify. Buy a TV station, so that next war around you
can showcase your hardware and weapons technology masquerading as coverage
of the war. And finally finally, institute a Human Rights Prize in your
company's name. You could give the first one posthumously to Mother Teresa.
She won't be able to turn it down or argue back.

Invaded and occupied Iraq has been made to pay out 200 million dollars in
"reparations" for lost profits to corporations like Halliburton, Shell,
Mobil, Nestle, Pepsi, Kentucky Fried Chicken and Toys R Us. That's apart
from its 125 billion dollar sovereign debt forcing it to turn to the IMF,
waiting in the wings like the angel of death, with its Structural Adjustment
program. (Though in Iraq there don't seem to be many structures left to
adjust. Except the shadowy Al Qaeda.)

In New Iraq, privatization has broken new ground. The US Army is
increasingly recruiting private mercenaries to help in the occupation. The
advantage with mercenaries is that when they're killed they're not included
in the US soldiers' body count. It helps to manage public opinion, which is
particularly important in an election year. Prisons have been privatized.
Torture has been privatized. We have seen what that leads to. Other
attractions in New Iraq include newspapers being shut down. Television
stations bombed. Reporters killed. US soldiers have opened fire on crowds of
unarmed protestors killing scores of people. The only kind of resistance
that has managed to survive is as crazed and brutal as the occupation
itself. Is there space for a secular, democratic, feminist, non-violent
resistance in Iraq? There isn't really.

That is why it falls to those of us living outside Iraq to create that
mass-based, secular and non-violent resistance to the US occupation. If we
fail to do that, then we run the risk of allowing the idea of resistance to
be hi-jacked and conflated with terrorism and that will be a pity because
they are not the same thing.

So what does peace mean in this savage, corporatized, militarized world?
What does it mean in a world where an entrenched system of appropriation has
created a situation in which poor countries which have been plundered by
colonizing regimes for centuries are steeped in debt to the very same
countries that plundered them, and have to repay that debt at the rate of
382 billion dollars a year? What does peace mean in a world in which the
combined wealth of the world's 587 billionaires exceeds the combined gross
domestic product of the world's 135 poorest countries? Or when rich
countries that pay farm subsidies of a billion dollars a day, try and force
poor countries to drop their subsidies? What does peace mean to people in
occupied Iraq, Palestine, Kashmir, Tibet and Chechnya? Or to the aboriginal
people of Australia? Or the Ogoni of Nigeria? Or the Kurds in Turkey? Or the
Dalits and Adivasis of India? What does peace mean to non-muslims in Islamic
countries, or to women in Iran, Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan? What does it
mean to the millions who are being uprooted from their lands by dams and
development projects? What does peace mean to the poor who are being
actively robbed of their resources and for whom everyday life is a grim
battle for water, shelter, survival and, above all, some semblance of
dignity? For them, peace is war.

We know very well who benefits from war in the age of Empire. But we must
also ask ourselves honestly who benefits from peace in the age of Empire?
War mongering is criminal. But talking of peace without talking of justice
could easily become advocacy for a kind of capitulation. And talking of
justice without unmasking the institutions and the systems that perpetrate
injustice, is beyond hypocritical.

It's easy to blame the poor for being poor. It's easy to believe that the
world is being caught up in an escalating spiral of terrorism and war.
That's what allows the American President to say "You're either with us or
with the terrorists." But we know that thatâ?Ts a spurious choice. We know
that terrorism is only the privatization of war. That terrorists are the
free marketers of war. They believe that the legitimate use of violence is
not the sole prerogative of the State.

It is mendacious to make moral distinction between the unspeakable brutality
of terrorism and the indiscriminate carnage of war and occupation. Both
kinds of violence are unacceptable. We cannot support one and condemn the
other.

The real tragedy is that most people in the world are trapped between the
horror of a putative peace and the terror of war. Those are the two sheer
cliffs we're hemmed in by. The question is: How do we climb out of this
crevasse?

For those who are materially well-off, but morally uncomfortable, the first
question you must ask yourself is do you really want to climb out of it? How
far are you prepared to go? Has the crevasse become too comfortable?

If you really want to climb out, there's good news and bad news.

The good news is that the advance party began the climb some time ago.
They're already half way up. Thousands of activists across the world have
been hard at work preparing footholds and securing the ropes to make it
easier for the rest of us. There isn't only one path up. There are hundreds
of ways of doing it. There are hundreds of battles being fought around the
world that need your skills, your minds, your resources. No battle is
irrelevant. No victory is too small.

The bad news is that colorful demonstrations, weekend marches and annual
trips to the World Social Forum are not enough. There have to be targeted
acts of real civil disobedience with real consequences. Maybe we can't flip
a switch and conjure up a revolution. But there are several things we could
do. For example, you could make a list of those corporations who have
profited from the invasion of Iraq and have offices here in Australia. You
could name them, boycott them, occupy their offices and force them out of
business. If it can happen in Bolivia, it can happen in India. It can happen
in Australia. Why not?

That's only a small suggestion. But remember that if the struggle were to
resort to violence, it will lose vision, beauty and imagination. Most
dangerous of all, it will marginalize and eventually victimize women. And a
political struggle that does not have women at the heart of it, above it,
below it and within it is no struggle at all.

The point is that the battle must be joined. As the wonderful American
historian Howard Zinn put it: You Can't Be Neutral on a Moving Train.

Arundhati Roy

The 2004 Sydney Peace Prize lecture
Delivered by Arundhati Roy, 3 November 2004
at the Seymour Theatre Centre, University of Sydney.

----------------------------------------

Karl Rove's White House " Murder, Inc."

By Wayne Madsen .
Online Journal Contributing Writer .

NOV., 2004- On September 15, 2001, just four days after the 9-11 attacks,
CIA Director George Tenet provided President [sic] Bush with a Top Secret
"Worldwide Attack Matrix"-a virtual license to kill targets deemed to be a
threat to the United States in some 80 countries around the world. The Tenet
plan, which was subsequently approved by Bush, essentially reversed the
executive orders of four previous U.S. administrations that expressly
prohibited political assassinations.

According to high level European intelligence officials, Bush's counselor,
Karl Rove, used the new presidential authority to silence a popular Lebanese
Christian politician who was planning to offer irrefutable evidence that
Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon authorized the massacre of hundreds of
Palestinian men, women, and children in the Beirut refugee camps of Sabra
and Shatilla in 1982. In addition, Sharon provided the Lebanese forces who
carried out the grisly task. At the time of the massacres, Elie Hobeika was
intelligence chief of Lebanese Christian forces in Lebanon who were battling
Palestinians and other Muslim groups in a bloody civil war. He was also the
chief liaison to Israeli Defense Force (IDF) personnel in Lebanon. An
official Israeli inquiry into the massacre at the camps, the Kahan
Commission, merely found Sharon "indirectly" responsible for the slaughter
and fingered Hobeika as the chief instigator.

The Kahan Commission never called on Hobeika to offer testimony in his
defense. However, in response to charges brought against Sharon before a
special war crimes court in Belgium, Hobeika was urged to testify against
Sharon, according to well-informed Lebanese sources. Hobeika was prepared to
offer a different version of events than what was contained in the Kahan
report. A 1993 Belgian law permitting human rights prosecutions was unusual
in that non-Belgians could be tried for violations against other
non-Belgians in a Belgian court. Under pressure from the Bush
administration, the law was severely amended and the extra territoriality
provisions were curtailed.

Hobeika headed the Lebanese forces intelligence agency since the mid- 1970s
and he soon developed close ties to the CIA. He was a frequent visitor to
the CIA's headquarters at Langley, Virginia. After the Syrian invasion of
Lebanon in 1990, Hobeika held a number of cabinet positions in the Lebanese
government, a proxy for the Syrian occupation authorities. He also served in
the parliament. In July 2001, Hobeika called a press conference and
announced he was prepared to testify against Sharon in Belgium and revealed
that he had evidence of what actually occurred in Sabra and Shatilla.
Hobeika also indicated that Israel had flown members of the South Lebanon
Army (SLA) into Beirut International Airport in an Israeli Air Force C130
transport plane. In full view of dozens of witnesses, including members of
the Lebanese army and others, SLA troops under the command of Major Saad
Haddad were slipped into the camps to commit the massacres. The SLA troops
were under the direct command of Ariel Sharon and an Israeli Mossad agent
provocateur named Rafi Eitan. Hobeika offered evidence that a former U.S.
ambassador to Lebanon was aware of the Israeli plot. In addition, the IDF
had placed a camera in a strategic position to film the Sabra and Shatilla
massacres. Hobeika was going to ask that the footage be released as part of
the investigation of Sharon.

After announcing he was willing to testify against Sharon, Hobeika became
fearful for his safety and began moves to leave Lebanon. Hobeika was not
aware that his threats to testify against Sharon had triggered a series of
fateful events that reached well into the White House and Sharon's office.

On January 24, 2002, Hobeika's car was blown up by a remote controlled bomb
placed in a parked Mercedes along a street in the Hazmieh section of Beirut.
The bomb exploded when Hobeika and his three associates, Fares Souweidan,
Mitri Ajram, and Waleed Zein, were driving their Range Rover past the
TNT-laden Mercedes at 9:40 am Beirut time. The Range Rover's four passengers
were killed in the explosion. In case Hobeika's car had taken another route

through the neighborhood, two additional parked cars, located at two other
choke points, were also rigged with TNT. The powerful bomb wounded a number
of other people on the street. Other parked cars were destroyed and
buildings and homes were damaged. The Lebanese president, prime minister,
and interior minister all claimed that Israeli agents were behind the
attack.

It is noteworthy that the State Department's list of global terrorist
incidents for 2002 worldwide failed to list the car bombing attack on
Hobeika and his party. The White House wanted to ensure the attack was
censored from the report. The reason was simple: the attack ultimately had
Washington's fingerprints on it.

High level European intelligence sources now report that Karl Rove
personally coordinated Hobeika's assassination. The hit on Hobeika employed
Syrian intelligence agents. Syrian President Bashar Assad was trying to
curry favor with the Bush administration in the aftermath of 9-11 and was
more than willing to help the White House. In addition, Assad's father,
Hafez Assad, had been an ally of Bush's father during Desert Storm, a period
that saw Washington give a "wink and a nod" to Syria's occupation of
Lebanon. Rove wanted to help Sharon avoid any political embarrassment from
an in absentia trial in Brussels where Hobeika would be a star witness. Rove
and Sharon agreed on the plan to use Syrian Military Intelligence agents to
assassinate Hobeika. Rove saw Sharon as an indispensable ally of Bush in
ensuring the loyalty of the Christian evangelical and Jewish voting blocs in
the United States. Sharon saw the plan to have the United States coordinate
the hit as a way to mask all connections to Jerusalem.

The Syrian hit team was ordered by Assef Shawkat, the number two man in
Syrian military intelligence and a good friend and brother in law of Syrian
President Bashar Assad. Assad's intelligence services had already cooperated
with U.S. intelligence in resorting to unconventional methods to extract
information from al Qaeda detainees deported to Syria from the United States
and other countries in the wake of 9-11. The order to take out Hobeika was
transmitted by Shawkat to Roustom Ghazali, the head of Syrian military
intelligence in Beirut. Ghazali arranged for the three remote controlled
cars to be parked along Hobeika's route in Hazmieh; only few hundred yards
from the Barracks of Syrian Special Forces which are stationed in the area
near the Presidential palace , the ministry of Defense and various
Government and officers quarters . This particular area is covered 24/7 by a
very sophisticated USA multi-agency surveillance system to monitor Syrian
and Lebanese security activities and is a " Choice " area to live in for its
perceived high security, [Courtesy of the Special Collections Services.]
SCS... ; CIA & NSA & DIA....etc.


The plan to kill Hobeika had all the necessary caveats and built-in denial
mechanisms. If the Syrians were discovered beforehand or afterwards, Karl
Rove and his associates in the Pentagon's Office of Special Plans would be
ensured plausible deniability.

Hobeika's CIA intermediary in Beirut, a man only referred to as "Jason" by
Hobeika, was a frequent companion of the Lebanese politician during official
and off-duty hours. During Hobeika's election campaigns for his
parliamentary seat, Jason was often in Hobeika's office offering support and
advice. After Hobeika's assassination, Jason became despondent over the
death of his colleague. Eventually, Jason disappeared abruptly from Lebanon
and reportedly later emerged in Pakistan.

Karl Rove's involvement in the assassination of Hobeika may not have been
the last "hit" he ordered to help out Sharon. In March 2002, a few months
after Hobeika's assassination, another Lebanese Christian with knowledge of
Sharon's involvement in the Sabra and Shatilla massacres was gunned down
along with his wife in Sao Paulo, Brazil. A bullet fired at Michael Nassar's
car flattened one of his tires. Nassar pulled into a gasoline station for
repairs. A professional assassin, firing a gun with a silencer, shot Nassar
and his wife in the head, killing them both instantly. The assailant fled
and was never captured. Nassar was also involved with the Phalange militia
at Sabra and Shatilla. Nassar was also reportedly willing to testify against
Sharon in Belgium and, as a nephew of SLA Commander General Antoine Lahd,
may have had important evidence to bolster Hobeika's charge that Sharon
ordered SLA forces into the camps to wipe out the Palestinians.

Based on what European intelligence claims is concrete intelligence on
Rove's involvement in the assassination of Hobeika, the Bush administration
can now add political assassination to its laundry list of other misdeeds,
from lying about the reasons to go to war to the torture tactics in
violation of the Geneva Conventions that have been employed by the Pentagon
and "third country" nationals at prisons in Iraq and Guantanamo Bay.

Wayne Madsen is a Washington, DC-based investigative journalist and
columnist. He served in the National Security Agency (NSA) during the Reagan
administration and wrote the introduction to Forbidden Truth. He is the
co-author, with John Stanton, of "America's Nightma The Presidency of
George Bush II." His forthcoming book is titled: "Jaded Tasks: Big Oil,
Black Ops, and Brass Plates." Madsen can be reached at:




This is some of the evidence for you and for the World ....
************************************************** **********

Rand Simberg wrote:
On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 09:05:50 -0500, in a place far, far away, "Ian St.
John" made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

Unlike the American looting of Iraq and the Israeli looting of
Palestinian land, Syria gets nothing but a good friend from it's
support. They own nothing in the Bekaa Valley and will have nothing
to show for years of assistance, which is why they are so easily
convinced to leave. It is clear that the Lebanese, at least,
consider it time to stand on their own feet, and thus the need for
the expensive military presence of Syria is over.

The U.S. has mistepped, thinking that killijg Kirriri would cause a
rush to judgment that Bush could get out in front of and claim to be
'leading'. All he has done with his speeches is to call attention to
the fact that the U.S. is the only country with the motive to kill
Hirirri. Trying to take eyes off of Iran which has come out as the
next 'installment' of the Bush plot. Not only that, but his clumsy
speeched putting the 'hard line' to Syrian presence have been
bolixed by the fact that Syria is quite willing to go, the facts get
ahead of and do not follow his assumed 'timetable' of results, and
thus he starts to look like the fool he is as he spouts endless
rhetoric, missing the point entirely.

You're completely nuts.

Ah. The reasoned argument of a complete bull****ter. Your disregard for
facts and reasoned conclusion seems to be leaving you with little to say.
Not that your more verbose posts have any more semantic content.